Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Spam News

Virginia Top Court to Re-Hear Spammer's Conviction 216

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the a-waffling-we-will-go dept.
arbitraryaardvark writes "Mega-spammer Jeremy Jaynes was convicted in Virginia of spamming in '05, sentenced to 9 years, and lost his appeal, 4-3, at the Virgina Supreme Court. But the court has just ordered a new hearing on whether the anti-spam statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Slashdot previously covered the appeal and the conviction."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Virginia Top Court to Re-Hear Spammer's Conviction

Comments Filter:
  • by moderatorrater (1095745) on Friday May 02, 2008 @04:25PM (#23279296)
    Does the first amendment apply in this case? The man is sending mail from overseas servers that have no intent other than selling something. I know that the first amendment doesn't cover dangerous communication, or communication about illegal acts, but does it cover bad, mass advertising that costs the end user money and that they can't really opt out of?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Does the first amendment apply in this case? The man is sending mail from overseas servers that have no intent other than selling something. I know that the first amendment doesn't cover dangerous communication, or communication about illegal acts, but does it cover bad, mass advertising that costs the end user money and that they can't really opt out of?
      I'd like to think it does.
      • by trolltalk.com (1108067) on Friday May 02, 2008 @04:35PM (#23279430) Homepage Journal

        The first amendment doesn't cover theft of resources, scamming, lies, shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.

        The "theft of resources" was already dealt with by people who successfully sued for junk faxes. The first amendment doesn't apply.

        The scamming and lies are covered by various legislation that requires truth in advertising.

        The "shouting fire" was decided LONG ago ...

        Hopefully, this is only going to appeal so that the guy wastes more $$$ and still gets the door slammed on his much-pounded-upon ass.

        • by dgatwood (11270) on Friday May 02, 2008 @04:52PM (#23279654) Journal

          The appeal definitely won't go anywhere. Commercial speech is the least protected of all categories of speech and can be fairly thoroughly subjected to time, place, and manner restrictions. These, in turn, have a four-part test for their constitutionality:

          • Is the restriction content-neutral? It passes this test because it applies to all commercial speech, not just ads for certain types of products.
          • Does the regulation support a significant governmental interest? Yes. It is designed to reduce the severe burden that processing this junk mail causes to the citizens of the country as a whole.
          • Is it narrowly tailored? It passes this test because it is carefully crafted specifically to limit the harmful effects of the speech--specifically, the electronic equivalent of littering--without preventing legitimate communication between a company and its clients (with explicit opt-in and real opt-out).
          • Does it leave open ample alternative channels of communication? It passes this test because again, it allows this communication, but only with consent.
          • by joggle (594025)
            Do you have a source for that? I'd like to read it.

            I once knew a spammer (by family, not by choice) and he would always claim it was protected speech under the 1st amendment despite my protests to the contrary.
            • by dgatwood (11270)

              Yeah. The source is the semester of communications law and ethics I took in college. I'm a little fuzzy, though, and I'll willingly admit having to Google a bit to confirm the details before posting. The Wikipedia entry is pretty sparse on the subject. I'd kill for it to go into relevant case law on the various parts of the test and cite precedents where different things were and were not shown as protected.

              If you want further info about the subject, though, google "time, place, and manner restriction

          • It restricts people to use email normally.
            These spammers should be imprisoned for life.
          • by cgenman (325138)
            Other restricted forms of mass speech: Auto phone dialers. Littering floors with fliers. Disturbing the peace. Anything that would leave paper stains. Demonstrations without a permit. Unwanted speech in a private area. Calling to the do-not-call registry. Sending penis enlargement messages to ten year olds. Forging return addresses.

            I'm usually a first amendment defender. But in this case, if the spammer wants societal protection from reprisals, they need to behave in a civilized fashion.
        • by arbitraryaardvark (845916) <gtbear.gmail@com> on Friday May 02, 2008 @05:10PM (#23279822) Homepage Journal
          Does the first amendment apply in this case? The man is sending mail from overseas servers that have no intent other than selling something. I know that the first amendment doesn't cover dangerous communication, or communication about illegal acts, but does it cover bad, mass advertising that costs the end user money and that they can't really opt out of?

