backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 47 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on Sep 17 at 2:56 PM
A notorious spammer is out of jail because of First Amendment right violations

The Virginia Supreme Court declared an anti-spam law unconstitutional, which led to one of the country's most notorious spammers to be released from prison.  

Jeremy Jaynes, who became the first person convicted of a felony for sending spam in 2004, sent thousands of e-mails to America Online users over a 24-hour period on at least three different occasions.  He initially wanted the charges dismissed on the grounds "that the statute violated the dormant Commerce Clause, was unconstitutionally vague, and violated the First Amendment."  The circuit court denied Jaynes' motion.

The Virginia law "prohibits the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk e-mails including those containing political, religious or other speech protected by the First Amendment," said Virginia Justice G. Steven Agee.

Specifically, spammers in Virginia who are convicted of altering e-mail headers and basic routing information along with sending 10,000 messages in a 24-hour window or 100,000 messages in 30-day time windows could face jail time and heavy fines.  

He was eventually sentenced to nine years in prison for spamming thousands of AOL users, and that is when he decided to take it to the Court of Appeals.

The anti-spam rule was deemed unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment's free-speech protections due to it restricting commercial e-mail and all other unsolicited e-mails.  For example, political, religious and other protected speech are lumped into the commercial e-mail ban.

Most states with anti-spam laws, and the federal CAN-SPAM Act, only forbid commercial e-mails, not the political or religious e-mails.

Virginia Attorney General Robert McDonnell plans to immediately appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

The government has taken a harder stance on spamming, with convictions of alleged spammers continuing to increase in prison terms and fines.  "Spam King" Robert Soloway was sentenced to 47 months in prison in July after he plead guilty to fraud, tax evasion and spam offenses.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
the law is NOT unconstitutional
By the goat on 9/15/2008 8:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
It is plainly clear to me that the First Amendment protects his right to write any e-mail he wishes to write. But the First Amendment nor the rest of the constitution in no way gives him the right to send the e-mail to me unsolicited.




RE: the law is NOT unconstitutional
By ebakke on 9/15/2008 9:07:32 AM , Rating: 2
Just wait until he starts text messaging you.


By Solandri on 9/15/2008 12:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
Text spam won't last long because of one simple reason - most of us pay for our text messages. Their spam costs you money. The same thing is going to happen with email spam if more ISPs follow Comcast and start capping how much bandwidth your monthly fee gives you. Then spam will have, for the average individual, moved from "waste of my time" to "costing me money".

Faxes went through the same thing. Junk faxes were getting out of control and were banned entirely in 1991. You still get a few, but it's nowhere near as bad as during the heyday before the ban.


RE: the law is NOT unconstitutional
By omnicronx on 9/15/2008 9:17:03 AM , Rating: 3
Where did he get the emails though? I always thought that data mining for emails was illegal too.

My guess, this is another case of a Judge who is not with the times. These judges should not be able to rule on a case if they do not have the proper background.


By Polynikes on 9/15/2008 10:57:29 AM , Rating: 2
Tell me about it.


RE: the law is NOT unconstitutional
By MrSmurf on 9/15/2008 11:24:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My guess, this is another case of a Judge who is not with the times. These judges should not be able to rule on a case if they do not have the proper background


Their proper background would be appellate law. It's the lawyers job to explain anything that they don't know. The same with a jury, you can't fill it with 12 computer geeks.


RE: the law is NOT unconstitutional
By chick0n on 9/16/2008 1:05:29 AM , Rating: 1
but there are morons that no matter how many times u explain to them, they just never get it.

IMO most judges are too old and stubborn to learn anything new.


RE: the law is NOT unconstitutional
By rkoman on 9/15/2008 9:52:49 AM , Rating: 5
Yes, he does have a right to send unsolicited email. Every time you inititate an email conversation, that's unsolicited. The issue is mass emailing with falsified ID. The issue is really mass commercial emailing with falsified ID. In statute drafting you have to be precise because of the risk that laws can be used to squelch speech. This law clearly could substantially infringe on protected speech by making it a crime to anonymously communicate political or religious information. (I analyze this at http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4000)

Our rights to not receive spam are still in solid shape here; Virginia simply by shoddy drafting made their law overbroad, thus creating a loophole for this scumbag. Don't blame the court for preserving the First Amendment. Blame the state legislators for sloppy law writing.


RE: the law is NOT unconstitutional
By the goat on 9/15/2008 12:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This law clearly could substantially infringe on protected speech by making it a crime to anonymously communicate political or religious information.


