There are limits to the First Ammendment right to freedom of speech. Exceptions have been established by courts in instances of defamation, causing panic, incitement to crime, sedition, and obscenity.
How much spam have you read with defaming remarks to Britney Spear's latest sex pics? I've seen so much spam "advertising" rape and molestation and child pornography- it might not be a literal pursuasian to commit such crimes, but it certainly is obscene to most readers. The Communications Decency Act (which prohibits "obscenity" and "indecency" on the internet) was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1998.
So there may be grounds to strike spammers on these exceptions to the First Ammendment; however, prosecuting spammers would be a special precidence case and blazing new territory in the legal system.
All of this however would have little effect for non US organizations. Besides... who would attempt to prosecute one spammer when there are so many more ready and willing to take that place.
Slashdot Mirror
There are limits to the First Ammendment right to freedom of speech. Exceptions have been established by courts in instances of defamation, causing panic, incitement to crime, sedition, and obscenity.
How much spam have you read with defaming remarks to Britney Spear's latest sex pics? I've seen so much spam "advertising" rape and molestation and child pornography- it might not be a literal pursuasian to commit such crimes, but it certainly is obscene to most readers. The Communications Decency Act (which prohibits "obscenity" and "indecency" on the internet) was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1998.
So there may be grounds to strike spammers on these exceptions to the First Ammendment; however, prosecuting spammers would be a special precidence case and blazing new territory in the legal system.
All of this however would have little effect for non US organizations. Besides... who would attempt to prosecute one spammer when there are so many more ready and willing to take that place.