Neowin.net

That original article is from 2006.

Oh yeah. So it was. I should have known that the wheels of justice turn slowly. Dates aside, the point was that this was an update to the previous case and more details might be found in that article.

If they have that right, you still have the right to hang up on them.

No. You have the right to Spam in Virginia, but you don't have the right to force anyone to receive your spam.

It's a right to free speech, not a right to force people to listen to you.

Exactly, free speech is about having the right to say what you want, NOT force people to hear you.

So, its okay to SPAM on your own website, publish it in a journal, or even write SPAM on your T-Shirt for the whole world to see. But sending emails (or calling in the case of telemarketing) is basically forcing people to hear you, and is logically not protected by the free speech. Sending people emails that they don't want to receive is a violation that should not be protected by "freedom of speech"!!

I'll go as far to say.. that this is a comment as stupid as the judge decision.

Judges, plural.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Supreme_Court
http://www.courts.state.va.us/scv/home.html

Anyone know their email addresses?

However, you can't exactly put a "No Solicitors" sign on your inbox's front lawn. With the current nature of email, anyone has a right to send anybody anything they want, pretty much, so long as it isn't an attack.

I don't feel very good about it, but I have to agree with the ruling. After all, it's really no different from running around and putting newsletters in people's mailboxes. While one is clearly more productive and useful than the other, they both share the same rights.

Sure you can. It's called a spam-blocker, and spammers work to get around them, which I would call an attack.

That doesn't even compare. A spam-blocker doesn't send a message out to spammers beforehand telling them your inbox is off limits. It's entirely client-side.

The only way that could possibly compare is if you put the "No Solicitors" sign in your kitchen and then complained because someone rang the doorbell.

Imagine this situation: Someone gets your phone number through unsolicited method. Starts calling you, and you tell them not to call you ever again... But they keep calling, so you block their number. So they get a new number, and call you, and you again tell them not to call, but they keep on doing so.

Does that not sound like Harassment?!

Thats exactly what SPAM does. They know you don't want their ads. Many actually have an "unsubscribe" that does not actually unsubscribe but rather is used to mark your email for even more spam. They send you emails from fake emails to overcome any filters you might have, and many other tricks to overcome blocking rules.

If anything, spammers should be charged with Harassment.

That only works if the same party is sending a bunch of the spam. If a thousand people send a thousand different types of spam two or three times, then they're each only guilty of sending two or three adverts, which in no way resembles harassment. You can't hold each individual responsible for the entire phenomena.

When collecting data for the article, I sourced that tidbit of knowledge from here: http://www.spamhaus.org/effective_filtering.html

*gives Fred a whole box of cookies for researching first* I wish everyone did that...

I'm not quite sure how you can define it as a crime in the first place if laws written in the real world don't apply.

>>This is the internet not real life. laws and human rights in reality don't apply to the actions on the internet. <<

(NOT a flame) Please help me understand your point. How is the internet not real life? Isn't the net the same as TV, Radio and print media? (again, not a flame, I simply wish to see your point of view)

Thanks,
James

In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth.
Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water.
And God said, "Let there be SPAM," and there was SPAM. Huge SHITlOADS of SPAM.
And God saw the SPAM that it was good, and God separated between the SPAM and between the darkness.
And God called the SPAM day, and the darkness He called night, and it was evening and it was morning, one day.
And even SPAM was sent during the night and God knew it was good. SPAM would engage everyone and SPAM would one day encompass all of the earth and erection pills would reign supreme and GOD would not have to bother with men ever again.

SPAM equals CRAP and you know it!!!
SPAM is forced upon us and we don't have to accept it for what it is.
I know I used genesis to "scare" you ,but this is how bad SPAM has become it's even worse than terrorism!
It's part of your lives!!! People don't accept that?, then why accept SPAM? Stop using Email?!? not the solution!
SPAMMERs need to stop!!

I'm sorry, but there is no way spam is worse than terrorism. If I had said that I would be embarased for myself, but hey, you feel whatever you wish.

Spam is only spam because the person receiving it does not want it. However, there are people who want the specific advert. Although I would quite agree that the percentage of viewers is VERY minor. If we are going to say that items forced on us, in this case email, are bad (= spam) then isn't tv, radio and print advertising sent to OUR tv, etc spam? (again, I am not trying to bait. Simply that I understand the judge's point. I agree that spam is annoying, but who am I to judge what others receive and view?

Again, shouldn't technology not laws find a solution for this? After all 9 years in jail for spam? A person who commits manslaughter is often only going to receive 7 years.

I completely agree that spam is annoying, but a law? Seems the wrong fix.

Thanks,
James

Ok, I can see the point that email is private... but how do you legally define harrasement? If I send you an email and you don't like it, can you sue me? Seems too vague.

If somebody posts their home address on, say, a town hall bulletin board--or their myspace profile and leave it public--do they deserve whatever crazy crap shows up in their mailbox from then on? I was pretty sure the consensus was that they do. People--especially the sort that hang around this site--generally appreciate stupidity for what it is, and are eager to consider publishing your personal street address stupid. We regularly mock people who put their phone numbers on blogs or profiles and then whine when crazy people start calling. Or when they advertise a 'small party' on facebook and suddenly hundreds of people crash it and destroy the house.

But when somebody is stupid enough to post their email address for all the world to see, suddenly they have the right to keep it private? That's a completely retarded double standard, and frankly it only exists because of the strong bias against spam. If anything, I think spam is justly deserved for anyone downright stupid enough not to realize what they put on the internet can be used for less than honorable purposes.

(Oh yes indeed. Honorable. The british can keep their U's and save them for the millions of foreign words they butcher out of a complete lack of respect for any language beyond their own english fetish. )

dude....you feeling ok?

Nope... got SPAM ?