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
• 
Indeed; but the law as it stands could tecnically see your local politician going to jail for nine months.
Well, if the local politician was trying to defraud people and choke out their e-mail boxes, then I have no problem with that. But if he was delivering messages of political content and was being prosecuted, then that is a case that merits the law being overturned.
PAD
I agree with the legal theory that places telemarketing, spam (screw the Vikings, I don’t like spam!!!), and the like differently than other forms of speech. But I don’t think the analogy of a blaring car stereo goes far enough. I believe a better analogy would be a door-to-door salesman who literally shoves his way through your front door. Your phone and your PC are your property, after all.
I believe the best legal basis for combating spam is not its content (although I’m not a fan of that content) but the costs to consumers in terms of slower Internet speeds and higher bandwidth costs. The First Amendment guarantees me the right to free speech, but it doesn’t obligate someone else to give me a platform on their dime.
I see your points and definitely anytime we’re dealing with First Amendment issues/laws, we must always review these situations carefully because we don’t want to set the wrong precedent, such as prosecuting someone for legitimately expressing political or religious beliefs via the internet.
That being said, even with the First Amendment, there are still reasonable limitations. As you mentioned, slander, false advertising or screaming fire in a crowded place where there isn’t a fire. I think this case falls in line with those cases simply because this guy’s actions were deceitful and harmful (though not physically). He sold a bogus product and the malicious (based on my understanding of this post) attempt was to bombard people’s email boxes.
Granted that it probably wouldn’t hurt if the laws were better clarified for future cases but as it stands now, I think the courts are well within their rights to prosecute Jayne.
Oh and look, my spam box is full….again..
The problem is that current jurisprudence has interpreted the laws to afford greater protection for corporations, and less protection for individuals. This is why you see Exxon getting out of having to pay anything for the Valdez spill, but single mothers and college students are getting whacked by the RIAA. (Which, incidentally, has shockingly been found to have turned the grand sum of zero over to musicians whose music it’s sued to protect.)
Not that this spammer was unjustly punished. He deserved what he got.
Just wanted to make that clear.
“But I don’t think the analogy of a blaring car stereo goes far enough. I believe a better analogy would be a door-to-door salesman who literally shoves his way through your front door”
I’m not sure that is a good analogy, though. The salesman you mentioned is committing clear crimes, but those crimes have nothing to do with the fact that he is selling something. A crazy person who shoves his way into your house without saying a word would be arrested on the exact same charges as the salesman. Both the crazy person and the salesman are doing something that is physically threatening. That doesn’t really apply to spamming at all. Spamming is just an annoyance, the same as loud music blasting next door.
I think PAD is right, the law is screwy, but this ruling doesn’t really deal with the screwy-ness. If someone actually had a real product and sold it through mass e-mails at a reasonable price, the annoyance would be the same but the speech wouldn’t be misleading. Spam laws really need to be written along the lines of nuisance laws, not on general principles of not being allowed to speak.
Today, screaming fire in a crowded theater probably wouldn’t cause a stampede like it used to in the past, for 2 reasons. There have been so many fire escape training sessions for people for so many years that many people would no automatically start running in panic as they might have 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. The theaters are also nowhere as near as dangerous as they were 50 to 100 years ago. They were often built of wood, decorated with curtains, and lighted with kerosene torches. When there was a fire, it spread quickly, and if you didn’t get out in a minute or two, you might not get out.
Maybe shouting fire in a crowded place is not the same offense as it used to be.
First, the key issue with spamming, as Peter said, is the fraud. Spam is sent via false e-mail addresses, to avoid filters, therefore is fraudulent. Send the bášŧárd to jail.
And to the previous poster, who touts improvements in the non-flammability of movie theaters, remember, it is OK to yell “fire” in a crowded movie house if there is actually a fire, because, yes, people need to get out.
“Spamming is just an annoyance, the same as loud music blasting next door.”
