Comments on: First felony spam conviction affirmed by Virginia Supreme Court http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20080229/5104/ Technology, music, video, art, news, reviews and muse on the web Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:27:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Sterling Camden http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20080229/5104/#comment-728600 Sterling Camden Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:57:48 +0000 http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20080229/5104/#comment-728600 At first, the Libertarian in me is always cautious of any limitations placed on free speech. But his freedom of speech was not abridged. He could have posted his "content" on the web instead of invading people's inboxes. We all have a right to say what we want, but we don't have a right to post it on other people's property. That principle should apply to email and blog comments. At first, the Libertarian in me is always cautious of any limitations placed on free speech. But his freedom of speech was not abridged. He could have posted his “content” on the web instead of invading people’s inboxes. We all have a right to say what we want, but we don’t have a right to post it on other people’s property. That principle should apply to email and blog comments.

]]> By: thaman http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20080229/5104/#comment-728578 thaman Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:31:46 +0000 http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20080229/5104/#comment-728578 I think its ridiculous. Fine the guy a lot of money, thats fine, but giving him 9 years in prison? Rapists don't even get locked up for that long. Society is screwed up, on the one hand you got violent crimes that get almost no punishment, but when you touch a large corporation's wallet, you get life. I think its ridiculous. Fine the guy a lot of money, thats fine, but giving him 9 years in prison? Rapists don’t even get locked up for that long. Society is screwed up, on the one hand you got violent crimes that get almost no punishment, but when you touch a large corporation’s wallet, you get life.

]]> By: Andrew Ferguson http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20080229/5104/#comment-726805 Andrew Ferguson Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:35:13 +0000 http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20080229/5104/#comment-726805 IANAL, but I am taking Constitutional Law and Civil Rights this semester. We've looked at several freedom of speech issues and while I haven't read the ruling that was recently passed down, but I think there is clear precedent for this ruling. On several occasions, the Supreme Court has restricted free speech as with very narrowly tailored; we _are_ dealing with restrictions to a constitutional right. When free speech is restricted, it's usually a time, place, manner (TPM) regulation. In this case, I'm guessing that the courts objected to the manner of the speech. You may be interested in reading the abstracts on Hill v. Colorado (530 US 703) and/or Frisby v. Schultz (487 US 474). They're mostly related to picketing, but I think there is still applicable precedent in the rulings. So yes, I do agree that mass unsolicited spamming should be at least illegal. I'm not sold on the felony part yet though (mostly because I haven't don't a lot of research). IANAL, but I am taking Constitutional Law and Civil Rights this semester. We’ve looked at several freedom of speech issues and while I haven’t read the ruling that was recently passed down, but I think there is clear precedent for this ruling. On several occasions, the Supreme Court has restricted free speech as with very narrowly tailored; we _are_ dealing with restrictions to a constitutional right. When free speech is restricted, it’s usually a time, place, manner (TPM) regulation. In this case, I’m guessing that the courts objected to the manner of the speech.

You may be interested in reading the abstracts on Hill v. Colorado (530 US 703) and/or Frisby v. Schultz (487 US 474). They’re mostly related to picketing, but I think there is still applicable precedent in the rulings.

So yes, I do agree that mass unsolicited spamming should be at least illegal. I’m not sold on the felony part yet though (mostly because I haven’t don’t a lot of research).

]]>