[Scspamcop] Re: Sorry: Spammer Walks Free as Virginia Anti-Spam Law Is Declared Unconstitutional

[rooster]

Neil wrote:
> http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Spammer_Walks_Free_as_Virginia_Anti_Spam_Law
> _Is_Declared_Unconstitutional_24293.html

Rather poorly written/researched article.

It only mentions by inference that the court heard or considered 
arguments concerning
Jayne's misrepresentations; which acts were an integral part of his 
operation and which
constituted fraud (i.e., felonies) according to legislation that existed 
before the State's
Anti-Spam Legislation came into effect. Arguments based on First 
Amendment Rights
vs. the metrics of the spamming are made to appear to be the crux of the 
appellant
case according to the article.

These argument might well be moot. The First Amendment does not afford 
protection
from prosecution when committing a crime. The way the article is 
written, this would
appear to be the case.

As reported in the WP, Wednesday, September 6, 2006, the Court of 
Appeals of Virginia
upheld Jayne's original conviction. In his written ruling, Judge James 
W. Haley Jr. opined
that the State's Anti-Spam Legislation, "prohibits trespassing on 
private computer networks
through intentional misrepresentation, an activity that merits no First 
Amendment protection."

More important than the arithmetic of what might be defined as a 
violation under the Anti-
Spam legislation is the issue of whether 'deliberate' misrepresentation 
constitutes
felonious fraud, or, as the piece implies, such ruses may be interpreted 
by the courts broadly to
merit the protection of the Right to Anonymity.

I'm not trying to give my own opinion of the ruling; ...just saying that 
the article missed
(what might be) the more salient point.
-- 
Happy trails,
rooster
boundary beach, bc