The loud music next door is coming from someone else’s property. Spam takes up space on your hard drive — which is your property. That’s where I see the similarity. But I’d be the first to admit I’m neither a lawyer nor a legal scholar.
Re: Exxon
The Exxon Valdez case is currently before the Supreme Court. A ruling is expected Monday. It has been 19 years since the major oil spill in Alaska. The fishing industry in that area was all but destroyed by that spill. Th punitive damages that were assessed are what is at argument before the Supreme Court. Exxon obviously doesn’t want to pay the punitive damages. The damages are supposed to go to the people whose livelihoods were destroyed
by the spill.
According to the numbers I heard, the amount assessed would be equal to $75,000 for every person affected by the spill. Exxon wants it reduced to $30,000 per person. If the fishing industry had only been affected for one year, an argument could be made that $30,000 would be sufficient. But the industry was affected for quite a long time, and some argue that it is still not back to where it was. $75,000 divided by 19 years is less than $4000 a year.
Clinky said:
“Send the bášŧárd to jail.”
—
That’s not right.
You don’t know if his parents were married when he was born. 😉
About a month ago, I get a text message on my cel, informing the sender had gotten my number from a mutual friend. “Go to (website), look for me under (name).” Afetr logging in, being forced to open an account see who the person was, I find myself at a singles/friends/intimacy site. I can’t find a way to unsubscribe, so now I’m getting nailed with offers to meet hot singles.
I put a very terse message on my profile telling people not to bother. I still get hit with messages, much to my wifes annoyance/amusement. (depends on how the baby is behaving today).
Finally, today, I find a way to get to their customer support, and send of an e-mail telling them to cancel my account. Ten minutes later, guess what? More messages.
This guy got what he deserved, and he deserved it the minute he used false ID’s to send out his junk. Be honest about who you are and what you’re selling, don’t attach any viruses, and we’re good. Otherwise, let the hammer fall.
Manny, don’t bother contacting the text-spammers. They don’t give a šhìŧ. Contact your cell phone provider to see if these people can be blocked. If not, contact the government agency that regulates telephony in your state (in New York it’s the Public Service Commission, but I don’t know whether it’s the same in all states).
As an aside, several years ago I was calling into small- to mid-size accounts trying to get appointments for a major manufacturer of photocopiers. When asked whether they were making a sales call, some of my less scrupulous colleagues would say “no.” I on the other hand would say, “yes.”
I would then politely explain the value of upgrading to the latest digital copiers, very quickly mention an upgrade program designed to make it affordable, and ask if the prospect had a few moments to discuss. I got fewer leads, but a much higher percentage of mine panned out. Go figure.
How about a neighbor blaring protest songs with political messages at maximum high volume at 2AM? Should that be protected under the first amendment?
“The loud music next door is coming from someone else’s property. Spam takes up space on your hard drive — which is your property. That’s where I see the similarity.”
That’s a point of extreme semantics. I could easily follow up by saying the the *sound* is in your house, the same as the spam is in your hard drive.
But the main point I was trying to make is that someone forcing himself into your house is a physically threatening act in a way that spam is not. I’m okay with saying that spam is bad and should be illegal to some degree, but I’m a little leery of exaggerating the damage by comparing it to more severe crimes.
“How about a neighbor blaring protest songs with political messages at maximum high volume at 2AM? Should that be protected under the first amendment?”
Not according to the SCOTUS. While I would be hard-pressed to cite the exact ruling wherein the precedent was established, the courts allow “time, place, and manner restrictions” on speech. Simply put, the government may regulate when, were, and how you speak, as long as those regulations are narrowly defined enough so as not to completely suppress or place an undue burden on speech.
To use a hypothetical example, the government may not forbid you to march down a public sidewalk in the middle of downtown while peacefully handing out leaflets advocating that we “nuke the whales.” The government can, however, tell you that you may not walk down a residential neighborhood at 2 am screaming that message at the top of your lungs.
“How about a neighbor blaring protest songs with political messages at maximum high volume at 2AM? Should that be protected under the first amendment?”
