Slashdot Mirror
Virginia Supreme Court Strikes Down Anti-Spam Law
Skater writes "The Washington Post is reporting that the Virginia Supreme Court has struck down the anti-spam law that was used to convict spammer Jeremy James, on the grounds that the ability to be anonymous was more important than the problem of spam. Strangely, the same court only a few months ago upheld the law. 'The court noted that "were the 'Federalist Papers' just being published today via e-mail, that transmission by Publius would violate the [current Virginia] statute." The court suggested that the law does not limit its restrictions on spam to commercial or fraudulent e-mail, or to unprotected speech such as pornography or defamation. And when the state suggested that the court merely tailor a restriction to the law within its opinion, the court declined.'"
It is illegal to sell prescription drug without a prescription. Its also illegal to offer drugs to children in most states. Everyone here needs to call their country District attorney and ask them what they are doing about peddling drugs over the internet. It almost election time and some of them are trying to get elected as a state DA so now is the time to get on their case.
What part of that concerns sending a million unsolicited \/1agr4 messages?
In your world, is it considered okay to use hire a dozen people with bullhorns to spew political rhetoric around someone's house at midnight?
No?
OMG! They're taking away FReedom of SPEech!!!111
No one said that he could not publish whatever he wants.
The problem is his DELIVERY of it to people who do NOT want it.
Is this true? What exempts it?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Well apparently we are (or at least I am) trolls for distrusting our governments and wishing they'd extend us the same rights corporations seem to enjoy.
Maybe it's the part about shooting them. Anyone who thinks spammers deserve compassion is a fool, as the spammers would shoot any one of us in the face themselves if it earned them a nickel.
The First Amendment protects everybody--including spammers.
If I thought our republic was in danger, I'd spam everybody in an attempt to rouse them to protect it. That would be core protected First Amendment political speech. The GOVERNMENT should not be able to stop me--especially since I'd probably be rousing people to oust incumbents. To those who would authorize my government to shut such speech down, I despise what they say, but I would defend their right to say it with my life. But enough of that, I'd only be spamming such idiots out of necessity.
If spam that is core-protected First Amendment speech can be shut down by the government simply because it is shipped out anonymously and in bulk, then something is WAY wrong because the baby (important political speech) is being thrown out with the bathwater (vile spam). Political speech is too important to be trusted to the discretion of our elected officials.
This doesn't preclude laws prohibiting spamming in violation of a "do not spam" list. It doesn't preclude laws barring fraudulent or misleading spamming. It also doesn't prohibit private servers from refusing to store or deliver spam.
Telemarketers, bulk mail distributors, and spammers, suck. But deal with them lawfully--there are legal tools available.
Their First Amendment protection is YOUR First Amendment protection.
No, I'm not gladdened by the sight of spam in my inbox. BUT...I'm also not terribly offended by it - I mark it as spam, train my spam filter, and continue without a second thought. It's just not worth getting excited about.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Actually, to really make your point, you should send out spam with the judges' return address, and the judges' phone number for accepting orders for the Viagra that you're selling. The decision doesn't merely uphold a right to spam; it upholds the right to spam and make it look like someone else sent it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The problem with spam laws is the same as the problem with drug laws - they exist because of secondary effects. Unsolicited email, itself, isn't much of a problem. When you are distributing malware to create a large botnet to send spam, that's a problem. When you are forging From: headers and someone gets a few tens of thousands of bounces from badly-configured mail servers (yes, I'm looking at you Google), then that's a problem.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News