Should the First Amendment protect spam?

The Virginia Supremes say no -- they've upheld the sentence of a spammer who was sentenced to nine years in prison under the state's anti-spam law. (Jeremy D. Jaynes was considered the eighth-worst spammer in the world at one point, sending out an estimated 10 million unwanted emails per day.)

It was a pretty close decision, though. And the dissenting Supremes noted that Virginia's law is too broad -- it outlaws all anonymous, unwanted bulk email, even if it has religious or political content.

Jaynes' lawyers say they plan to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Part of Jaynes' problem is the use of falsified email headers, InformationWeek notes:

However, the law prohibits the use of false or misleading message headers and deceptive subject lines. It requires a way to opt-out, a valid postal address, and that the message is identified as an advertisement.

Comments

[G]

Burn in hell you monster!

That felt good.

that is a little ridiculous. Aren't we giving crack heads like 6 months these days?

who gives a sh*t?

[G]

"who gives a sh*t"

Give me your email address...

[STA]

Make the slimy sack of crap read copies of every fricking spam message he ever sent. Then force hi to pay for the bandwidth required to send these to his private account en masse. Then execute him.

[c8h10n4o2]

Feed him male enhancements products until his explodes.

[blarney]

your rights end at the point they infringe on someone elses.

[KC Brougham]

I was hoping the day would come when something like this would happen. Spam is annoying as hell and you can't open it because you don't know if it will drop a virus on your machine. So, yes, it's a waste of bandwidth.

[KC Brougham]

I notice he has the orange suit on.

Does this mean they threw him in the punk tank?

WOO HOOO ! ! !

[Mickey Mouse]

Is harrassment protected by the 1st amendment?

[Sasquach]

Blarney: Define where your rights truly begin.

If someone says something that you don't like, or even that offends you, your rights have not been violated. In fact, the only entities that can truly violate your fundemental rights. Many statutory rights have been passed by the government to protect us from each other. In addition, certain common law rights also exist, but very few new common law rights are made these days.

In this case there are strong arguments against the law. No, almost nobody in their right mind enjoys spam. A lot of people don't like commercials on TV either, but I doubt anyone will ever be able to get those outlawed. Simply not liking it is not justification to outlaw it.

A good argument against it (and the one that gets the no call list upheld) is that there are actual damages caused by violation of the law. This means that the unsolicited communications actually cost people money. However, these type of damages are typically addressed by civil law (most commonly tort law), not criminal law (i.e. violations of no call lists, false advertising, etc.). The few exceptions to this are excessive communications made with the specific intent to jam electronic communications, but I don't think that's what was happening here.

As I said above, I don't like spam either, but I beleive that we need to be real careful when creating entierly new criminal sanctions that have the potential to have a chilling effect on fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.

[Sasquach]

Sorry, meant to say that the Govt. is the only entity that can violate your fundamental rights.

and MM: harassment requires the specific intent to harass (defined by certain conduct). Harassment charges could easily be defeated where the prosecution cannot prove that the intent was to harass, not to advertise.

[Don S]

He got far less than he deserved. Had he bothered to use legitimate email headers, valid subject lines, a working opt-out link, etc., he wouldn't have been on trial. At 10 million emails per day, the least he should get is nine years and he ought to get far longer.

[mike d]

A lot of people don't like commercials on TV either, but I doubt anyone will ever be able to get those outlawed.

Not a comparable argument. Commercials are a necessary part of "free" broadcasting. The owners of the station you are watching have to pay the bills somehow. Spammers do not own the email services they use, and that email is not paying for any of the operational costs that are incurred.

[DW]

There's a huge difference between the advertisements on TV and the advertisements you get via email.

The ads on TV have been paid for, spam type email has a tendency to not pay for their bandwidth. Quite a few times they send out so much email that servers have a tendency to crash causing internet providers and companies to spend time and money to fix that. My TV has never blown up or gone black because of the infomercials.

I used to work for a legitimate internet advertising company. For people to receive emails from us, they had to opt in to it. All that fine print that most people don't read says that you are gonna receive emails from us. It was legitimate because the headers didn't lie, you knew who it was coming from, and you could opt out via snail mail, telephone or email all of which were included in the email. We also didn't sell our email addresses to other companies. We wanted you all for ourselves.

Spammers have programs that scan the internet for email addresses. There isn't a way to opt out or to contact them. They mask their IP addresses so you can't tell where it's coming from. They make their emails look like it's from somebody that you know so you're more likely to open them. They just use all sorts of tricks and basically don't care what they have to do to get you to open that email.

Free speech rights doesn't cover spam because it's not speech, it's advertising.

[Sasquach]

Even conceding that tv commercials are inherently different than spam advertising, why is this isn't this an issue more properly addressed by civil courts like most malicious advertising rather than criminal courts (specifically in cases where there is no fraud)?