          The first amendment doesn't cover theft of resources, scamming, lies, shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.
          The "theft of resources" was already dealt with by people who successfully sued for junk faxes. The first amendment doesn't apply.
          The scamming and lies are covered by various legislation that requires truth in advertising.
          The "shouting fire" was decided LONG ago ...


          The first amendment does cover ads. see discussion below of central hudson, see also 44 liquormart.
          But this case isn't about ads. The first amendment covers lots of dangerous speech, lots of communication about illegal activities, lots of bad ads.
          This is a case about whether the statute he was charged under is constitutional. If it's not, it's void and isn't law, and he can't be kept in jail under it, no matter how much we don't like the guy.
          The shouting fire case was indeed decided long ago, 1919, schenck v united states. Schenck was put in jail for passing out pamphlets claiming that the draft was unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment. Personally, I think he was right.
          The case was overruled in 1968 or 69 in Brandenburg. The reason Schenck is still the first case taught in First Amendment classes is that it was wrong.
          Sometimes the theater really is on fire.
          It's hard to write a statute that does what you want but stays within the first amendment.
          It's easy to write a statute that bans spam, but also accidentally bans slashdot.
          - arbitrary aardvark
          • No, the First doesn't cover ads, see Free speech v commercial speech [stayfreemagazine.org]. After 1971 Supreme Court rulings whittled away at the separation of commercial speech and free speech. Whereas SC rulings before then maintained the separation. If that isn't enough, for instance if you don't accept that website, then try Findlaw [findlaw.com]. Julie Hilden [findlaw.com] writes that commercial speech should have the same First Amendment rights, rights it didn't have in 2001.

            Falcon

        • The first amendment doesn't cover theft of resources, scamming, lies, shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.

          Heck, thanks to a certain odd couple McCain-Feingold, it does not even cover Free Speech and Freedom of Association [washingtonpost.com] any more...

          But I digress... What we need is an acceptable definition of spamming, that's better than "I know it, when I see it", which is the current standard. Maybe, a cool and well publicized X-prize would result in somebody coming up with one?..

          • What we need is an acceptable definition of spamming, that's better than "I know it, when I see it", which is the current standard. Maybe, a cool and well publicized X-prize would result in somebody coming up with one?..

            That's easy, spam is unsolicited commercial e-mail [wikipedia.org]. I apply it to snail mail as well.

            Falcon
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by TheLink (130905)
            "What we need is an acceptable definition of spamming"

            I don't mind spam as long as they stuck to not telling lies.

            Most spam I see has one or more of the following lies:

            1) False return address and sender (recently one of them used my email address as return address)
            2) False Subject
            3) False names
            4) False content e.g. "Email me at xxxx@yyy only, because I am using my friend's email to write this"

            When someone has to lie so much it should be pretty obvious they are doing something wrong, even they themselves kno
      • by Bryansix (761547)
        Why do you want the First Amendment to protect spammers? And who in their right mind modded you up! There are obvious restrictions to free speech like when it actually causes real harm. If sending unsolicited faxes is illegal then so should spamming be illegal. It's pretty basic for anyone to understand.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          No one has ever said that being free to say something means that you shouldn't be held to account if what you said caused damage.
          • No one has ever said that being free to say something means that you shouldn't be held to account if what you said caused damage.

            The issue isn't what he said, but how he said it. The statute is content-neutral. (From TFA: "it prohibits anonymous unsolicited bulk e-mails including those containing political, religious or other speech.")

            The First Amendment doesn't protect broadcasting through a loud public address system in a residential neighborhood at 3:00 in the morning, it doesn't protect hacking into somebody's cable to transmit your own content instead of the content transmitted by the cable company, it doesn't protect spray p

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Trailer Trash (60756)
        You're right, it does. I'll be over later to spray-paint a message on the side of your house.

        See, the first amendment says that the government can't limit my speech. As a private property owner, however, you *can* limit my speech inasmuch as you have to pay for the forum. I'm free to buy my own house and spray-paint the side of it. But when I decide that someone else should foot the bill, that's not a free-speech issue.