You are 100% wrong. He can post anonymously on hundreds of on-line message boards and Usenet until the cows come home. The Constitution does not have any protection for political or religious spam.

Based on your way of thinking, I should start a spaming company. I will have a short random religious prayer appended to each spam message before it gets sent. Suddenly my spam business is protected by the constitution!


RE: the law is NOT unconstitutional
By foolsgambit11 on 9/15/2008 1:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Suddenly my spam business is protected by the constitution!
True (just look at Scientology). And that's the price we have to pay for our freedoms. Live with it. I'll deal with spam in my inbox (most of which gets filtered pretty well these days anyway).

<dramaticoverstatement>People died to protect the Constitution and you're not willing to sacrifice a few seconds to delete unwanted e-mails from your inbox?!?</dramaticoverstatement>


RE: the law is NOT unconstitutional
By the goat on 9/15/2008 1:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
I would gladly give my life if it meant preserving just one Constituently protected right. I just don't see any protection for unsolicited anonymous e-mail anywhere in there.

I also do not see any difference between the protection afforded by the Constitution for political or religious speech and all other speech. The Constitution protects all speech equally. Unsolicited anonymous e-mail is not speech. Neither are unsolicited commercial, religious and political phonecalls.


RE: the law is NOT unconstitutional
By foolsgambit11 on 9/15/2008 3:42:58 PM , Rating: 3
You've done a fine job of telling us what you feel speech isn't. But you haven't given us a why. It's the why that leads to a specific, enforceable law. What part of 'unsolicited anonymous e-mail' is not speech? I'm sure e-mail would be protected under free speech guidelines in general - a law that said something like, "Disagreeing with U.S. policy in an e-mail is illegal", would certainly be unconstitutional. So the issue must be similar to Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept., where the sender has no inherent right to send his message into your home.

But I don't have internet access in my home, nor are you required to check your e-mail at home. So you can prevent them from sending their message into your home by checking your mail at a public location. Courts may eventually decide that e-mail inboxes are extensions of your home, but I don't think they have yet.

We can assume that if you feel that 'unsolicited anonymous e-mail' doesn't constitute speech, then preventing either part (that is, either unsolicited or anonymous) would be sufficient to take care of the problem. That is, if your problem was just unsolicited e-mail, you wouldn't have said 'anonymous', and if your problem was anonymous e-mail, you wouldn't have said 'unsolicited'.

So first, there is the question of delivery method. Is it really unsolicited? For instance, IMAP4 allows you to only download those e-mails you wish to receive from the server. If you ask to download all messages, you've just asked for that mail.

As for the anonymous part, that could be dealt with more simply by making it illegal to use a return address other than the originating address. This would be the least intrusive method of preventing unsolicited anonymous e-mails. Since even in the Rowan decision, the court acknowledged that it was a case of balancing the right to free speech with a private property right, the methodology that makes the least demands on free speech should be the one employed. Additionally, with this method, the same technique used for Rowan, that of blocking mail from a sender you find offensive, could be effectively utilized.

In other words, even if we agree that unsolicited anonymous e-mail isn't protected speech, crafting legislation to curb it is difficult, and it could certainly be argued that this legislation was overly broad, possibly impinging on protected speech. Although I agree that it would be tough to give an example of somebody engaged in legitimate activities who would get swept up in the net of this law. Still, it's because of the part about disguising origination information, not because of the mass-mailing part. So why include the part about mass-mailing? Presumably, it should be illegal to fake a return address for even one e-mail.


RE: the law is NOT unconstitutional
By Oregonian2 on 9/15/2008 6:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
It clearly isn't a matter of speech, but of distribution or "forced listening". Speech (which in this context is writing the email letter) is not being restricted. Like someone standing on a corner soapbox espousing their thoughts, with perhaps nobody listening.

If in a public place someone came over to you and started yakking away their views, you move, he follows, you move, he follows. Free speech or harassment?

What if the essence of my speech is the idea of kicking. I then go round kicking people to express my view. Okay because I'm only expressing my free speech? How about if I do it when one is sitting at one's computer in one's house? I come into the house and kick the person. But only when my email pops up on their screen, of course.

It's the pragmatically forced listening to that speech that is the problem. I don't think the problem is easily solved other than to charge for sending emails on a universal basis with exceptions only obtainable through a retractable certification process (for legit commercial mass mailers). Amount would be something larger than that which would make SPAM economical. Would be based upon per-user, not per-account.

