California Tries Spam Ban

Schlemphfer writes "Spammers have likely received their biggest setback yet, when California governor Gray Davis today signed a bill outlawing all unsolicited email sent to and from the state. Two things about this new law stand out: first, it puts the burden on senders to prove that they are sending solicited email. Second, it bans the entire practice of spamming, with no loopholes at all like allowing messages with ADV: in the subject. Keep in mind California has the world's fifth largest economy, and they are planning to enforce the law with fines amounting to $1000 per each piece of spam. This law could be ruinous to spammers when it takes effect January 1st."

Comments

We're in Trouble

[Error629]

California's already lawsuit-happy. Now they have the fuel to scam money away from residents of the other 49 states! Woohoo!

Wow

[SpaceRook]

First the privacy for the car blackboxes, now this spam bill. Amazing how nice these politicians are when their ass is in the fire. Maybe we should have more recalls....

Re:Will it stand up in court? Compare to Washingto

[moehoward]

This law has absolutley zero chance of standing. It is a total joke signed into law by a desperate politician who is willing to fart at strong constitutional law precedent to win an election.

Give me a break. Anyone who thinks this law will withstand 10 mintues of a challenge is seriously deluded.

how is this good?

[aggieben]

I don't like spam, but I like even less the idea that the government can tell someone who they can and can't send email to.

People (this could be ISPs _or_ end users) who don't like spam should come up with better filters (or just use the ones out there) or put up with it or a combination of the two (my chosen alternative to an inbox full of nothing). I would much rather use a filter and put up with a minimum amount of spam in my email (5 seconds to delete an entire day's worth of spam) than have the government tell me that I can't send mail to someone unless they asked for it.