No. The constitution protects your right to express your opinions, not the way in which you express them.
Telling a friend that you dislike the President’s policies? Protected speech.
Carving your disapproval of the President’s policies into someone’s forehead with a knife? The speech is still protected, but you will go to jail for the head carving.
The neighbor in your example would run into trouble with the law for the volume of his music, not the content of it.
“No. The constitution protects your right to express your opinions, not the way in which you express them.”
Actually, that’s incorrect. The First Amendment explicitly states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” If you interpret the wording literally, the Congress has no authority to regulate speech in any way. That’s why First Amendment absolutists, like the late SCOTUS justice Hugo L. Black, maintain that libel laws are unconstitutional. On the flip side, Black maintained that the First Amendment protected exactly what it said it protected: “speech,” and “the press.” Flag-burning, in his view, falls outside of its protections because it is an act and not “speech.”
“The neighbor in your example would run into trouble with the law for the volume of his music, not the content of it.”
Yes, but if your neighbor were spreading lies about you at a reasonable hour and at a resonable volume, he or she could still get in trouble for the content of that speech. Most First Amendment advocates, myself included, recognize that no right can be absolute. But restrictions on free speech must be narrowly and precisely defined so as to avoid even the slightest risk of suppressing ideas.
Talk about “spam in a can” 🙂
“That’s a point of extreme semantics. I could easily follow up by saying the the *sound* is in your house, the same as the spam is in your hard drive.”
Your interest in arguing the point appears to have exceeded mine. It was merely a thought, and one I’ve already acknowledged was based on a too-scant understanding of relevant legislation and court precedents.
Oh, in case my earlier point was unclear: the First Amendment, when interpreted literally, allows for no exceptions. Those exceptions come not from the Constitution but from legislation and case law that recognize certain exceptions as being necessary. I believe it was Albert Camus who observed that, “There is no freedom without justice and no justice without freedom.”
Considering the advances in thought and technology over the past 200+ years, does anyone else here think perhaps it’s time for the First Amendment to itself be amended? Or at least made a bit more specific?
If so, what do you think it ought to encompass?
I get lots of fraudulent emails along the lines of “your account is in danger, please use the attached link to re-enter your information.” (These often appear to come from eBay and Citibank.) I don’t know if this would be considered spam (since it’s certainly unsolicited by me) or fraud (since it’s sent by people who aren’t with those companies and are after personal information), but I’d be thrilled to see them prosecuted — and hate to see them try and hide behind the first Amendment.
“I don’t know if this would be considered spam…”
It’s generally called phishing,” and most definitely falls under the category of fraud. I’m not a First Amendment scholar, but from what I do know I am confident that phishing enjoys *no* First Amendment protections.
Queen Anthai: “Considering the advances in thought and technology over the past 200+ years, does anyone else here think perhaps it’s time for the First Amendment to itself be amended? Or at least made a bit more specific?”
I don’t see how new technology would necessitate altering the First Amendment. Speech is speech, whether it is conveyed by someone standing at a podium, printing a newspaper, or sending e-mails.
Besides, amending the U.S. Constitution requires ratification by legislatures of three-fourths of the states. And just because an amendment is proposed doesn’t obligate state legislatures to actually vote on it. That’s a lot slower than the rate of technological change.
I believe tinkering with the First Amendment is dangerous, because of the temptation to slip in exceptions. I think it works just as well today as it did when it was first written, as long as it is interpreted properly.
> Spamming is just an annoyance, the same as loud music blasting next door.
Hardly. I go on trips overseas which easily last up to a month. I have better things to do with my time than to get on the Internet to check mail. I usually travel to ‘get away from it all’, after all. So, what happens when I get back home and learn that I’ve had important messages get turned away because my electronic mailbox is full thanks to spam? More than a mere ‘annoyance’.
>How about a neighbor blaring protest songs with political messages at maximum high volume at 2AM? Should that be protected under the first amendment?
