Spamming Gets Expensive in Utah and Ohio

bradipo writes "A large number of lawsuits have been filed against companies that have not complied with the anti-spam statute in Utah. I'm not sure how this will turn out, but it should be interesting nonetheless." And reader spoton writes "The governor of Ohio has signed into law a bill that allows internet subscribers to sue for up to $50,000 and ISP's for up to $500,000. It allows you to sue for $100 per email + court and lawyer fees incurred. Looks like the cost of spamming is going up."

Comments

Where's my broker!

[jukal]

sell 1000000000 spammers now! Sell sell sell!

The first step in the right direction

[Sivar]

Now we just need to make global laws that mandate prison and castration, and probably torture, for repeat college degree/pornography spammers. :)

Additional legislation is not the solution

[atrowe]

I'm dislike spam as much as the next guy, but I don't think that laws prohibiting spam is a desirable solution. We have many spam blocking software applications and other technological methods already which are quite effective in discouraging spammers. Our society is already far too full of bureaucratic red tape and unnecessary or unenforcable laws. Furthermore, anti-spam legislation has the potential to curb one's right to free speech, and would violate the Constitution.

Many of the personal e-mails which I send are unsolicited and, while I am certainly not a spammer, could violate anti-spam laws because the recipient did not specifically request to be sent e-mail. I don't generally send mailing list removal instructions with my personal correspondance either. Does this mean that I am in violation of anti-spam laws?

Legislating one's right to communicate freely goes against everything this country was founded upon, and anti-spam legislation is just another example of an overly powerful government taking away the rights of its citizens. I, for one will not support any such law, or any lawmaker who supports such a law.

No one cares about free speech?

[expro]

I find it odd that no one seems to be worried about free speech implications of this sort of action. As a participant in standards forums, I get dozens of spams a day, and I plan to set up filtering. Filtering seems to be a much better answer than government legislating what email I can and cannot send. I can think situations where this type of legislation and further logical progressions of outlawing unwanted email will come back to haunt those who valued the past freedoms of the internet. I am willing to put up with spam or create a filter in the name of freedom.

When SPAM is outlawed

[evilviper]

When spamming is outlawed in your state, then only people outside your state will be able to spam.

Outlaw everything you don't like and soon no one will be able to do anything. I would much rather seek technological methods of spam filtering (e-mail, faxes and phone calls) than see any more rights revoked.

The quickest way to an authoritarian state is to pass laws that make everyone an outlaw, and selectively enforce those laws.

----
A nation may lose its liberties in a day and not miss them for a century.
--Baron de La Brede et de Montesquieu

YESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!

[Asprin]

WOOHOO! IT'S ABOUT TIME!

I'm so excited about these developments, I'm gonna send automated emails to everyone in my database letting them know the good news!!!!