Or something along the lines of the do-not-call phone list, but for email. Collection of evidence could be automated a lot through forwarding of SPAM to the entity in charge of it. There's a threshold above which action might happen (eliminating casual mail one writes to a long lost cousin, unless one sends that cousin a LOT of email).


RE: the law is NOT unconstitutional
By foolsgambit11 on 9/16/2008 6:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
Poor, poor analogies.

First off, as to your harassment comparison. It's more like 1000 people yelling different messages from a street corner that's on your way to work. You'll get hit be each specific spammer only a few times per day. It's the agglomeration of all those people though that makes it seem overwhelming.

Secondly, it is not at all clear that in a legal sense, spam would be 'forced listening'. You can use e-mail filters; you can delete the e-mail based solely on the subject line. You can just not use e-mail. After all, that would be the justification for commercials on television. Television, like e-mail, is not forced upon you. (Regular mail is, in that sense, somewhat different, by the way.)

Thirdly, it's well established that kicking somebody is assault, and not protected speech, and that, in fact, even speech that can cause bodily harm (such as yelling fire in a crowded theater) is not protected speech.

I can understand your frustration with the practice of spamming, but there are ways of stopping it that do not infringe on free speech, such as a simple ban on address spoofing, so that filters could be nearly 100% effective.


By Oregonian2 on 9/17/2008 2:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First off, as to your harassment comparison. It's more like 1000 people yelling different messages from a street corner that's on your way to work. You'll get hit be each specific spammer only a few times per day. It's the agglomeration of all those people though that makes it seem overwhelming.


Not exactly. For SPAM I have to individually silence (delete) each one actively to make them go away. Plus they show up at work as well.

quote:
Secondly, it is not at all clear that in a legal sense, spam would be 'forced listening'. You can use e-mail filters; you can delete the e-mail based solely on the subject line. You can just not use e-mail. After all, that would be the justification for commercials on television. Television, like e-mail, is not forced upon you. (Regular mail is, in that sense, somewhat different, by the way.)


Firstly, I wasn't talking so much "in a legal sense", I'm not a lawyer. But, yes, I could wear earplugs as not to hear them, and only seeing the subject lines is like my only hearing the title when they shout it out. Better, but still there.

As to television commercials on those channels that have it (we also take HBO, etc that don't have commercials) those commercials are paying for the product I'm using. In essence I'm there to watch the commercials and the show itself is their production "on the side". This is fundamentally different than SPAM that contributes nothing whatsoever and is a leech to the service rather than the other way around in commercial TV.

quote:
Thirdly, it's well established that kicking somebody is assault, and not protected speech, and that, in fact, even speech that can cause bodily harm (such as yelling fire in a crowded theater) is not protected speech.


Yes, that kinda was my point in trying to push the envelope to make a point. Not sure about that theater one though (something my late father liked to quote a lot). If one yells fire in a theater and nobody pays any attention to you other than a few saying "be quiet!", can you be jailed? Or is it not the yelling, but cause of panic that's illegal (meaning it's not the yelling that's illegal)?

quote:
I can understand your frustration with the practice of spamming, but there are ways of stopping it that do not infringe on free speech, such as a simple ban on address spoofing, so that filters could be nearly 100% effective.


I'm not sure that can work. Setting those address to what one wants is a statement that I think may be protected by "free speech".


By Dreifort on 9/15/2008 1:34:27 PM , Rating: 1
I wonder if he got "solicited" while in jail?

haha...I bet he got "spammed"..hahahaha!

there's a new slang term for everyone now. go ahead, make it viral..haha.

You got "spammed" takes on a WHOLE (or should I say "hole"?) new meaning.

haha!


By foolsgambit11 on 9/15/2008 3:00:54 PM , Rating: 3
Let's review the case history, shall we? I think perhaps the closest analogue of this would be Rowan v. Post Office Dept., where the Supreme Court ruled that a recipient of 'sexually povocative' mail could opt out, and force the Post Office to not deliver mail from that sender in the future. A lower court allowed the expansion of the scope, allowing no challenge to a person's request not to receive mail from a particular source. So, for snail mail, you can block further mail from any particular sender, because the sender has no constitutionally protected right to send unwanted material into someone's home.

To read the majority decision, try http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/US...

I especially like, 'We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right, under the Constitution or otherwise, to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even "good" ideas on an unwilling recipient. That we are often "captives" outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech and other sound does not mean we must be captives everywhere.'

