Jailtime For Spammers... But Did They Use The Wrong Law?

from the harsh dept

Just a week ago we were talking about how the jury selection process in the felony case against some spammers was allowing spam recipients on the jury (how else would they ever be able to complete the jury selection). It looks like those folks are pretty damn fed up with the spam they receive, because they've found the spammers guilty and recommended nine years in prison be the punishment for the ringleader -- though, that's less than the 15 years the prosecution was hoping for. Of course, for all the talk about how this was an anti-spam case, that's not entirely true. The focus was less on the spamming and more on the scamming of what was in the email -- even if it was brought under Virgina's anti-spam law. It makes you wonder why they used the anti-spam law at all, rather than using more time-tested anti-fraud laws. In fact, the defendant, who insists he's "innocent" is vowing to challenge the conviction because he claims the anti-spam law violates his First Amendment rights (a claim that may be difficult to substantiate when he used his free speech ability to scam people). Still, if all the talk is about the scams, and not the spamming itself, it makes you wonder why they chose to prosecute under this particular law.