Anti-Smut email law upheld

cswiii writes "The Supreme Court has ruled that keeping obscene language out of email, in certain circumstances, does not violate freedom of speech. " Part of this law is a hold over from the CDA - in terms of what could and could not be sent. In this case, it's "obscence material". ApolloMedia, owners of annoy.com had originally the case against this. In this situation, the Court upheld the ruling of a CA District Court.

Comments

Calm down already. Nothing changed.

[Frater 219]

Please read the article. "Obscene" speech has never been ruled protected, and in this particular case, the legality of "indecent" and "filthy" annoying speech was not denied.

Nothing has changed. Old obscenity laws would still have illegalized "obscene" email. The SCUSA is not about to rule "obscenity" legal. However, neither are they about to rule "indecency" illegal.

Mind you, "obscene" is a null phrase; it is a term in theology and in hysterics, not in the description of speech acts. Therefore, any law pertaining to regulate "obscene" speech is mad. However, such laws are not a new thing, nor does this case affect them.

Relax. If you want to have the freedom to speak in manners now considered "obscene", vote Libertarian. Meanwhile, speak fuckin' "indecently", you cocksuckin' motherfuckers.

Not nearly as earth shattering as it seems

[Harmast]

This may be more overblown than serious looking at the referenced article. Although I would like to read the original three judge opinion (the article says interprets to read only obscene...did they read the laundry list as obscene or did they strike particular words) it doesn't seem out of line with the course of modern law.

The key reason this doesn't seem too big is that it is a harass/annoy/etc provision. In this case all the law really is doing is extending protections to email that exist for more traditional forms of communication (phone and fax). If to harass someone I continually faxed them obscene stories (hell, even non-obscene material under some circumstances...how many anti-spam sig files refer to that infamous computer+modem+printer = fax machine provision on the books) I am in violation of the law. Now, if I do the same via email I am in violation as well.

The part that makes me sad is that we might need such a law. I realize the average person might try this with their account and that's one thing (Jake day anyone), but creating a website to facilitate is downright childish. Getting your opinion out is important, but as more and more /.ers as realizing how you get it out is just as important. I looked at annoy.com after reading the story. This site is an example in how not to get your point across. Sure flaming and it's relatives can be fun sometimes and even useful in contexts general spamming of flames to Jerry Falwell/the Supreme Court/Bill Clinton/Rush Limbaugh/Senator Dodd/name your favorite bad guy here might be fun, but doesn't advance the cause much. Maybe if the forces that worry about their ability to spam to annoy with obscene materials spent more time pursuing education and awareness:

1. People wouldn't support the CDA because it seems less necessary and they'd know about its dangers
2. The general public wouldn't be so afraid of cyberspace/the information superhighway/this week's buzzword.
3. We could get some really useful work done.

One of the key components of any freedom is knowing how and when to use it. Most people call this maturity. At times it might be the correct move to heckle, gib, or so on, but that should not be a normal response. When we start behaving like kids and make it our normal response expect someone (generally the goverment) to decide to play adults.

Or maybe it's just the laziness of annoy.com that annoys me. If you're going to get pissy without some, research the email address and type out the message yourself. Stop Lazy Spamming

Herb