However, in this case, the mechanism is different, both in the delivery method (raising questions of if the e-mail necessarily goes into the home, since you could check your e-mail at a public computer, i.e., your inbox may not be considered part of your home in the same way that your physical mailbox is) and in enforcement (instead of banning a specific mailer, which is easy to do with most e-mail providers, this law makes the act of e-mail in sufficient quantity (along with address spoofing) illegal). But then there is the question of whether the Rowan decision and methodology could work in this case, due to originating address spoofing preventing effective blocking of unwanted mail.

In the end, we can see that the situation is in some ways a murky one. Leave it to constitutional experts to come to a final decision.


1st amendment
By jviehe on 9/15/2008 10:01:22 AM , Rating: 2
The first amendment states that "congress (federal) shall make no law infringing the freedom of speech". It says nothing about the state of virginia. The constitution is there to protect certain human rights, but mostly to define the limits of the federal govt. All other powers are left to the states or the people, and thus virigina should be able to regulate its state how it sees fit.




RE: 1st amendment
By bighairycamel on 9/15/2008 10:15:58 AM , Rating: 2
Faulty logic. The state laws are always trumped by federal laws. States are allowed to write their own laws but they must adhere to the federal laws. Any law that does not is essentially null and void, which is how this loser got off.

By your logic, any state could censor any material they wanted....


RE: 1st amendment
By Indianapolis on 9/15/2008 11:28:06 AM , Rating: 2
It's not a matter of the federal government trumping the states, or vice versa. The Constitution designates the MINIMUM civil liberties guaranteed to all American citizens. The states cannot infringe upon the constitutionally-guaranteed liberties, but they are free to grant their state citizens ADDITIONAL civil liberty protections, above and beyond the federal protections.


RE: 1st amendment
By Spivonious on 9/15/2008 10:39:12 AM , Rating: 2
I thought the Constitution superceded states, but after looking through it, I can't find any mention of that.


RE: 1st amendment
By hcahwk19 on 9/15/2008 11:00:02 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, as stated in the second paragraph of Article 6. The Supremacy Clause only applies in those areas where the state constitution and the federal constitution clash, but has also been read to include those areas of law where Congress has "regulated the field" (basically passed some legislative act that encompasses most or all of a particular field).

The original intent of the founding fathers was to have the Constitution only limit the federal government. But, there is only a handful of people in Washington who actually read it that way. The Constitution, on its face, severely limits the power of the federal government. The states and the people of the states, in ratifying the document, agree to give up very specific powers to the federal government, reserving everything else to themselves, not the other way around as so many are led to believe.

Unfortunately, through many bad Supreme Court decisions, those limited powers have been extremely expanded over 200 years. On top of that, the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War, has been construed by the Courts to apply the Constitution to the States.

There are many things that are presented as Constitutional which cannot be found in the Constitution at all (i.e. right to an abortion, right to privacy, etc.).


RE: 1st amendment
By Spivonious on 9/15/2008 4:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, now I see it.

quote:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution


That's pretty clear to me.

I do agree on your other point though. The Constitution specifically lists the powers of Congress in Article I Section 8.

1. borrow money on the credit of the US
2. regulate commerce between nations and between states
3. establish naturalization laws
4. establish bankruptcy laws
5. coin money and regulate its value
6. provide punishments for counterfeiting money
7. establish post offices and post roads
8. secure copyrights for limited times
9. to form inferior courts
10. define and punish crimes committed "on the high seas" a.k.a. not in a state, national crimes
11. declare war, define prisoner of war rules
12. raise and support armies, but no army money can be appropriated for more than two years in the future
13. provide and maintain a navy
14. make rules for the government of the army and navy
15. call forth the militia to execute laws, suppress invasions, rebellions
16. provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining this militia
17. Make laws for Washington D.C. and any federally-owned land
18. make any laws needed to enforce the above powers


RE: 1st amendment
By hcahwk19 on 9/15/2008 5:57:32 PM , Rating: 2
The second paragraph, or clause, of Article 6 states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."


RE: 1st amendment
By foolsgambit11 on 9/15/2008 1:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
Your line of thinking certainly prevailed until mid-20th Century. But then judges decided to interpret the 14th Amendment, which, among other things, states
quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This application of the Bill of Rights to the Several States is called 'incorporation'. You might consider it Judicial activism, but I think it gets back to the founders' intent. The anti-incorporation argument goes something like, "Well, the First Amendment only limits federal power, it doesn't actually grant any privileges or immunities to citizens". Unfortunately, a look at the historical record will reveal that the true intent of the Bill of Rights (spoiler alert! The name gives it away!) was to prevent the government from overreaching and abridging the right of its citizens. In other words, the Bill of Rights defines implicitly at least some of a citizen's 'privileges and immunities', which the government is empowered to protect from states by the 14th Amendment.