        Spammers cost other people millions of dollars, in aggregate. The only companies tha
        • by Arthur B. (806360)
          Don't be mystified, most rights are creepily being transformed into "positive rights", i.e. individual freedom is replaced by collective slavery where everyone owes everyone.
        • You're right, it does. I'll be over later to spray-paint a message on the side of your house.
          You can, that's the beauty of freedom, you are free to choose to do this. You are then also free to waive your right to a jury trial when you are charged with vandalism. You are then free to appeal. I'm free to sue you for damages on top of that.

          Being free to do something doesn't mean there are no consequences, it simply means you can choose to do something.
        • I'm free to buy my own house and spray-paint the side of it.

          Actually that depends on where you live. In some neighborhoods the Home owner's association [sandlakehills.com] has bylaws that prevent people from painting the exterior of their homes however they want. Here's what Copper Creek Association [coppercreek.net] has to say.

          Falcon

      • by hackstraw (262471)
        I'd like to think it does.

        So, I can shout at the top of my lungs in front of your house praising the FSM, and you would have no objection?

        Its an old saying, but Freedom of Speech means you can say whatever you want, but it does not mean anyone has to listen to you, or to help you say it.

    • by omeomi (675045)
      I guess we'll find out soon enough, won't we. Either the Virginia Supreme Court will decide, and the US Supreme Court will decline to take the case, or the US Supreme Court will decide. Then we'll know, I guess. I wouldn't think the use of overseas servers would make any difference, though, if the communications originated from a US citizen, I would imagine the 1st amendment would apply.
      • by Sancho (17056) *
        The first amendment, and indeed the entire Constitution, should apply to all citizens appearing before a US court.
        • The first amendment, and indeed the entire Constitution, should apply to all citizens appearing before a US court.
          Actually, it applies to all people on US territory, not just citizens.
    • by eln (21727) on Friday May 02, 2008 @04:33PM (#23279410) Homepage
      I would think that the first amendment definitely covers advertisements. If we decide the first amendment covers all speech except for the speech we find annoying, it isn't very useful.

      However, in the case of spam, the spammer is forcing the recipient to pay for his speech without consent. That is why spam should be illegal, not because it's trying to sell something.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        That's exactly it. No one is questioning the spammer's right to say something, or to sell his product. He can sell it on the streetcorner, in a shop, wherever. He can advertise it on TV, on billboards, on the Internet. What is, or should be, illegal, is sending it to the private e-mail accounts of people who don't want it, at the expense of their service providers. If that action is covered by free speech, then I should be able to throw a brick through your front window, step inside, and start hawking
      • by frankie (91710) on Friday May 02, 2008 @05:05PM (#23279780) Journal

        "Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit.
        "We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech and other sound does not mean we must be captives everywhere. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain."
        - Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, Rowan v US Post Office
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by eln (21727)
          I don't see that as relevant because nothing compels you to open spam either. You can set up filters to automatically remove it, unlike postal mail. However, also unlike postal mail, even if the spam is caught and removed by your spam filter, you have still incurred some cost by the time it gets that far. The spammer has used your bandwidth and your CPU cycles, even if you never see the message.
        • by icebike (68054)
          Mod parent up.

          It would appear it has already been adequately covered by the SCOTUS, and the Virginia court is wasting everyone's time and money with yet another hearing.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Grokmoo (1180039)
      It seems strange to me that so many people on slashdot (and more generally on the internet at large) seem so gung ho free speech, yet at the same time are ready to burn spammers at the stake.

      I am sorry for your inconvenience, but I think free speech is a little bit more important than that.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by tompaulco (629533)
        Spammers can advertise all they want, I have no problem with that. Nowhere in the first amendment does it say that the citizens of this country have to pay for a megaphone for every crackpot that has something to say.
        Even aside from the monetary argument, someone else's right to free speech does not mean that I am required to listen, only that I don't have the right to gag him. No one has the right to come to my home , stand on my doorstep and shout out their opinions. Instead, they can feel free to shout
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hedwards (940851)
        It's not even a little bit strange. You don't find many here that support false advertising, not slightly misleading or mistaken either, but full on fraudulent adverts for items. Nor do you find many people here that think that a person has a right to an audience. If nobody wants to here what it is that you have to say there is no right to force them to listen.

