Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spammers Lose Court Battle Against Univ. of Texas

Posted by timothy on from the eyes-of-texas-aren't-upon-you dept.

voma writes "The University of Texas didn't violate the constitutional rights of an online dating service when it blocked thousands of unsolicited e-mails, a federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday. White Buffalo Ventures, which operates LonghornSingles.com, had appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, saying it had complied with all anti-spam laws."

6 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. Devil's Advocate by Shkuey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the school sold all these addresses to a spammer, presumably for the purpose of having spam sent to them and then blocked all the messages? I'd probably be annoyed too. Of course, it is the students who should be even more angered that the university would sell them out like that.

  2. 1st Amendment = Free SPEECH by yellowbkpk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The first amendment gives you the right to free SPEECH, not free listeners.

    Just because you say it doesn't mean everyone (or anyone) has to listen to you.

  3. constitutional rights? by yoyo81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The University of Texas didn't violate the constitutional rights of an online dating service "

    Since when do dating services have constitutional rights? Isn't it convenient that corporations can cherry pick when they want to be corporations and when they want to be individuals?

  4. Looks perfectly legit to me... by sgar · · Score: 4, Insightful
    At the time, UT issued a cease and desist order, but White Buffalo refused to comply. So UT blocked all the e-mail messages from White Buffalo's IP address.
    So lets get this straight, UT issues a cease and desist which the company refused to comply with. In response, UT took care of the ceasing and desisting for them. Don't really see the problem here.
    --
    If there is anything more important than my ego around here, I want it caught and shot now.
  5. Right on! by rblum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a first step towards acknowledging that corporations should have no rights - at least not unless they're willing to take on responsibilities too.

    (Yes, I'm a hopeless optimist...)

  6. Re:Constitutional questionability by pete6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since when does the constitution provide the right to require the government to help you deliver an unlimited amount of commercial advertising? For the last time, SPAM IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE! Popular message or not, no mail administrator is required to deliver mail. The spammer is not being restricted from sending mail at all. Free speech does not entitle the speaker to a free platform.