And last, but not least, you can substitute "Section 12 of the Virginia Constitution" anywhere a judge talks about the First Amendment in this case, and the outcome would be the same. The Federal Bill of Rights was modeled on the Virginia Bill of Rights for the most part. For reference,
quote:
Section 12. Freedom of speech and of the press; right peaceably to assemble, and to petition.

That the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments; that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.


RE: 1st amendment
By Denithor on 9/15/2008 4:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right ;


They did phrase that right but unfortunately the courts (in VA at least) saw fit to ignore the part about offenders being responsible for their actions and decided to let the bum out of jail.

The most unfortunate thing in this case is that no-one other than the state of VA has bothered to sue him. I mean, he affected probably millions of people with his crap in many more states than just VA.


RE: 1st amendment
By foolsgambit11 on 9/16/2008 6:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
Or, more simply, the court decided to take a narrow definition of abuse, and decided that this law didn't fit that definition. The court probably felt that the abuse of free speech would limited to slander and endangering the public welfare (like incitement to riot, or yelling fire in a crowded theater).

I happen to agree.


By Beenthere on 9/15/2008 1:14:59 PM , Rating: 1
Not only is it a crime to SPAM, the perp should do no less than 20 years in prison and pay restitution to every recipient, of $1 for each SPAM sent to a recipient.

Laws are intended to protect society from scumbags such as SPAMMERS. The Constitution does not allow people to SPAM. It is not free speech at all, it's an invasion of privacy and punishable under law.




By hcahwk19 on 9/15/2008 2:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
While noble in your intentions, there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. The Constitution does not speak anything of SPAM, and therefore, it MUST be left to the states to address, via the 10th Amendment. That is the only issue I have with the Court's decision here. The state of Virginia decided that, as a policy matter of its citizens, spamming was criminal. The Constitution makes no mention of Spam or privacy.


By foolsgambit11 on 9/16/2008 6:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
And the state courts ruled that law unconstitutional. In this case, they could have ruled it as against the U.S. constitution (based on a collective reading of the 1st and 14th amendment), or against the Virginia state constitution (based on a reading of section 12).

I'm all for this ruling, not because I'm pro-spam, but I'm anti-this-spam-law. I see no reason to put a limit on the number of e-mails one can send. It should have limited itself to the crime of spoofing the sending address. That would allow people to block spam effectively via filtering, and protected free speech to the maximum amount possible.


By Spivonious on 9/15/2008 4:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
Please explain how receiving unsolicited mail violates your right to privacy (which by the way is not mentioned in the Cons.)?


Good job, VA.
By bodar on 9/15/2008 8:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most states with anti-spam laws, and the federal CAN-SPAM Act, only forbid commercial e-mails, not the political or religious e-mails.


Way to screw it up. Loophole ftl.




RE: Good job, VA.
By Regs on 9/15/2008 9:50:36 AM , Rating: 2
But that's Freedom of Speech. Commercial is advertising and soliciting. No loophole.


RE: Good job, VA.
By bodar on 9/15/2008 7:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
The loophole I was referring to is getting his conviction overturned. His lawyers argued that the law is unconstitutional because it is over-broad when neither politics nor religion played ANY part of his case, as far as I know. Maybe the term I was looking for is "technicality", not loophole.


MISSING EVIDENCE?
By JonnyDough on 9/15/2008 3:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
The one thing that all the posts arguing about "what the law is" fail to mention is that the law is whatever the courts say it is. The constitution is not written in stone, as it is argued for or against a defendant based upon the evidence and circumstance. Simply put, the law is ever-changing and everything is circumstantial. The constitution is open to new interpretation and just like any text book it is not the "be all for all." The constitution is 200 years old and applies differently to modern times than it did back then. Our politics today are not "more sophisticated" today than they were either. In the very FORMING of the constitution there was enormous debate, and for all the decades following its drafting.




