Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Lets Virginia Anti-Spam Law Die
SpuriousLogic sends in a CNN report that begins "The Supreme Court has passed up a chance to examine how far states can go to restrict unsolicited e-mails in efforts to block spammers from bombarding computer users. The high court without comment Monday rejected Virginia's appeal to keep its Computer Crimes Act in place. It was one of the toughest laws of its kind in the nation, the only one to ban noncommercial — as well as commercial — spam e-mail to consumers in that state. The justices' refusal to intervene also means the conviction of prolific commercial spammer Jeremy Jaynes will not be reinstated." Jaynes remains behind bars because of a federal securities fraud conviction unrelated to the matter of spamming.
The SCOTUS does not take every case that crosses its path. These days, unless there is an important Constitutional interpretation at stake, the Court will typically pass on the case.
Since there really isn't much new in this case (the FA already forbids restriction on TFOS), it's hardly surprising that the SCROTUS decided to let precedent do its job.
No one likes spammers, but this law was clearly in violation of the civil rights of everyone it touched.
I believe in freedom. As an American and a citizen of America, a land that was birthed in the patriotic defense of freedom, freedom is important to me and my wonderful family and our church and community. That is why I believe, like millions of other Americans, and the great majority of Italians, in Freedom. But when a malicious band of radical Italians, who curse our freedom and want their countrymen to not have the freedoms that America gave them, use the blessings and liberties of our freedoms to attack Freedom, I say this means war. If these Italo-extremists attack with spams on our computer networks and internet, then I will stand shoulder to shoulder with patriotic defenders of our homeland and our freedom-loving Italian allies until the false friends of the Italian people, the freedom-haters are defeated. Sometimes we will have to sacrifice some temporary freedoms in the defense of the greater freedom and the responsibility of freedom and the responsibility to responsibly exercise that freedom, that comes with being a free American (as opposed to a Mexican or something of that sort). GOD bless you all and good morning. We will prevail.
Your post advocates a...
"Sir, the Supreme Court rejected our appeal to keep the antispam law."
"Did they state a reason for the rejection?"
"Yes, we apparently need a much larger voting base. They offered to provide us with the necessary means to enlarge our voting base in weeks."
Sorry folks I know most here just don't want to hear this, but it's the only solution that will eventually work: require the sender to pay a very small amount per e-mail sent. For instance, 1 cent of a $ or EUR per e-mail, plus 1 cent per every MB of e-mail size. I would be more than happy to pay this modest sum.
This could (and should) be implemented on a recepient-level: there should be e-mail service provider companies that will require this payment for e-mails sent to their customers. This way, no change to any protocol or standard is required for this to work. Also, withing companies ("intranets"), this fee would be waived, so that mass mailings would be still possible for company announcements etc.
While 1 cent/email is completely immaterial for any normal user out there, it will deter the prolific spammer (including the Nigerian ones).
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
...the Virginia General Assembly didn't take this up during its session this year (runs Jan through early March-ish).
There wasn't anything preventing them from amending the law so it complied with the court ruling. They didn't do that.
Maybe they were waiting for the appeals to be fleshed out. Or maybe it was more important to ban smoking in restaurants to please Governor Timmah. And put in prayer in schools. And strengthen the drunk driving laws. And take up the state song issue again, and....
Not sure.
It might be onn tap for next year. But I'm not so hopeful. The Virginia politicians, with the exception of Rick Boucher (who is starting to waver in his party's mantra of hopeychange), who spearheaded smart Internet laws are gone.
So, with that, hope those of you who voted for the new crew like spam, and taxes on every single thing you purchase on the net.
The image that accompanies the article is, if I am not mistaken, from the Netscape mail client from, oh, 1998.
Looks like CNN could stand to update their image database.
..how much spam does everyone actually see?
I use gmail and I get very little spam that actually shows up in my inbox. I would say ~maybe~ 1 message a month at the absolute most. I also have a yahoo email that I use as a throw away account when I have to give an email. Even that one isn't tooo bad. Nothing ever shows up on my corporate email, but I know that one is heavily filtered.
I'm not saying spam isn't a problem on mail servers, but how much does it effect the average Joe?
Is this part of the UCTIA law or separate? They almost got my hopes up with this one.
SCOTUS did not grant certiorari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari) Is one of evidence. The court may very well feel that this law should be upheld, but that the current case that is brought for cert involves an unconstitutional behaviour, a non-issue, or may lead to an undesirable counter-opinion. (http://books.google.com/books?id=eEoyK7ZCXjsC&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=why+the+supreme+court+motivation&source=bl&ots=MP2Trrpv9c&sig=B984XiR1TuBSlIliFnBy0e0n_zs&hl=en&ei=7C3SSfTJJIfmlQfhmdSXBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result)
In the initial conferences where the justices meet to grant cert, each justice votes on a case, and may have their own motivations for doing so. The outcome of these votes is generally sealed for a certain number of years - with the most recent release being the records of Justice White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_White) who would diligently record each of the results of the cases - and in the instances that justices made an argument - grade the arguments of his fellow justices.
There's so much about what you wrote that is simply wrong. Let's run down the list.
1. Rick Boucher isn't a member of the Virginia General Assembly, he's a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
2. There was never a heyday of Virginia politicians who spearheaded smart internet laws. You can tell because, if there had been, then we'd have smart internet laws. The closest that we ever got was Gov. Jim Gilmore, who created the Secretary of Technology cabinet position and created those asinine "@" internet license plates. Oh, and he required censorware on all school computers. That was the high point for Virginia.
3. You speak of the legislature as a single unit, wondering why "they" did something or "they" didn't do something. It's made up of 140 members, each of whom is free to introduce legislation on a given topic. Do you live in Virginia? Did you ask your legislator to introduce such a bill? Nothing is "on tap for next year," because it's not possible. It's not possible to prefile a bill until summer, some months after the veto session. If you have an idea for a better UCE ban, I wish you'd write up a proposal to share with the legislature.
4. In fact, two bills were introduced into the Virginia General Assembly to deal with UCE, both by Del. Manoli Loupassi (R-Richmond). HB1796: Unsolicited bulk electronic mail; penalty and Unsolicited bulk electronic mail (spam); penalty. (HB1797). The former was killed in a Senate Committee for Courts of Justice subcommittee, the latter was killed in a House Courts of Justice subcommittee.
Related Stories (chronological order):
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
If that was the real reason, then how come you don't call the language you write in "American"?
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.