Spam is free speech

[Pat McCotter]

Man's 2004 SPAM conviction struck down
By Jana Wagoner

A North Carolina man will not have to spend nine years in prison after his 2004 conviction for sending spam e-mail was overturned Sept. 12 by the Virginia Supreme Court.

In October 2004, Jeremy Jaynes, of Raleigh, was the first person to be convicted under Virginia's anti-spam law enacted in 2003.

The law targets any spam sent through Virginia's networks.

According to indictments, Jaynes sent spam between July 11, 2003, and Aug. 9, 2003, on three separate occasions. The indictment said Jaynes falsified routing information, making it impossible for e-mail recipients to identify the correct sender.

Since most of the recipients were America Online users, and AOL is based in Loudoun, the case was prosecuted here.

Jaynes posted $1 million bail to remain free while his case was appealed, and on Sept. 12 the Supreme Court ruled in his favor.

Jaynes' lawyer and the American Civil Liberties Union argued that Virginia's anti-spam law violated the first amendment. The law, they argued, is overly broad since it criminalized not only commercial spam but also anonymous mass e-mails containing political and religious messages.

"We believed that the critical flaw in the law was that it failed to make the distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech, and the court has now agreed with us," said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. "There is a long tradition of protecting anonymous non-commercial speech in this country."

Justice G. Steven Agee wrote the court's 28-page opinion agreeing with the ACLU.

"[The] statute is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face because it prohibits the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk e-mails including those containing political, religious or other speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution," Agee wrote.

"The Internet is a uniquely democratizing public forum that provides ordinary people with an outlet to express a wide variety of opinions," Willis said. "Some of those views may be controversial, making anonymity or the use of pseudonyms essential for giving those ideas fair consideration in public debates. Speech on the Internet deserves no less First Amendment protection than in any other medium."

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Yay!

Spam has TONS of entertainment value to me. I sort through 16-20K of them a day. There's some golden ones, I swear!

[J’raxis 270145]

Of course spam is free speech, regardless of how unpopular it is. And as usual the ACLU, courts, &c., don't go far enough in protecting it:—

The law, they argued, is overly broad since it criminalized not only commercial spam but also anonymous mass e-mails containing political and religious messages.

Why is "commercial" speech acceptable to legislate?

[slim]

Yay!

Spam has TONS of entertainment value to me. I sort through 16-20K of them a day. There's some golden ones, I swear!

I agree. At work when the other people in our department got some good funny spam or some with some pics of nice women we would call our friends over to look at it.

One of my responsibilities at work is to take care of the mail system including the spam filter and the last time I checked our stats on the corporate filter we had ~8K of the messages that get through the 2nd layer classified as Spam that is after about 75K connections were rejected in the 1st layer.