RE: MISSING EVIDENCE?
By hcahwk19 on 9/15/2008 5:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you are wrong here. Please read the Constitution and study the historical documents created by the Founding Fathers which discuss and clarify the intent behind it before you talk about it. You only show your ignorance when you talk without knowledge. The Constitution IS set in stone, unless amended by the proper procedures. That is the problem with our education system. There is no proper teaching of what the Constitution says and means. The statutes themselves can and do change all the time, but the Constitution does not. It is set in stone, we just do not have anyone in Washington that is willing to see it that way. If it is not in the Constitution, it cannot be unconstitutional or constitutional. The problem is the "interpretation" you talk about. There are people in the judiciary who do not care what the Constitution ACTUALLY says or does not say. They rule based on what they THINK it should say. The words in the Constitution have certain meanings. If the meaning of a word or phrase has changed since the inception 220 years ago, then we must clarify those meanings by one process alone--an amendment. The words in the Constitution meant a specific thing when it was written. The founding fathers knew it was not a perfect document, and that the needs and demands of society would change over time. That is why they left us a door for change. That door is not the Judicial Branch. It is the Amendment Process found in Article 5. There is no other CONSTITUTIONAL WAY TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.


RE: MISSING EVIDENCE?
By JonnyDough on 9/16/2008 7:14:32 PM , Rating: 2
"unless amended by the proper procedures."
"There is no proper teaching of what the Constitution says and means."
"The statutes themselves can and do change all the time, but the Constitution does not."

Thanks for reiterating what I just said. You call me ignorant?

What if I told you I was a U.S. History major?

You just elaborated on all the points I just made, and it wasn't necessary. But thanks.

"The words in the Constitution have certain meanings."

Brilliant!


If the Government was getting paid!
By johnjgately on 9/15/2008 10:22:11 AM , Rating: 3
Yes he has a right to send anything he wants to send! However, I don't like spammers at all. But the he has a right under the 1st! If you don't believe me, then check your snail mail! How much junk mail do you get there? How long has snail mail been around? Snail mail junk is like spam and we all get that!
The only real problem here is with Snail mail the Government gets paid! With Spam, the only person getting paid is the spammer!

John




By foolsgambit11 on 9/15/2008 3:52:03 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub307/welcome.h...

Read carefully. You can block any mail you want. Sure, it might possibly be under false pretenses, but there's a method to stop junk mail, and the sender has no recourse to question your decision. It's because the Supreme Court said that people have no constitutional right to send you whatever they want.


9 YEARS!?
By Dean364 on 9/15/2008 11:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
9 years in prison for sending a bunch of emails? That is total insanity. Good for him, I'm glad he got out.




RE: 9 YEARS!?
By Meinolf on 9/15/2008 12:22:36 PM , Rating: 2
Spammers are losers, 9 years is harsh I think you can kill someone now a days and get out in 5 on good behavior.


Unbelievable!!
By frobizzle on 9/15/2008 8:31:38 AM , Rating: 2
Another travesty of justice (or lack of same!)

And I thought his sentence far too lenient!




Stupid courts
By Indianapolis on 9/15/2008 11:32:04 AM , Rating: 2
How about we fill the supreme court justices' yards with pamphlets and letters about what a stupid decision this is, and when they complain we can say we're just exercising our free speech.




The spam solution is paid email.
By bigdaniel on 9/15/2008 2:40:02 PM , Rating: 2
I think the solution for spam is this:

Pay for your email. Now hang on, don't flame me yet. Let's say it's something like this:

1. Your ISP give you 3,000 free emails a month. This is the number allowed for sending. Receiving is still unlimited.
2. Every email sent above this limit of course incur some kind of charge.
3. I think this number (3,000) should be sufficient for most people (100 emails sent a day is a lot, but some might disagree with me).
4. The spammers cannot live on this. They need to send millions. Thus their pocket book get hit immediately.




Spammers in Russia
By RMSe17 on 9/15/2008 4:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
You know, in Russia spammers tend to be bludgeoned to death, because the legal system most likely will not convict them for what they did.

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11256

Official reports later on said that this was a robbery related death, but who really trusts the Russian official legal statements...




By hcahwk19 on 9/15/2008 6:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
We have been arguing over whether this is Constitutional, but in the Federal Constitutional sense. This case was a state Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the state's highest court has determined that the Virginia Anti-Spam law violates the Virginia Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. While I know the U.S. Constitution inside and out, backwards and forwards, I know nothing about the Virginia Constitution. I suggest we all look it over before commenting anymore, lest we all show our ignorance on the matter.




Al Gore
By ggordonliddy on 9/15/2008 11:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
Al Gore invented the Intertubulars. Be advised.




"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki