Anti-spam law ruled unconstitutional, spammer goes free
Click here to read more about SpamStopsHere, the e-mail security company that brings you this blog.
The Virginia Supreme Court ruled the state’s anti-spam legislation as unconstitutional. Jeremy Jaynes, a spammer that was brought up on charges in 2003 claimed that the law interfered with the U.S. Constitution’s first amendment guaranteeing free speech. The Supreme Court Justices agreed.
The opinion of the court published today reads:
That 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. Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and vacate Jaynes’ convictions of violations of Code § 18.2-152.3:1.
In September of 2006, a Virginia court of appeal had previously rejected Jaynes’ claim that the state’s legislation violated the U.S. Constitution. In February of this year, the Virginia Supreme Court in a narrow 4-3 vote upheld the earlier decision. The supreme court apparently had second thoughts and after a rehearing reversed the earlier decision today, setting the spammer free.
Where did the state go wrong? Apparently, the anti-spam legislation in other states was written to only include commercial e-mail and exclud protected political and religious speech. The Virginia legislation overlooked this protected speech.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Bulk unsolicited emails should be illegal, regardless of their content. Emails cost the receiver money. The supreme court overruling this issue is like okaying people to put unsolicited bumper stickers on peoples’ cars so long as they are political or religious in nature. Nevermind the fact that it involves effort from you to remove the sticker.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Make them mail it to me via the postal service, so I can drop it in the trash.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Well, it’s the constitution that guarantees them anonymous political and religious speech. I do agree that it should be limited when it costs other people money.