It falls under a city’s anti-noise ordinance. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Bill, speech IS speech. On the other hand, to reach a vast number of people when the First Ammendment was written involved a heck of a lot more effort than it did, say, thirty years ago. Get someone then with too much time on their hands and a phone, life can be made pretty miserable. Now, look at the advances that have been made in the last 15 years. My ex-girlfriend had a cell phone. She had to use two hands to use it, and all I wanted was my own phone line in my room. Now, my wife and I each have our own cell phone numbers, I can send her text messages while either typing or driving(not that I ever do that) and I can also go bowling on my phone. Unfortunately, legislating often doesn’t stay up to date with technology.
So people should be held to illegal laws if they’re guilty of something else? Brrr.
Sean: “Unfortunately, legislating often doesn’t stay up to date with technology.”
Yeah, but we’re not talking about altering just any legislation. Queen Anthai asked whether the First Amendment itself needed to be updated. I don’t believe it does. It remained relevant in its original form through the birth of radio, movies, T.V. vinyl records, CDs, and the Internet. I believe it is worded correctly to remain relevant for the foreseeable future.
I guess I’m not seeing how or why we should amend the First Amendment to regulate Internet speech, cell phone calls, or whatever.
“So, what happens when I get back home and learn that I’ve had important messages get turned away because my electronic mailbox is full thanks to spam?”
Easy! You switch to gmail. The spam filter is excellent, and six gigs should be enough space to hold anything that sneaks through. 😉
Justice Elizabeth Lacy: “[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.”
Peter David: 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.
Luigi Novi: Could it be amended to be more narrow? Is there a way to keep the law so that it applies solely to things pertaining to Nigerian bank scams, unsolicited pørņ links, and offers to lengthen certain portions of my anatomy that I’m quite okay with?
For those of you want to read the entire story from the equine piehole: http://www.physorg.com/news123516004.html
Alan Coil: Maybe shouting fire in a crowded place is not the same offense as it used to be.
Luigi Novi: Well it’s not an offense at all if there really is a fire. 🙂
Could it be amended to be more narrow? Is there a way to keep the law so that it applies solely to things pertaining to Nigerian bank scams, unsolicited pørņ links, and offers to lengthen certain portions of my anatomy that I’m quite okay with?
I’m not lawyer, but I don’t think it can be amended. I think it would have to be thrown out and then rewritten.
PAD
So people should be held to illegal laws if they’re guilty of something else? Brrr.
What’s sad is that I read the posting before I read who wrote it and thought, “What a dìçk,” and then read the name attached and thought, “Oh, well, okay…figures.”
I didn’t create the way challenges to laws work. This law was written specifically to nail the types of abusers that this guy is and represents. So he’s the wrong person, and this is the wrong case, with which to challenge it. The way you challenge and get rid of such a law is with a case that demonstrates the law is so overbroad that it is catching up the type of speech and type of situation it obviously was NOT intended to include.
Which I suspect you may even know, but your mentality is such that you just have to come up with new things to say to attack me, no matter how stupid they may be.
PAD
My take on the comment “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” is based primarily on the term “anonymous”. If I receive 10,000, 100, or even 1 spam e-mail from an anonymous sender — if the burden of getting myself removed from their e-mail list falls on *my* shoulders, how am I supposed to go about doing that if I don’t know who to contact?
This question is based upon the faulty premise that the burden of removing myself (or “opting-out”) from such a list should be my responsibility in the first place. “Legitimate” mail-senders can ignore such requests with impunity, while the far-less-scrupulous types will merely view such attempts as confirmation that the address is “live” and simply package it with other similar addresses and sell it to their buddies.
The *entirety* of the burden of list-management should fall on the sender of those e-mails, using a method of verification called “double opt-in”, in which the sender sends an initial e-mail to a list of addresses not yet in their subscriber database, asking them to confirm their interest. The only addresses that should then be added to their “permanent” list are those from which the recipients replied confirming their interest in receving such e-mail. In other words, if you don’t want on the list, just ignore the introductory mail, and the rest will never follow.
