http://ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/ecommerce/bus61.shtm

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.

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..

The Obama Administration actually argued that the government could ban movies and books.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

That’s not the current Supreme Court lineup

Ya, but that is one heck of a good looking line-up.

“My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives”

Just exactly right. And it’s Hedley, not Hedy. (Also correct).

As large as their guns get, my fortress gets stronger day by day. NO SPAM! But they can try and send it all they like, per the 1st Amendment. Like someone else on this blog, I get no spam.

15,
this is NOT speech.. It is advertising. FREE speech is THEM posting a web site, and WE finding it. If we want something, we can WEED our way threw the NEt and find it..
Just like you going DOWN to the stores to find a NEW refrigerator. YOU SHOP. Adverts are fine, they point you to locations, and PROBABLY NOT the best price.
BUT, we can ask the STORE not to send us ADVERTS.