[DW]

It's hard to find the spammers to sue them in civil court. They mask their IP address which makes it extremely difficult to find where the emails are coming from and almost always, they don't have a brick and mortar business model.

And then you get into under who's jurisdiction does this lie? The place where the spam was sent from or the place where the spam ended up at? What if it's sent from Florida to a Hotmail account that's hosted in Washington State being used by a resident of Kansas who's reading it from a hotel room in New York?

My opinion is that it works out a little better this way. If you want to send it to Virginia, then you have to play by Virginia's rules. Just like car companies that want to sell cars in California have to play by California's rules.

[blarney]

Sasquach, your rights don't begin they are inherent, they are already there. They simply end when they infringe on someone elses rights.

No the government cannot infringe on these rights either, the 2nd amendment guarantees this. Problem is people don't take it seriously and as long as the government keeps giving some people freebies and help they don't care what rights are being stepped on. This is the problem with the sheep mentality.

[KC Brougham]

tv commercials aren't the same thing. You can hit the mute button. Emails waste bandwidth on the internet. You can't open them because most companies IT dept rule against it because they could contain trojan horse viruses.

[Jim S]

The judges who didn't want to convict this piece of slime are losing it. Anonymous communication coming into my e-mail box should not have any 1st Amendment issues. It's MY inbox. Also, the use of false return addresses is the kicker. I am the one who has the right to know where I'm getting e-mail from. I shouldn't have to use software that tracks down the IP address of origin to know that.

[KC Brougham]

agreed

[Mickey Dolenz]

KCB, orange jump suits...man that's county. I thought you were a man of the street.

[Mickey Mouse]

Ok, lawyers and advertisers. Can they create a "no call list" for spam as well???
I mean if people don't want to be harrassed er, I mean advertised to, can't we jump on a no call/spam list? And as far as e-mails, there have been a "click here" to remove a name, but some advertisers use this tactic to see if it is, in fact, a valid email address. What's your opinion on this sasquash.

[Kevan]

Im so glad while we have dope heads, molesters, rapists, murders, & full blown wack a roos that they still have time to deal with the real crime. Someone that sent another an email that might have been unwanted. I say death penalty is to be considered here(joke) I mean honestlt anyone that might have recieved one of these in spqam box took 2 secs of the day to hit the mass delete button

[Bohica]

I agree 100% with Mickey!! That was what I was thinking when I read the header... when does harrassment start??

[KC Brougham]

KCB, orange jump suits...man that's county. I thought you were a man of the street.

heh heh

Ain't did no time, brother.

Ain't did no crime.

[Sid Vicious]

WTF i get unwanted paper mail every day and we call these companies direct marketers and they're perfectly legit.. but somehow taking this practice to electronics makes it illegal?

Sorry even though i don't like spam i think this is retarded.

[OLE MO/KY ALLEN]

Spam???? Hey, I like Spam. I go thru a couple of cans a week. It's Gooooooood ! !

[OLE MO/KY ALLEN]

Spam???? Hey, I like Spam. I go thru a couple of cans a week. It's Gooooooood ! !

[Blaine]

The argument that the processing of spam emails causes companies an additional expense to process is absurd. If that is the case than one could make the claim that the post office has to keep raising stamp/shipping prices to absorb the cost of mailing all the crap that I get in my mail box on almost a daily basis.

TV Commercials = Radio Ads = Printed Ad = Junk Mail = SPAM. This is another shining example of special interest groups passing legislation.

[Sasquach]

I have no problem with a no spam list, like the no call list, so long as it is handled in the civil courts like the no call list is.

[nufsed]

Spam is the same as someone knocking on your front door every few minutes, or calling your phone every few minutes, or tapping you on the shoulder every few minutes. Its an violation of the pursuit of happiness and the right to simply be left alone.

As said by someone above...burn in hell, spammer!

[Herbert Spencer]

Spammers should receive the death penalty - instantly.

This vermin costs people valuable time every day, not to mention forcing you to buy software to protect yourself. Put him to death. Kill him in the most heinous manner possible and then go hunt down the rest of them.

Spam is not the same as junk mail and TV Ads. Spam costs companies money instead of making them money. Spam takes up bandwidth that a company has to pay for. When a server crashes because of spam, companies can't communicate with their customers or potential new customers.

The post office makes money on junk mail. That's revenue. Television companies make money on infomercials. That's revenue. Same with radio ads. Paying for bandwidth and/or lost customer contact isn't making a company money.

"The argument that the processing of spam emails causes companies an additional expense to process is absurd. If that is the case than one could make the claim that the post office has to keep raising stamp/shipping prices to absorb the cost of mailing all the crap that I get in my mail box on almost a daily basis.

TV Commercials = Radio Ads = Printed Ad = Junk Mail = SPAM. This is another shining example of special interest groups passing legislation."