Slashdot Mirror
Spammers Lose Court Battle Against Univ. of Texas
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."
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.
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.
"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?
If there is anything more important than my ego around here, I want it caught and shot now.
That'd be VistaSingles.com now, thank you.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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...)
The spammers "legally obtained the email addresses from the University" via an open records request for a list of utex.edu email addresses, then pretended that this meant they'd paid for the "right" to spam anyone associated with the University of Texas. More details here: Texas Attorney General's Office.
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.
Ok, this is just a question, and in no way intended to be a troll.
I am sure this story will be praised by the slashdot crowd, and as I work for a mid sized ISP, I can't say I am upset to see it happen. I am, however, curious about implications of the free speech side of this.
Let us assume that instead of commercial spam, this was a single individual that was sending out an email about some governmental injustice. For instance, if he had a friend that was being held under patriot act provisions without trial. Sure, a lot of people would junk the message, but judging from the messages I get that start with RE:FWD:RE:FWD:(ad infinitum), a goodly number of people would likely read it.
My question to slashdot is; Should there be occasions where it is ok to spam, and if so, how do we legislate it? If it can be justified, is bulk commercial spam just the price we have to pay for another venue by which our citizens can freely express themselves?
I would be very much interested to see if anyone had any legal precedents in the world of snail mail that might apply.
The Family and Educational Right to Privacy Act trumps FoI at public universities. It stipulates rules about disclosure of information that students have stated are to be protected. The University of Texas does a very good job of protecting this data, at least in the groups that I've worked with.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
A phone company is a common carrier. A college/university is not. The phone company is obligated to offer service to everyone. The university is not.
i am a soviet space shuttle