        And likewise in this case, you're combining those things to make something which is ultra offensive to many. You're using other people's resources to
      • by Sancho (17056) * on Friday May 02, 2008 @05:04PM (#23279776) Homepage
        Free speech generally applies to public forums and areas. My inbox is not a public forum or area, no matter how much the NSA might wish that it were.
      • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@NOspaM.gmail.com> on Friday May 02, 2008 @09:47PM (#23281630) Journal
        Because many of the guys here are network admins and have seen the real costs associated with spam? I know we have probably had way too many analogies here already,but what the hell,let me throw in my own-


        A few years back I took a temp job for a law office with a network from hell(actually set up by a gamer,shudder!) and everyday I would walk to lunch. As I would walk to lunch there would be this guy on the street corner saying we would all go to hell if we didn't repent,and reading furiously passages out of his bible. Even though I am an agnostic I have absolutely no problem with him being there and would even put money in his cup,simply because he never touched anyone and I supported his right to speak his beliefs. What I would NOT have supported is him walking into my backroom every morning,plopping his ass down in fron of my monitor and FORCING me to deal with his crap every day.


        Because in a very real sense that is EXACTLY what the spammer does. While I have never had the misfortune to be the email admin,I have known enough guys who were,and have seen first hand how much time they waste every damned day on garbage that flows like a sewer into their email servers. That is time they could be helping there fellow employees with problems,doing backups and upgrades,etc. Not to mention the bandwidth and the amount of money his employers spend on dealing with this junk. I have no problem with the spammer advertising his wares.I DO have a problem when he forces us all into unwanted expenses for the sake of his easy profits. And NO you can't say they "pay for their bandwidth" as most spam comes from botnets designed to force someone ELSE to fit the bill. That is why spam is so damned popular with scumbags. Somebody else gets the bills and the spammer gets the checks.


        So while I am all for free speech I'm afraid that just like the *.A.A doesn't have the "right" to permanent profits neither IMO do spammers have the "right" to force their crap on me. But that is my 02c and you are free to ignore it. You also don't have to worry about me stuffing it in your mailbox if you do either,LOL!

      • It seems strange to me that so many people on slashdot (and more generally on the internet at large) seem so gung ho free speech, yet at the same time are ready to burn spammers at the stake.

        I am sorry for your inconvenience, but I think free speech is a little bit more important than that.

        While Free Speech is important commercial speech [wikipedia.org] is not nearly as important. In Kasky v. Nike [findlaw.com] California's Supreme Court set up a 3 part test on "when a court must decide whether particular speech may be subjected

    • by jcr (53032) <[jcr] [at] [mac.com]> on Friday May 02, 2008 @04:38PM (#23279466) Journal
      This isn't a first amendment issue, it's a property rights issue. The spammer's got a right to say whatever he wants to say, but that right doesn't include a right to use other people's property to do so.

      Basically, he got sent up the river for a hell of a lot of instances of extremely petty theft, which is as it should be. Let the fucker rot.

      -jcr
      • I wish I had mod points right now. The point is not free speech. It is the use of other people's resources. You are allowed to say whatever you want on the town square, but the tax payers don't have to buy you a megaphone.
      • I am so sick and tired of them being allowed to send me e-mails just because of their position.

        Was nice of them to give themselves exceptions to most related laws.
        • by EdIII (1114411) *
          Great, GREAT farking point. You need to be modded up.

          Every time they allow something like this it EXACTLY as if they are allowed to come up to your house, open the door, and sit next to you on the couch and say, "Hi, my name is Joe Blow and I would to screw, uhhhh, represent you in government".

