Luigi brought the following to my attention:
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 one of those strange situations where I find myself agreeing with both sides. For instance, one of the dissenting justices in the case wrote:
the law is “unconstitutionally overbroad on its face because it prohibits the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk e-mail including those containing political, religious or other speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Since I haven’t read the law, I will simply take her word for it. That being the case, the law is out of line and should be overturned. Unfortunately, this case wasn’t the one to overturn it.
Jaynes allegedly used aliases and false Internet addresses to bombard Web users with junk e-mails peddling sham products and services. The court’s majority said misleading commercial speech is not entitled to First Amendment protection.
Well…yeah. I don’t see how it possibly could be. If a store is charged with false advertising with the intention of bilking its customers, how can the store owner possibly seek defense behind the First Amendment? Just as the First Amendment doesn’t protect things you say about another person knowing that they’re falsehoods, I do not see how it can protect attempts to bilk people over the internet. To say nothing of slamming e-mail boxes with thousands of spams. It’s no different than a neighbor blasting his stereo at ear-splitting decibel levels at 2 in the morning in violation of local ordnances and then claiming he has a First Amendment right to do so.
There may well be grounds for challenges to anti-spamming laws, but I don’t see this case as offering them.
PAD
• 
Recent Comments