As for the Constitutinality of such e-mail, even from “legit” senders — I see little difference between unsolicited spam and a person walking up to my house and shouting a message into a window two or three random times a day, for days on end, or hanging advertisements or literature on my front door. At least I can put a sign on my door asking people not to do these things (which *is* effective, for the most part) — this is something I cannot do with my e-mail address.
Can you tell that I feel strongly about this issue? 🙂
Wildcat
>if the burden of getting myself removed from their e-mail list falls on *my* shoulders, how am I supposed to go about doing that if I don’t know who to contact?
It gets worse. Much (most?) of the time, the links or addresses you’re told to use to get you removed from that mailing list merely serves to confirn yours is a valid address and then the spam artists know to really deluge you with their crap.
I suppose one could always do the electronic equivalent of what one guy did in Canada. Fed up with all the junk mail he was getting in his real mailbox, he took to collecting it all and, every couple of weeks, putting it in a plain brown envelope and mailing it [free of charge fortunately] to his Member of Parliament (equivalent to your Congresscritters). He then got his friends to do the same thing. After a while the elected bozo got the point. Maybe forwarding all suspected spam to their electronic mail addresses would help accomplish the same thing?
PAD is right to be wary of anything Mike writes, but it would be better if his response to “So people should be held to illegal laws if they’re guilty of something else? Brrr” addressed the statement, rather than the fact it is by Mike. In this case, Mike raises an important issue (whatever his intent in raising it). It is as wrong to punish the guilty as the innocent for violating an unconstitutional law. An unconstitutional law has no business being on the books just because the “right” people are penalized. That’s the point.
“That being the case, the law is out of line and should be overturned. Unfortunately, this case wasn’t the one to overturn it…” seems to leave nothing to interpretate other than “So people should be held to illegal laws if they’re guilty of something else?” If you’re going to blame me for your failings, I have no reservation against calling you on what is plainly observable in this thread.
You should start considering that you simply have a blind spot I have no problem observing, and that that doesn’t make me damaged goods, as you insist on portraying me. If we waited until we saw 360° no one would ever drive a car.
A pretense of invulnerability is not only wrong, it doesn’t seem to carry you in particular. For you, maintaining one seems to be a lose/no-win situation. What have you got to lose from dropping it?
You are contradicting yourself. You can’t validate and invalidate the minority dissent selectively as it serves your self-interest. You can have one or the other — not both.
In other words, you’ve reiterated your point without demonstrating how it’s incompatible with — nor providing an alternative to — what I’ve said.
I guess I’m not seeing how or why we should amend the First Amendment to regulate Internet speech, cell phone calls, or whatever.
Yeah, whatever the problems we have from near unfettered free speech they pale in significance to the potential disaster that tinkering with the first amendment could bring. Analogies to babies and bathwater, destroying villages in order to save them, and applying knives to ones own nose seem apropos.
I always thouht a way to end spam is to charge for email after a point.
Users would get a certain number of free emails per month (1000? 2000?) that would ensure basic free email for the majority. Over that, there could be a small charge of say .1 cents per. Large bussiness could easily absorb this cost, or even buy bulk email at a cheaper rate, as long as the source is known. Legitimate companies shouldn’t have a problem.
But spammers would then face costs that would make their mailings unprofitable.
Sending out a million free emails with the hope of a few responses might work. If it now cost you a few grand, the business model falls apart.
Gee, Jeff Frawley, who regularly finds fault with what I say, backs up Mike, who regularly finds fault with what I say. What were the odds?
Back to ignoring both now.
PAD
…as opposed to Peter David, who characterizes maybe 4 disagreements I’ve had with him over 24 months as “regularly finds fault with what I say.” Why, it’s practically an opera.