          If it is wrong for a telemarketer, and it is wrong for a spammer, then it is wrong for a congressmen. The whole theory behind it being that it serves the public interest to be forcibly made aware of just who is runn
      • by sootman (158191) on Friday May 02, 2008 @06:00PM (#23280220) Homepage Journal
        I wouldn't mind getting spam if every piece of it came from a company's own servers and with a legitimate return address. But when spammers a) steal resources (via botnets and trojaned machines) to send their mail and then b) they forge the From: header so you can't possibly respond, I think it's pretty clear from part B that they know that what they're doing--part A--is wrong.

        Note that I said I wouldn't *mind* spam in these conditions. I'd be even happier to receive no ads, period, but as long as they have to pay their own way and not hide their identity then I figure it's not AS bad as what they do now. I *would* accept an inbox full of junk mail if it meant that acres of trees didn't have to die to keep my physical mailbox full of junk. I don't disagree with people who say "you have no right to be in my inbox, period"--I just don't personally feel as strongly. Marketing assholes will be marketing assholes until they're all exterminated; so we may as well give them a less-wasteful outlet for their bullshit. :-)
      • by borkus (179118)
        Exactly. Freedom of speech allows me to print a pamphlet on some cause of my choosing. I can hand my pamphlet out to people or go door to door. However, the first amendment does not allow me to break other laws in distributing them. I cannot break into your house to give you pamphlets. Nor can I just leave a pile on a ground to become litter.
        • Exactly. Freedom of speech allows me to print a pamphlet on some cause of my choosing. I can hand my pamphlet out to people or go door to door. However, the first amendment does not allow me to break other laws in distributing them. I cannot break into your house to give you pamphlets. Nor can I just leave a pile on a ground to become litter.

          But it does let you place it on people's car windshield, mailbox, and front doors. Spammers aren't breaking into your account to get you information, they are placing

      • by Reziac (43301) *
        Whether it's a First Amendment issue is actually a good question, but IMO it isn't really all that hard to distinguish whether that applies:

        Someone sending spam *entirely* with their own equipment (NOT using botnets, hacked servers, open relays, etc.) is within their rights. They may be a PITA but so are streetcorner preachers hollering over the town square -- the venue is different but the effect is the same: annoying, but still "free speech", as free to the spammer or preacher as it is to everyone else. H
      • by aztektum (170569)
        So it's your argument that it's your network and you should be able to control what data flows over it?

        Hm, sounds like AT&T/Verizon/Comcast. I'll remember that next time net neutrality laws come up and everyone is talking about how the Internet should be unfettered by business interests.

        How do you "steal" bandwidth anyway? Is that like "stealing" an mp3?
      • Depends on how well he covered his ass with a EULA :-)
    • No, the First Amendment doesn't apply in this case. In this case the speech used is commercial speech and it's only been recently that commercial speech has even been considered. The phrase "commercial speech" [stayfreemagazine.org] first appears in a Supreme Court ruling in 1971. Prior to then the First was never applied to commercial advertizing.

      Falcon
  • by Kiralan (765796) *
    Does anyone else find it funny/ironic that the one of the sidebar 'Related Links' is to '* Compare prices on Spam Software' ??? K
    • Great, you just opened the door for all the smug replies about how people haven't seen ads in years because of adblock plus. They'll probably close their eyes while they're typing it, too.
      • by Digi-John (692918)
        "Oh, you run Adblock Plus? Good for youuuu!" *thumbs up*
        *eyes closed* "Thaaaanks!"

        You see what you did with your gay little browser?

        I'm afraid Slashdot has disappeared completely... up its own asshole.
  • Two Words (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Noodles (39504)
    Death Penalty
  • by swordgeek (112599) on Friday May 02, 2008 @04:42PM (#23279530) Journal
    Here's an excerpt from the article:

    "Yesterday, however, the justices agreed to hear arguments on whether Jaynes could challenge the anti-spam law as unconstitutional in general, even if it was constitutionally applied to him." (Emphasis mine)

    So that means that he gets to present arguments that would support his ability to appeal on constitutionality. Pretty circuitous.

