The Supreme Court on Monday said it is refusing to consider reinstating the Commonwealth of Virginia’s junk e-mail law.
The court’s inaction upholds an earlier ruling of the Virginia Supreme Court that Virginia’s Computer Crimes Act violates First Amendment rights. The broad law prohibits the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk e-mails, including those containing political, religious, or other speech protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Virginia State Attorney General Bill Mims, according to other reports, is planning to draft a new antispam law in the next General Assembly session to address constitutional concerns.
The spammers win again… for the time being.
#3, Anom,
That’s not the current Supreme Court lineup
Ya, but that is one heck of a good looking line-up.
If you can’t read/understand how the courts view “spam” then think of “mass mailings.”
Are you for/against any mass mailing at all? Eg–Vote for/against some issue?
Solution is simple squirrel: prohibit unsolicited business (aka commercial speech) emails==just as in now done with phone calls.
#17, Cap’n,
Sorry, but #16, ECA is quite correct.
Currently we do regulate advertising. For example, “Girls Gone Wild” videos are only advertised at night. Cosmetics may not claim untrue properties. Products may not put “New and Improved” on their packages unless it is substantially new and improved. Don’t telephone selling something, I’m on the “Do Not Call List”.
Sending me an email suggesting I can buy my drugs from outside the country has no legal speech protection. An email suggesting a 12 y/o visit a web site to view porn is generally illegal. A penis enlarger that hasn’t been reviewed by the FDA? Buy a degree from an on-line store?
Advertising is not and should not be considered speech. The anonymity considered by the framers dealt with political speech.
# 20 hhopper said, “Speech is free until it causes problems. You can’t yell. “FIRE!” in a crowded theater… and you shouldn’t be allowed to jam up the Internet with useless crap ads. ”
Actually, the “fire” exception has to do with public danger & safety, not inconvenience or “problems”. This is were you went off the rails and why you have a difficult time understanding the ruling.
#23, Mr Fusion, and others:
The problems with the examples you cite is that they are illegal per se, not because they’re speech. Now it’s true that advertisements and other commercial speech are more regulated than political speech (and obscene speech isn’t protected at all), but Government prohibitions must still be tailored strictly, without vagueness.
Any anti-spam law will run into 1st Amendment problems because the fact of the matter is we cannot concretely and solidly define “spam” as including only that speech which is illegal/reprehensible. All definitions include some speech which should be prohibited – such as anonymous political implorations.
Now, the day that spam, by itself (and I don’t mean bot-farms, which are also per se illegal) starts clogging up the tubes, then we might start to see some legal regulation, as it’s now harming a resource.
As it is, spam is a nuisance, not a threat. As such, I suggest you follow the advice of the libertarians and simply deal with it. Plenty of individual software solutions for it. (I can’t recall the last time I actually received a piece of spam in my inbox, although I do occasionally receive a spamous trackback on my blog.)
Hopefully they care so much about free speech, they’ll also knock out the campaign finance law.
The Obama Administration actually argued that the government could ban movies and books.
My HOPE is that EMAIL spam, ALL email, ISNT anonymous..
If you send email it SHOULD have your name on it, and a LINK to contact you..such as REPLY button should BE.
But another concern is out there..
ADVERTS/SPAM from sites that are infected/trackers/virus/ and so forth..
And how to you TRACK this and find who installed this STUFF on your machine..YOU CANT. You CANT decline them, but you CAN turn the feature OFF.
The bunch of BAD people that cause problem, are making it a REAL pain for those NICE people that NEED POPUP AND ADVERTS to pay for sites. This is as bad as a LETTER BOMB in your snail mail…and it HAPPENS MORE OFTEN..
I hate spam, too, but aren’t sales pitches free speech?
But, I THINK a labeling law for spam might not violate the first amendment.
Heck, we have labeling laws for all kinds of other commerce.
# 28 Greg Allen said, “But, I THINK a labeling law for spam might not violate the first amendment. ”
http://ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/ecommerce/bus61.shtm