Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam Government The Courts News

Maryland Declares Anti-Spam Law Unconstitutional 13

Posted by michael from the worth-a-try dept.
acidradio writes "The Maryland Supreme Court has ruled that fining a spam mailer in New York is unconstitutional as it tries to control commerce outside Maryland's borders."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Maryland Declares Anti-Spam Law Unconstitutional More

Maryland Declares Anti-Spam Law Unconstitutional

Comments Filter:

  • Well, they're right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It is a state law, not a federal one. This is the problem with state anti-spam laws, they're only really good when dealing with in-state spam.

    I'm in Maryland, but my server is in New Jersey, and the spam could be from anywhere.
    • Interstate commerce law (since spam is a form of commerical email communication) would kick in if you consider it a form of harassment. Then you would be playing in the federal court circuit, not state.

      I am also in Maryland, but if the server that is sending spam is in New Jersey, Maryland law can't touch it. You would need to get New Jersey law officals involved.

      Sadly, I know all this crap due to someone harassing me on the Net and carrying it across into real life that was both across state lines.

  • Great. Just great. (Score:3, Informative)

    by lunarscape ( 704562 ) on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @02:52PM (#11084322)
    I live in Maryland, work in Maryland, and I went to college in Maryland. It was while I attended college that I started to use this law to sue unsolicited commercial e-mailers. The basis for my claims were quite simple: The junk e-mailer sent their e-mails to my address which ends in my university's .edu address. Simply visiting that .edu website would be enough to determine that this university is located in Maryland. Virtually all of the people I filed suit against were quick to settle.

    However, I was very careful to not take on high-profile companies or do anything that might get me noticed because I knew that something like this might happen and the law would be thrown out. Thank you, person who doesn't even live in Maryland, for ruining it for the rest of us.

    • However, I was very careful to not take on high-profile companies or do anything that might get me noticed because I knew that something like this might happen and the law would be thrown out. Thank you, person who doesn't even live in Maryland, for ruining it for the rest of us.

      You're on very precarious legitimacy grounds here. You shouldn't be using a law that you know is challengeable for lack of authority, and trying to continue using it hoping that it'll be insignificant. That's like stealing a credi

  • laws... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by St. Arbirix ( 218306 ) <matthew.townsendNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday December 14, 2004 @03:41PM (#11084967) Homepage Journal
    So when are the federal laws going to show up and be functional? I know the CAN-SPAM act is in place but I'm still getting tons of spoofed reply-to headers. What are the chances that federal anti-spam law will be passed without including 500 addendums like the formation of an internet policing bureau with mandatory unions (a la Patriot Act) or some sort of internet tax in order to fund the effort. Ever since what's-his-face said the internet is a "wild west that will eventually have to come under government supervision" I've been waiting for some laws to show to get them deeper into the net.

    I think that these spam laws are a little silly. We're getting closer and closer to a technical solution to the problem but people want a law to stop it "now!" It's the internet. Do you really want it governed like that? There are rules for the transmission of information. There are rules for flow control, protocols with RFCs, and a basic set of standards. Worms don't infect us, we let them in. Spam is and will be a problem up until the authentication services are in place to filter out the cruft, and those are already being put in place. Laws may help alleviate it all, but they're unnatural and don't do anything to fix the vulnerabilities. The net is still primitive and survival of the fittest. Laws come much later.
    • It's probably going to be a while before federal laws come into play. It's going to take massive public outcry before congress does anything.

      In one party you have people that are being paid by corporations and marketing lobbies and are proud of it.
      In the other party you have people that say 'we hate big business' and 'we don't like rich people' while whispering to the same corporations and marketing lobbies 'slip the cash under the table in an unmarked envelope'

      And even if congress does get its act toget
  • The Maryland law applies to e-mail sent to or from Maryland residents, but it leaves vague the actual location of the resident - potentially affecting companies who send e-mail to people who live in Maryland, but who might receive the transmission elsewhere via laptop.

    Menhart set up a corporation in Maryland to fight spam and pays Maryland taxes, but he lives in Washington.

    The judge concluded that the law unconstitutionally attempts to regulate commerce that may never enter Maryland.

    So if the suadi pres

    • But whose punishment applies? If it happens in Canada, then the worst the offender can get is life in prison. If it happenes in the US, then it depends on the state whether or not the offender is executed. The US can't dictate punishment for what happens outside its borders (diplomacy and bullying aside), similar to how Maryland can't dictate punishment for things outside its borders.

      A Maryland law stating that all murders ANYWHERE are punishable by flogging would be just as unconstitutional. Only with
    • What about someone standing in Delaware and shooting a gun that kills somebody across the state line in Maryland?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close