    Also, I think it's great. Spam is clearly theft of services, and the sooner that gets legally solidified, the sooner the dirtbag spammers will quit being able to whinge about free speech.
    • by jd (1658)
      In the UK, if a person file and loses an appeal in which the State counter-claims that the original sentance was unduly lenient, the appeal court judges can increase the sentance. This is one of the very, very, very few cases in which such a law could be considered justified. Unfortunately, printing out a representative sample of his spam e-mails and making a paper mache coffin out of it to decorate his prison cell might run counter to the cruel and unusual punishment clause.
    • by Hatta (162192)
      That is pretty strange. Since he's presenting arguments anyway, why not just let him present arguments that the law is unconstitutional? Cut out the middle step.

      And I'm wondering, what kind of arguments can to disallow someone from appealing the constitutionality of a law? If the constitutionality of a law is in question, then disallowing someone from appealing leads to the possibility of someone being held unconstitutionally but having no recourse. On the other hand, if the constitutionality of a law i
    • So that means that he gets to present arguments that would support his ability to appeal on constitutionality. Pretty circuitous.

      The Supreme Court isn't required to review every case that is appealed; they can look at the previous decision and decide that there is nothing to be considered differently. In order for the Supreme Court to review a case, they must first grant what's called a "Writ of Certiorari," which requires that 4 out of 9 judges deem it worthy of appeal.

  • The First Amendment isn't relevant to this case and bringing it up is just an attempt to draw attention away from the facts. Jeremy Jaynes used mailing lists he'd stolen from AOL, eBay and other places for his spamming. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and it doesn't give you the right to use stolen addresses to direct your advertisements.
  • by SparkleMotion88 (1013083) on Friday May 02, 2008 @04:44PM (#23279560)
    I don't think the law [spamlaws.com] infringes on anybody's right to expression. The law is only related to falsifying e-mail transmission info. So if the guy bought a domain name and set up a smtp server and spammed from his domain and his server using a connection that he pays for, he wouldn't be breaking the law. It is reasonable to have laws like this to protect the defrauded service providers who were essentially duped into sending this guy's spam.
    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      The law is only related to falsifying e-mail transmission info. So if the guy bought a domain name and set up a smtp server and spammed from his domain and his server using a connection that he pays for, he wouldn't be breaking the law.
      Part of free speech is the right to adopt a pseudonym and 'publish' anonymously.

      He could argue that abridging the right to publish anonymously is unconstitutional, even if the law itself was applied in a legal manner.
      • by Reziac (43301) *
        And he might be correct -- so long as he only uses his OWN equipment and a legitimate internet connection which he has lawful permission to use (even if that's an anonymous, open-to-all site like a public library). But the moment he *steals* someone else's bandwidth or CPU cycles, he should lose that protection.

        BTW I've received anonymous spam that promoted unpopular political viewpoints; imagine if this were, say, China and such spam might be your only way of learning about western democracy.
  • Commercial Speech (Score:5, Informative)

    by StormReaver (59959) on Friday May 02, 2008 @04:45PM (#23279578)
    According to http://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html [lawpublish.com], commercial speech is protected by the 1st amendment, but to a lesser degree than non-commercial speech:

    "In Central Hudson, the Supreme Court set out the important four-part test for assessing government restrictions on commercial speech:

    '[First] . . . [the commercial speech] at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.'"

    Almost all spammers will fail the first test, including the waste of skin from the article. There is no such thing as a legitimate spammer.
    • by jd (1658)
      Ok, let's see if you're right.
      • must concern lawful activity: A lot of the "products" advertised don't exist. I would consider this unlawful, but then I see everything else advertised on TV, radio, billboards, McDonald's windows...
      • and not be misleading: See above, and add in any movie trailer that uses the words "exciting", "dramatic" or "thrilling".

      By this standard, virtually all commercial speech should be prohibited. Admittedly, this might lead to a gigantic leap in the quality of products and servic

  • So, Jayne wants the ability to invade my privacy/space to make money protected? What about my rights to not be invaded with this.

    I don't see this as any different than him having the ability to legally breaking into my property to hand me an advert. According to his thinking, I don't have to read the advert, but he has a right to force his way into my property to give me the advert while trying to disguise himself, and lying about who/what he is to get past any defenses.

