Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Finds Spamming Not Protected By Constitution

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the squirming-pretty-hard dept.

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. '"

4 of 416 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Others Pay for It... by MacDork · · Score: 0, Troll

    When you're sending millions of messages a day to people who don't want them and other people (usually the ones footing the bandwidth bill) are paying for the connection, you are guilty of stealing at the very least...

    When the subject is bittorrent, it's the ISPs' fault for not building out their infrastructure. Bittorrent accounts for roughly one third of internet traffic. ALL email accounts for less than 2%. In both cases, the one footing the bill for extra bandwidth is generally not the end user.

  2. Re:Spam and the first... by MacDork · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's a cost I willingly incur. Unsolicited e-mail uses resources that the sender does not pay for, and has not been invited to use.

    You knew of the existence of spam before you agreed to pay for the bandwidth you are using... strike one. Uploading uses just as much bandwidth as downloading, so the sender has spent at least as much as you have to send the message... strike two. The nature of SMTP invites anyone to use the resource... strike three. You're out.

    Also, my correspondents don't create bot-nets to hide the origin of their e-mails

    Botnets are already illegal and rightfully so. Outlawing botnets isn't a free speech issue.

  3. capitalism != abolute_goodness by Scrameustache · · Score: 1, Troll

    Also, people are paid money to create those ads, print them, address them and mail them. So, people are paid money to kidnap, sequester and mail pieces of the relatives of rich people, that's not a reason to support the activity itself.

    Just because it moves money around doesn't mean it's a good idea in the big picture.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  4. Re:Free speech doesn't extend to private property by tomhudson · · Score: 0, Troll

    Its not paternalistic. Its enlightened self-interest.

    For one, seat belts are MUCH more effective in saving lives than air bags are. AND a lot cheaper. Air bags add a cuple of grand to the cost of each new car. Just getting people to buckle up not only saves lives, but it saves moeny.

    Then there's the cost of taking care of the kids of the dead parents, because they're too fucktarded to wear a seat belt.

    And the cost of medical bills, higher insurance rates, etc.

    When what you do affects MY costs, I have a right to ask that laws be passed that help lower those costs. Want to use the public roads? Wear a seat belt. Its not like you have a "right" to drive. You can be removed from the road for an unsafe vehicle, for collecting too many demerit points, for using a vehicle in the commission of a felony, failure to pay your license fee, etc.

    Don't like the rules? Then either don't drive, or be prepared to pay the fines.