Prolific Spammer's Conviction Upheld

[lanlady]

Source: AP via physorg.com

(AP) -- A divided Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the nation's first felony conviction for illegal spamming on Friday, ruling that Virginia's anti-spamming law does not violate free-speech rights.

Jeremy Jaynes of Raleigh, N.C., considered among the world's top 10 spammers in 2003, was convicted of massive distribution of junk e-mail and sentenced to nine years in prison.

Almost all 50 states have anti-spamming laws. In the 4-3 ruling, the court rejected Jaynes' claim that the state law violates both the First Amendment and the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"This is a historic victory in the fight against online crime," state Attorney General Bob McDonnell said in a written statement. "Spam not only clogs e-mail inboxes and destroys productivity; it also defrauds citizens and threatens the online revolution that is so critical to Virginia's economic prosperity

Read more: http://www.physorg.com/news123516004.html

[Ian David]

1. Anyone have an email address for Mr. Jaynes? n/t

[liberalhistorian]

2. Good. I'm sick to death of that shit

clogging up my email and getting past my spam filter, and the same ones sent multiple times over and over and over ad nauseum. I hope the fucker's happy now.

[truthisfreedom]

3. I hope this scares the SNOT out of other spammers.

Everyone is sick to death of it.

[DeSwiss]

4. Well I'm pretty sure.....

- that all those "HOW TO INCREASE YOUR PENIS SIZE" ads he's sent me in the past will no doubt come in handy where he's going....

K&R!!!


on edit: spelling

[Turbineguy]

5. Maybe he can figure out

how to make millions from pink sheet stocks while he's in the cooler.

[DeSwiss]

6. LOL!!!

- Or, he can get a franchise and setup an http://www.meet-an-inmate.com/">inmate dating and marriage service website...

[Tom Joad]

7. I promise to use part of my money from a former Nigerian political leader to put a stop

to Spam, as soon as the transaction is complete. It's just terrible.
And some people fall for that stuff too.

[FloridaJudy]

10. Me too.

I'll use the money from the fifty or so lotteries I've won over the past week.

Odd, since I've never bought a ticket...

[Recursion]

8. Sadly, Congress already hamstrung the states

the CAN-SPAM (or, as we called it, the "Yes, you CAN SPAM") act essentially guaranteed this will get thrown out by the Court of Appeals.

[sasquatch]

9. Virginia

:eyes:

[Festivito]

11. When your right curbs my right, your right is jeopardized.

The redundant emailing as free speech reduces my ability to obtain and distribute my free speech.

He's not alone in this country. It's we the people.

You lose your right when practice of that right takes away the right of another.

[MaryCeleste]

12. His rights to send email end where he quits paying...

Its both legal and ethical to refuse transit to spam.

[Festivito]

13. Paying? Okay, I'm confused.

And, if it's okay to not transmit spam, how or who decides what is or is not spam. That gets dangerous.

I guess your post has nothing to do with my post. I say his right ends where he steps on another persons right. Not some point of payment.

[MaryCeleste]

14. No his right to send it ends where his payment for it stops, everything after that is a courtesy

First and foremost, the Internet is a bunch of private networks cooperating. That means no network has to accept traffic from another network. Email does not have the protected status of regular mail, there is nothing that says the email must go through, and no one has a "right" to have his email go across my network unless he is paying for it. Its a courtesy and nothing more. This is well established in both law and in practice among system administrators.

If I am the ISP with a spammer, he is paying me to send his messages from my server or netspace. However, no one has to accept messages from my server or netspace. It happens all the time.

There is a small but dedicated community that tracks spamming. Part of it are more controversial than others. There are numerous Block Lists/BLack List out there. Some more trusted than others. Make no mistake all the big ISP block at some level, and its both legal and preferred practice. The entire issue is permission and confirmed opt in. If you don't have it, its SPAM. There is a lot of history and data behind all of this. I recommend starting with Spamhaus.org and doing some reading.

To bring this back to politics, Obama's campaign has been accused of spamming, and apparently correctly so. Its coming out of "Bluestatedigital.com" and is clearly not being managed professionally. That said, I don't think anybody has changed their vote. Check out the thread "Obama Spams?" in news.admin.net-abuse.email (Usenet, accessible via Google Groups)

[Festivito]

15. Thank you.

I think the lawsuit argues free speech as a right that supersedes payment and IP courtesy. My argument is that his argument of right lacks merit on its face, regardless of payment or courtesy.

Additionally to the idea I posed is your revelation that the internet standard accepts passage of email as a courtesy. Perhaps if voters are separated on either side of both a liberal host and a conservative host they'll end up receiving no political emails -- since courtesy need not be limited only to spam.

Perhaps not a bad thing, though.

Be well MaryCeleste, welcome and enjoy DU.