stevek1949
We're not in Kansas anymore
join:2002-11-13
Virginia Beach, VA |  Interesting
I reported this to BBR yesterday as the news was breaking via their on-site form. Guess I was too early! |
|
Mactron
el camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
| said by stevek1949  :I reported this to BBR yesterday as the news was breaking via their on-site form. Guess I was too early! Seems they have been a bit slow on the uptake as of late. Particularity on the weekends... 
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well.  |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Southwest
| "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted"
should have been the headline if you were intellectually consistent.
When it comes to the 4th amendment you are hard, hard over on "the courts MUST approve ANY police or national security investigation -- MY RIGHT TO PRIVACY trumps ALL criminal or terrorist investigation activity".
Now, when it's the 1st amendment vs SPAM, suddenly you don't think the Consitution is so important.
Hypocrites. You just have an agenda and you will cover yourself in whatever argument suits your purpose. |
|
TheKnossos
join:2003-05-14
Fort Worth, TX
 ·Charter Pipeline
| reply to Mactron
Re: Interesting
said by Mactron :said by stevek1949 :I reported this to BBR yesterday as the news was breaking via their on-site form. Guess I was too early! Seems they have been a bit slow on the uptake as of late. Particularity on the weekends... Maybe they're being spammed? |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit |  It didn't give a right to send COMMERCIAL spam
If you are spamming a political viewpoint; a religious viewpoint; or your just plain old own nutty ideas it is protected as ruled.
The Va law got in trouble because it banned ALL spamming and not just commercial spam. If they had stuck to the same rules as the Can Spam act and other acts, the guy would have been convicted as the judge said.
He also would have been guilty under Can Spam, except he committed his offenses BEFORE those laws were passed.
Justice G. Steven Agee, who has since moved to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, wrote the unanimous opinion for the court. "The right to engage in anonymous speech, particularly anonymous political or religious speech, is 'an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,' " Agee wrote, citing a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case.
The court determined that the law does not limit its restrictions on spam to commercial or fraudulent e-mail or to such unprotected speech as obscenity or defamation. Many other states and the federal government drafted anti-spam laws after Virginia, but often specifically restricted the regulations to commercial e-mails, the court found. The ruling affects only the Virginia statute. So, I guess I can still send out thousands of unsolicited emails(as long as I don't forge my email addr) calling Obama a disaster for the US and that McCain can save the world and not break the law
But I could then lose my broadband account because sending mass emails is against my TOS.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | reply to MyDogHsFleas
Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted"
Free speech doesn't extend to private property, and my computer is my private property. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| said by MrMoody :Free speech doesn't extend to private property, and my computer is my private property. You're simply making my point for me. You have an agenda and you will interpret the Constitution as it upholds your agenda. If you were consistent you'd be happy anytime the courts knock down the prosecution on Consitutional grounds.
I don't ever want to hear you say "The Constitution is being trampled!" again because you are trampling it right now with your anti-free-speech statement. |
|
hescominsoon
join:2003-02-18
Brunswick, MD
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: It didn't gave a right to send COMMERCIAL spam
said by TKJunkMail :If you are spamming a political viewpoint; a religious viewpoint; or your just plain old own nutty ideas it is protected as ruled. The Va law got in trouble because it banned ALL spamming and not just commercial spam. If they had stuck to the same rules as the Can Spam act and other acts, the guy would have been convicted as the judge said. He also would have been guilty under Can Spam, except he committed his offenses BEFORE those laws were passed. Justice G. Steven Agee, who has since moved to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, wrote the unanimous opinion for the court. "The right to engage in anonymous speech, particularly anonymous political or religious speech, is 'an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,' " Agee wrote, citing a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case.
The court determined that the law does not limit its restrictions on spam to commercial or fraudulent e-mail or to such unprotected speech as obscenity or defamation. Many other states and the federal government drafted anti-spam laws after Virginia, but often specifically restricted the regulations to commercial e-mails, the court found. The ruling affects only the Virginia statute. So, I guess I can still send out thousands of unsolicited emails(as long as I don't forge my email addr) calling Obama a disaster for the US and that McCain can save the world and not break the law But I could then lose my broadband account because sending mass emails is against my TOS. Of course Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that no state shall pass any ex post facto law; Article I, section 9, clause 3 imposes the same prohibition upon the federal government. I have the text of the constitution here.
