Court Finds Spamming Not Protected By Constitution

eldavojohn writes "In a split (4-3) decision, a Virginia court has upheld the verdict against the spam king making it clear that spam is not protected by the U.S. Constitution's first amendment or even its interstate commerce clause. 'Prosecutors presented evidence of 53,000 illegal e-mails Jaynes sent over three days in July 2003. But authorities believe he was responsible for spewing 10 million e-mails a day in an enterprise that grossed up to $750,000 per month. Jaynes was charged in Virginia because the e-mails went through an AOL server in Loudoun County, where America Online is based. '"

Comments

Serves him right

[colinrichardday]

Serves him right

Too bad ...

[macdaddy357]

It is good that they have allowed the law to stand up. Too bad spammers can't get the death penalty. I would volunteer for the firing squad.

Re:While part of me dislikes restraining speech

[budgenator]

Holy Hell man, if you found that offensive you should swim in the kiddie pool, your too thin skinned to read /. and for the love of God, don't look at this site!

Re:Nobody Likes Spam

[MacDork]

Except spammers frequently forge headers, use zombie computers, and their unwanted e-mail makes up a huge percent of e-mail now -- and someone ELSE is paying for it. They're profiting on someone else, for something that neither the ISP nor the ISP users want.

Spamming with your FUD eh Khaed? Perhaps you should go to jail? Forged headers: free speech doesn't protect lying. Zombie computers: network intrusion is already illegal and not a speech issue. A huge percentage huh? Gotta real number? Spammers pay for the upload just like recipients pay for the download. As for what the ISP or user wants, are you a mind reader? Speak for yourself. I'm perfectly capable of deciding what I do and do not want myself.

Also, you have a right to free speech, but not harassment... and the amount of time spam wastes could be considered harassment.

According to whom? The US Supreme Court? Link please.

I don't WANT to receive your e-mail and you're still sending it to me? That's harassment, not speech. And it costs me money and time.

I didn't want to read your bullshit drivel, and it certainly took me far longer to respond to it than simply ignore it. That said, I'm not going to go all scientologist on you, hunt you down, and have you jailed for saying it just because you're acting like an annoying fucking prick. That's because I respect your right to say it. Wanker.

Re:Free speech doesn't extend to private property

[MacDork]

Let me guess - you're the type that reads every piece of email "just in case."

It's my right to read any email I receive. I suppose not having control over what I read pisses you off too.

As for punishing people for buying from spammers, yes, since we can't just give them the death penalty, and beating them senseless with a baseball bat won't work, since they're obviously already non compus menti - like the people who try to defend spamming on the grounds of freedom of speech.

So you're not only clearly insane, you're not a big fan of the 8th Amendment either. Perhaps you should consider relocating to China and see how you like living without certain rights for a while.

Re:While part of me dislikes restraining speech

[Chas]

Unlike you I USE the language, I'm not afraid of it.

If you don't like my choice of words or acronyms, the problem is ENTIRELY yours.

Re:While part of me dislikes restraining speech

[Chas]

I in no way advocated sexual assault.

Terminology I used is a metaphor for the psychological pain of losing the court case, being fined like nobody's business, and going to jail for it.

So please. Stuff the self-riteous indignation.