    Shouldn't I have to invite him in?

    *d
    • In my ideal world, the judge would just say: "Bailiff, take this scumbag out by the dumpster, kneecap him, gut shoot him, then feed him his own testicles... RIGHT NOW!"
      To be fair though, this is the same ideal world which got a "does not play well with others" on its second grade report card.
  • First Amendment? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by LocutusMIT (10726)
    Let's see. Hundreds of emails each day, with no way to make them stop? Sounds an awful lot like harassment. I don't think the First Amendment covers that.


    Perhaps he should be tried for several hundred thousand counts of harassment if he's successful here.

  • The poor folks selling P3n1s enlargements. I mean, how are these poor folks going to get by without JJ to send SPAMmy goodness to all of us? Please, wont someone think of the discount V14gr4 suppliers! Their children, they will starve!
  • I hate spamming as much as anyone, but nine years for sending Viagra advertisements? Child molesters and bank robbers sometimes get less than that.
    • by Hatta (162192)
      As long as they don't let any pot smokers out to make room for this spammer, we're safe.
  • In editing the submission, scuttlemonkey took out the link to TFA. [law.com]
    Howard wrote:
    "Va. Supreme Court to revisit divisive spam case; It upheld convictions but will consider constitutional issue": The Richmond Times-Dispatch today contains an article that begins, "The Supreme Court of Virginia yesterday agreed to a limited rehearing of its closely divided decision upholding the first felony spam convictions in the country."
    My earlier coverage of the Supreme Court of Virginia's original 4-3 ruling in this case, issued February 29, 2008, appears here and here.
    Yesterday's order granting rehearing on specified issues can be accessed at this link.
    Posted at 08:04 PM by Howard Bashman


    • TFA that was omitted had a link to the court's order. Reading the court's order, it turns out that they aren't yet at the stage of giving him a new hearing - they are having a legal argument about whether or not he gets to have a new hearing.
      Standing briefs tend to be a bit dry for non-lawyers.
      If he wins this round, he can go on to try to win the next round, that the statute is unconstitutional and can't be applied to anyone, even him.

      Jeremy Jaynes, Appellant,
      against Record No. 062388
      Court of Appeals No. 10
  • by hyades1 (1149581) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Friday May 02, 2008 @05:35PM (#23280028)

    Never mind courts and jail and all that crap. Can't we just beat the son-of-a-bitch to death with our G1ANT PEEN1SES?

  • The first amendment only guarantees that you can speak, not that you can be heard ( especially at the expense of others )
  • by farbles (672915) on Friday May 02, 2008 @07:22PM (#23280836)

    My mail server gets 1.2 million spams a day compared to about 5,000 messages a day of legitimate traffic. My business has suffered from lost customers and lost business from mail delays caused by spam storms, much ill-will from customers has been caused and much time and money has been spent on anti-spam resources, not to mention all the lost technical time which could have gone into research and development of innovative products which instead gets wasted fighting spam storm related issues.

    Spamming is not a first amendment issue, it is basic fraud and theft. Mega-jail sentences should be applied because the damage being done is major. It's not just a waste of bandwidth and people's time to delete the messages, it is real dollars and cents damage to the point where it is helping to drive my business under.

    If one of my family members were a spammer, they'd be lucky to just have a busted nose and broken limbs. I'd go berzerker on their sorry ass. No mercy for spammers. None.

    • by farbles (672915)

      Forgot to mention, spam has tripled in the last eight weeks after doubling twice in the six months before that.

      Victimless crime, my Aunt Fanny. Death is too good for the spammers.

  • Basically, whenever I see the spam topic come up I want to throw out the latest version of this suggestion--and so far it has been at least somewhat relevant in every case. It's a pretty broad suggestion, and I have already confessed my sin of tending to go off topic. Reality is like that. Anyway, the relevant part for this article is down there about how to get a spam fighter first class merit badge--which not even Cowboy Neal has.

    How to make Gmail the spam target of absolute last resort.

    The goal of this s

"Floggings will continue until morale improves." -- anonymous flyer being distributed at Exxon USA

Working...