“It is as wrong to punish the guilty as the innocent for violating an unconstitutional law. An unconstitutional law has no business being on the books just because the “right” people are penalized. That’s the point.”
This is an oversimplification, and I think Mike at least knows the difference. It’s not a simple thing to declare a law unconstitutional. Observers can review the draft of a law and make the statement “the law is unconstitutional on it’s face,” but the executive is still the branch that enforces the law, and if the executive office only seeks to enforce the law selectively in cases that do not breach the Constitution, then the SCOTUS will never have the chance to strike down the law, because AS APPLIED, it’s not a breach of Constitutional limits.
So, in this case, the law on it’s face appears that it could be applied to restrict protected speech, but in this particular application, does not because the actions addressed in this case are not in fact protected.
As for re-writing the law, I don’t know of anything that would prevent the legislature from doing so, but they’d probably screw things up more than if they just tried to write a new bill.
I always thouht a way to end spam is to charge for email after a point.
The system fails because most spam is sent out under fake addresses.
And, would you really want to keep your credit card on file for a Hotmail account? Because, that would be the end result: that *anybody* sending out an email would have to have it on file *just in case* you hit the limit where they have to start charging you.
> Users would get a certain number of free emails per month (1000? 2000?) … Over that, there could be a small charge of say .1 cents per.
Craig points out a valid problem with it but there’s another. Once one opens these sorts of doors, the industry is quick to start taking advantage. Want to bet that, at some point, someone won’t come up with an excuse to charge for ALL electronic mail? I look at the way user fees are piling up in banks and elsewhere and wouldn’t at all be surprised.
PAD, wouldn’t it be great if you could actually address people’s arguments, rather than counting on unthinking agreement? I would have thought you had enough self-confidence to respond something like this: “No, (insert name here), that’s where you’re wrong. This is the way it is, and here’s why.” I don’t like Mike, and if I met him I would probably dislike him even more – but he raised an issue that is important. Let me suggest another “bad law” which might make you think differently:
A. City A (call it “New York”) passes a law that “Jews are to be imprisoned on sight and sentencing guidelines are to be consistent with racketeering convictions.”
B. PAD is not, at this time, arrested or imprisoned – I am not certain of the reason.
C. Arthur Flegenheimer, who operates under the name “Dutch Schultz,” is subsequently arrested and thrown in prison, being in arrant violation of the anti-Hebrew statute.
D. Upon further investigation, PAD determines that Dutch Schultz is a really bad fellow – all that killing, and pimping, and gambling, you know. A long prison term seems quite a good idea – not disproportionate, or anything.
E. How should PAD feel about the anti-Hebrew statute? Does it seem like a good idea that Mr. Schultz is imprisoned for its violation, or would it be wise to challenge the law on its own demerits? (I’m leaning toward punishing people only for violations of legitimate statutes, rather than bad ones that happen to snare unsavory ones.)
I should be ignoring this, I should be ignoring this, I should be ignoring this…
Jeff…that’s idiotic. I mean, it’s monumentally idiotic.
The law that you posited isn’t overbroad. It’s very specific and unconstitutional right off the bat. It criminalizes being a Jew. It’s not remotely comparable to what I was discussing. Nor did I ever discuss whether someone is “a really bad fellow.” I said his ACTIONS are SPECIFICALLY what the law in question was designed to PREVENT, and it is a prevention that I have zero problem with because I don’t believe that fraudulent spam deserves First Amendment protection any more than any other criminal speech that is not protected.
And I don’t know why the hëll I’m even bothering to point this out to you, because I just expect it to bounce off the impenetrable wall of illogic that you customarily build when I or anyone makes the blunder of engaging you in a discussion.
This is just another case of you being willing to say anything in order to find some means of disagreeing with me. You’re just embarrassing yourself.
PAD
This law is like one of those laws that the CBLDF opposes, but instead of an honorable retailer being caught in the crosshairs, a pedophile has been snagged. Yes, the law worked, but its net is too broad… someone else needs to break the law just so that we can prove it, though.