Spam ≠ Free Speech
The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a notorious spammer under Virginia's anti-spam law. A divided court said that spam isn't protected speech under the First Amendment. Associated Press.
Personally, I wouldn't bet on this being the definitive word. The Supreme Court may not weigh in on this particular case, but it will likely have to rule on the issue some time in the near future. I lean toward the argument that spam is often fraudulent and causes economic harm, and spammers should be boiled in penis-enhancement cream. The debate is an interesting one, though.
2 comments:
I haven't read the article or the opinion, but in grand Internet tradition I'll weigh in anyway.
Spam is like unsolicited faxes, which aren't protected speech, either, because the cost to receive the "speech" is shifted to the recipient. Personally I think the analysis isn't that difficult, and I can't imagine how a court would come out otherwise.
There's some argument that the law is overbroad. It appears to bar any sending of anonymous email, and some of the justices were concerned that it bans too much.
Post a Comment