ACLU, Anti-Spam Laws, and the First Amendment
In an article published by the Technology Liberation Front, Cato Institute adjunct scholar Tim Lee dissects a recent argument by the American Civil Liberties Union regarding free speech & anti-spam laws.
It's been interesting to watch the ACLU wrestle with anti-spam legislation. Their entire purpose is to work through the legal system to protect our civil rights, as defined in the First Amendment -- which is why I've been a card-carrying member since before I was old enough to vote -- so of course they're going to push back against any perceived abridgment of the right to free speech, including anonymous speech. Yet as Tim Lee argues, the amount of speech afforded to spammers before they run afoul of the Virginia statue is enormous: "someone may (a) send out an unlimited number of emails using a real email address, (b) send out 9999 emails per day (99,999 per month, 999,999 per year) while falsifying email headers, or (c) send out an unlimited number of emails with falsified addresses to people who have previously consented to receive them."
In order to violate this Virginia statute, you have to be very bad. In order to violate CAN-SPAM & get even more federal attention, you have to be even worse. Anyone with a real need for free, anonymous speech will have a myriad of other, simpler, and very likely cheaper avenues available to them -- including, unfortunately, sending 9999 forged, unsolicited emails each & every day.
It's been interesting to watch the ACLU wrestle with anti-spam legislation. Their entire purpose is to work through the legal system to protect our civil rights, as defined in the First Amendment -- which is why I've been a card-carrying member since before I was old enough to vote -- so of course they're going to push back against any perceived abridgment of the right to free speech, including anonymous speech. Yet as Tim Lee argues, the amount of speech afforded to spammers before they run afoul of the Virginia statue is enormous: "someone may (a) send out an unlimited number of emails using a real email address, (b) send out 9999 emails per day (99,999 per month, 999,999 per year) while falsifying email headers, or (c) send out an unlimited number of emails with falsified addresses to people who have previously consented to receive them."
In order to violate this Virginia statute, you have to be very bad. In order to violate CAN-SPAM & get even more federal attention, you have to be even worse. Anyone with a real need for free, anonymous speech will have a myriad of other, simpler, and very likely cheaper avenues available to them -- including, unfortunately, sending 9999 forged, unsolicited emails each & every day.
< US Senate Approves Bill to Dramatically Improve Cyber-Crime Laws | CAUCE Executive Director Neil Schwartzman interviewed by CBC Radio >
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
The first Amendment Applies to Newspapers Magazines and Public Speach NOT MY MAILBOX OR MY LIVINGROOM ITS FREE SPEACH NOT FREE EMAIL NOT FREE HARASSMENT. WHERE IS MY FREEDOM OF PRIVACY WHEN THESE SPAMMERS ARE GIVING MY PERSONAL INFORMATION TO CRIMINAL THAT DEAL IN IDENTITY THEFT. ON A DAILY BASIS I GET OVER 300 SPAM MESSAGES WEEKLY WE'RE TALKING THOUSANDS OF SPAM EMAILS. I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DELETE MY EMAIL ADDRESS WHEN SOME SURVEY COMPANY DECIDES TO SELL MY PERSONAL INFORMATON TO CRIMINAL OVERSEAS WHERE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN TOUCH THEM. HOW MANY OF YOU GET EMAILS ON WINNING THE LOTTO OR SOME BANK IN NIGERIA WANTS TO GIVE YOU MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BECAUSE SOME STRANGER DIED. I DON'T APPRECIATE LOOKING AT STRANGE PEOPLE'S GENITALS NOR DO I NEED DRUGS FROM SOME CANADIAN DRUG COMPANY OR SOME ILLEGAL DRUGS FROM SINGAPORE. I'M SICK AND TIRED OF REPORTING THIS SHIT AND NO ONE HAS DONE A DAMN THING ABOUT IT. WHY ARE YOU EVEN WORKING IF YOU ARE NOT DOING YOUR JOB ELIMINATING THIS ILLEGAL SPAMMING.
Thanks for the passionate comment, Tony. We absolutely agree, and we're angry about spam too.
I'm not sure who you're referring to in the last sentence, though. CAUCE is not a law enforcement agency, and we have no control over your inbox. All we can do is attempt to educate users, legislators, ISPs, and anyone else who'll listen -- which we've been doing for more than a decade. That's our job, and we're doing it as volunteers -- nobody gets paid.
So, while I absolutely understand and share your anger, I might humbly suggest that you direct it at the spammers instead.
I'm not sure who you're referring to in the last sentence, though. CAUCE is not a law enforcement agency, and we have no control over your inbox. All we can do is attempt to educate users, legislators, ISPs, and anyone else who'll listen -- which we've been doing for more than a decade. That's our job, and we're doing it as volunteers -- nobody gets paid.
So, while I absolutely understand and share your anger, I might humbly suggest that you direct it at the spammers instead.
