Slashdot Mirror
Defending Harsh Sentences for Spammers
BMcWilliams writes "Russell McGuire, one of the government lawyers who prosecuted spammer Jeremy Jaynes, has published an article justifying the tough sentence recommended by a Virginia jury. He writes, 'the defense attorney argued that greed cuts both ways and the victims got what they deserved because they were trying to get rich quick. Needless to say, this did not go over well with the jury.' Still, the eye-popping 9-year sentence has even some ardent anti-spammers wondering whether 'proportionality is becoming a completely forgotten concept.'"
Well except for Selling Crack. A lot of these crimes are more spur of the moment things. A person doesn't wake up and go to themselfs. "Self, I think I will drive drunk today" It just kinda happend spur of the moment. This long term Spamming thing is premeditated and they do say to them selfs "How many suckers can I get today." While I admit the above crimes are more hanus, and cause more danger. But these are more spur of the moment and are not attended to getting as many suckers as possible. Even selling crack, the crack sellers usually sell to people who want it and they don't do a mega advertising campain to sell their product (Most of the time is not like DARE where the pusher is targeting little kids left and right trying to sell drugs. It is usually the little kids who are interested in it first confronting the dealer, or their friends just being friendly and offer to share the drugs.) That is why they get the bigger senctance. Also Spammers have a lot more victems. To each person who needs to delete it and make sure it is not a real email, to the corproations who are spending millions trying to block spam. Spamming has a global affect while the other more dangerious crimes only have a local effect.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
OK, Bush=Hitler
Liberal is a stupid term used to classify and dismiss anyone who disagrees with you. What is a liberal, someone who wants liberty? Man, we can't have that. Nor am I particularly enraged or trolling. I was just presenting a futurist-fiction of how history is likely to judge our society. Do you not find our culture ridiculous and ethically bankrupt? Perhaps you think people should be judged by the amount of wealth they have and a huge percentage of our population should be anally raped. Are you perhaps a rich, submissive homosexual?
spam obstructs people who are trying to speak to each other
I don't think anyone would buy that argument. Just try applying it to mass snail mailings. I get so much junk mail that it is restricting my loved ones freedom of speech, since I can't find their mail in the pile. Is it true that it is a hindrance, yes, but it is all free speech, it is just that you only value some of it. And it is not your assessment of it's value that is important (constitutionally), but the speaker's. There is a right to speak. There is no right to not be spoken to. If you don't like spam, filter it, or ignore it, or blacklist the sender and throw away all communication from them, just don't stop them from speaking. That is a road that we do not want to go down any further.
Not at all... I guess my problem is that you are arguing against a point I never made. But whatever makes you feel better.
Stupid sexy Flanders.