»www.hescominsoon.com/archives/794 |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA | reply to stevek1949
Re: Interesting
Ah, so this is about you, and not about spam? |
|
JSY
Premium
join:2000-04-05
Elmhurst, NY
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Bway.net
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted"
Since when is free speech protected if it can harm others? This is the same "you can't scream FIRE in a movie theatre" argument. I don't necessarily disagree with what you're trying to say here, but you're not being consistent yourself if you're comparing potential harmful free speech vs. harmless free speech.
Yeah, you can say what is harmful may be subjective, but I think there is little doubt that spam causes stress on infrastructure in which a bunch of money is invested in fighting each year. I know my company does. |
|
stevek1949
We're not in Kansas anymore
join:2002-11-13
Virginia Beach, VA
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Steve
Re: Interesting
said by Steve :Ah, so this is about you, and not about spam? Nope, not me. If I wasn't interested in it I wouldn't have reported it as soon as the news was announced. Now I am wondering if reporting "news" is even beneficial to readers like you. |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA | News itself is quite beneficial.
Making it about yourself, not so much. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to JSY
Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted"
said by JSY :Since when is free speech protected if it can harm others? ... So I take it you DISAGREE with the Court's decision that at least some spam is Constitutionally protected free speech?
I am simply pointing out that this site applies Constitutional arguments selectively as it suits their agenda -- and that pretending that you are defending the Constitution against the oncoming police state via the courts on "warrantless wiretapping" is hypocritical unless you AGREE with this Court decision. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
1 edit | Wrong
I should have a right to not have MY services that I pay for used for commercial gain by others. If Jaynes wants to speak he's free to, just not using MY services. Same should go for faxing where they jokers use MY machines, MY toner, MY paper for their speech. All of it should be illegal.
If they want to advertise, let them use direct mail or some other service what the spammer's expense.
These justices need to pull their heads out of their ass. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to stevek1949
Re: Interesting
I submit news items that don't pass muster all the time. If it's interesting they get to it when they can get to it and if someone submitted it before you they get the credit. |
|
rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA | reply to hescominsoon
Re: It didn't gave a right to send COMMERCIAL spam
not the issue here!!! |
|
rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA | reply to Dogfather
Re: Wrong
"I support the constitution as long as it doesn't inconvenience ME." |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
Re: "Constitution Upheld by Courts - Police State Averted"
You can't even begin to compare commercial solicitation using the private property of others without permission or compensation to wiretapping.
This is just more of the same courts making up Constitiutional rights that don't exist. Now these spammers have a Constitutional right to use my hardware and services to advertise to me. |
|
JSY
Premium
join:2000-04-05
Elmhurst, NY
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Bway.net
1 edit | reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas :So I take it you DISAGREE with the Court's decision that at least some spam is Constitutionally protected free speech? If you can find me spam that does not potentially harm others, then absolutely I think that that form of spam is Constitutionally protected.
Personally, I think the Constitution is constantly misinterpreted and twisted by people based on their agenda (the issue of "privacy" being amongst the biggest ones) and this place is no different - which is why I said I didn't necessarily disagree with you but if I'm to look at consistency from the courts that have ruled that some forms of free speech that are harmful is not protected - I have to believe that spam falls in that category. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
3 edits | reply to rdmiller
Re: Wrong
Wrong. I support the Constitution so long as one person's rights don't infringe on those of another's.
There is no Constitutional right for spammers to use the private resources of another. These justices make up shit as they go.
Hopefully the Supreme Court can see the difference between speech rights and property rights just as they did when the Do Not Call law was upheld when they sided with the Denver appeals court which affirmed Do not call laws that "target speech that invades the privacy of the home, a personal sanctuary that enjoys a unique status in our constitutional jurisprudence." |
|
