Slashdot Mirror
WA Wins First Case Against Deceptive Spammer
GPFCharlie writes "The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is running this article about the first victory by a US state against a spammer. Apparently the judge ruled that a civil trial was not even necessary, since the state had already proven their case. The law was upheld by the WA Supreme Court and an appeal was turned down by the US Supreme Court. Next phase: penalties. How about 5 million hand-written apology letters?"
The Debian "advertising" policy is listed below:
"This policy is intended to fight mailing-list "spamming". "
"The Debian mailing lists accept commercial advertising for payment. The fee for advertisments is a donation of USD 1000 or more to "Software in the Public Interest" (SPI). One donation per advertisement, please. If you prefer to pay in arrears, simply post your advertisement to the list, and the list operator will bill you USD 1999. The list operator will donate this amount, minus the expense of collecting it, to SPI. Please note that the lists are distributed automatically -- messages are generally not read or checked in any way before they are distributed. "
"The act of posting an advertisement indicates your willingness to
accept responsibility for the fee,
indemnify the list operator against any legal claims from you or others in connection with your advertisement, and
pay any legal and business expenses incurred in collecting late payment.
Our liability to you is limited to a good-faith effort to deliver your message. "
"Reduced rates and/or waiver of fee are available for Debian-related advertisements. You must consult the list operator in advance of posting for any reduction or fee waiver. "
I could not find confirmation, but I have heard that Debian was once able to collect a useful server as the only asset that a spammer had to pay under the terms of this policy.
The anti-SPAM laws, and the junk fax laws are putting restrictions of form of delivery without restricting the message. Otherwise, the police cannot stop graffitti on buildings because that is restricting free speech. Am I allow to break into your house to take a message to a bathroom window?
Fight Spammers!
I'm assuming you're ignorant, a troll, or a knee-jerk America-hater. In any case, let me educate you.
/. these days.
This is not a criminal case, this is a civil case. In a civil case, the government does not have the power to deprive a defendant of his freedom. It can, however, order him to make whole the person(s) he has injured with his conduct. And it is only necessary to prove liability by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not). And in a case where there is no triable issue of fact, the court can grant summary judgment to the side that is so entitled. Every common-law based legal system in the world has it.
For this reason, there is no such thing as being "convicted" of spamming because it's not a crime to spam, it's a civil offense, or tort. May I suggest an "Introduction to Law and the Legal Process" course at your nearest junior college?
And this got a Score: 2! Typical of the bilge you see on
The postal inspector did not download the images for free. He paid a membership fee to join the BBS, then used a credit card to order obscene videos. Once the Thomases had taken the money and delivered the goods (whether by allowing access to a privileged downloads area, or through delivery via the US mail makes no matter) business transactions were completed which were governed by the laws of the recipient state. This was no different than your garden variety mail order business, except that the catalog was perused online rather than in the privacy of your bathroom.
The WA anti-spam laws do little more than declare that when conducting business in the state of Washington one is not exempt from truth-in-advertising simply because one solicits via a non-traditional medium. If your product is honest and your UCEs non-deceptive, you have nothing to worry about from the Pacific northwest.
Lee Kai Wen, Taiwan, ROC