Virginia Supreme Court Changes Its Mind: Anti-Spamming Law Is Unconstitutional
from the on-second-thought... dept
Well, here's a surprise. Just a few months ago, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the state's anti-spamming law was constitutional. The case involved Jeremy Jaynes, who was convicted under the law and sentenced to nine years in prison. He appealed, claiming that the law was unconstitutional. As we noted when the Va. Supreme Court ruling came down, there were some big questions raised by the split court in determining whether this really was a violation of free speech rights -- and Jaynes' lawyers convinced the court to rehear the case -- and, in a rather surprising move, the court has changed its mind.The court has ruled that the anti-spamming law is, in fact, unconstitutional, as it's a restriction on free speech. As we noted after the original ruling, it still seems like Jaynes could be brought up on charges of fraud, trespass, identity fraud, false advertising and many other charges, but for now, it appears that Virginia's anti-spam law has been judged to go too far.
Declan McCullagh has a good analysis of why this is probably the right decision, even if it's personally distasteful to let a spammer off.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: constitnutional, first amendment, free speech, jeremy jaynes, spam, virginia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Virginia is for lovers
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/virginia
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ articles/A10729-2005Jan14.html
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fun23.htm
... and that is not all ....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not to be a grammar nazi
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not to be a grammar nazi
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not to be a grammar nazi
You're being a typo nazi :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How did possible unconstitutional aspects affect the case?
I can't personally understand what this has to do with free speech; freedom of speech doesn't mean one gets to yell in my ear, or dump things in my inbox, or abuse networks. I'd say that unsolicited bulk emailing of the Federalist Papers would be spam as well, even if I might enjoy a free electronic copy of such. I don't think political or religious orgs should be able to email me, either, or have access to my email address in the first place. If I gave my consent, wittingly or not, at some point, then it is my own problem. Harvesting or random generation of email addresses is, however, complete BS.
I don't know, they may want to change the wording of the statute, but I don't see a whole lot that is wrong with it. I do have an open mind, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can you clarify? We tend to go with a pretty straightforward practice: we link to the operative descriptive phrase. Short links often go back to earlier posts to fill in background. Longer links are offsite to the main point of the story.
If it's still confusing, you can look at the status bar with your mouse over the link to know where the link goes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How did possible unconstitutional aspects affect the case?
Seems to me it depends on how its done. Since its most often done by simply spidering the web, I have a hard time seeing how collecting publicaly available information, posted on a public network, could be illegal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Virginia is for lovers
[ link to this | view in thread ]