TheChosenOne2
I Will Bring Balance
join:2003-08-17
Deep River, CT
| reply to lesopp
Re: Nice
The ACLU is the biggest bunch of liberal ass clowns I've ever seen in my life. They might as well change their name to Left-Wing Democrats in Disguise. Any group that argues that a recall election isn't "democratic" obviously doesn't have the people in mind, just their own agenda. And I can't think of anything MORE democratic than recalling a stupid piece of trash who'd done nothing but raise taxes, increase spending and lead a state that had a 10 billion dollar surplus to have a 30 billion dollar deficit!! |
|
TheChosenOne2
I Will Bring Balance
join:2003-08-17
Deep River, CT | reply to Plldwnyrpnts
At least those judges out in California can pass ONE thing that actually makes sense! |
|
borborpa
Slipping Slowly Into Oblivion
Premium
join:2002-02-20
New Cumberland, PA
clubs:
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to NOVA_Guy
said by NOVA_Guy  :
said by lesopp :
This is a good idea, at least until the ACLU takes it to the three judge panel and claims it is a freedom of speech issue.
The courts have ruled a number of times that there are different "classes" of speech when it comes to free speech. Commercial speech (which spamming would fall under, IMO) receives substantially less freedom than any statements that you or I would make. At least that's what one of my lawyer-friends told me a while ago when we discussed the whole anti-spamming-laws issue...
That is true. If freedom of speech applied, Kia could say "our cars are faster and better than BMW's, and they have HUGE engines!"...even though it's not true. Under current laws though, that is not allowed.
--
There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.[AIM - BoyBandsMakeUGay] |
|
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
 ·Comcast
 ·VOIPo
| reply to lesopp
said by lesopp :
This is a good idea, at least until the ACLU takes it to the three judge panel and claims it is a freedom of speech issue.
The courts have ruled a number of times that there are different "classes" of speech when it comes to free speech. Commercial speech (which spamming would fall under, IMO) receives substantially less freedom than any statements that you or I would make. At least that's what one of my lawyer-friends told me a while ago when we discussed the whole anti-spamming-laws issue...
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service! |
|
Plldwnyrpnts
join:2003-04-19
Chicago, IL | reply to technick
When I see John Spammer and the company he was spamming for in court, losing all they worked so hard for, I'll buy it. |
|
Mythicman
join:2003-04-15
Lithonia, GA | reply to lesopp
Actually, all I've read so far the ACLU supports most of the anti-spam laws which have been enacted. There is a line, but since the end-user foots the bill for spam, the ACLU seems to understand that it's not really a free speech issue. |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to MrJames
This is a good idea, at least until the ACLU takes it to the three judge panel and claims it is a freedom of speech issue. |
|
maartena
Super Grover
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to bistro777
The nice thing about spam is that spam sells a product that is available to me in California. So if an AMERICAN based company selling Penis Enlargement Pills (LOL) and they use some obscure Thai spamming service, they can still go after the company selling the pills.
--
»www.deanforamerica.com - You have the power to make a change! Support Howard Dean 2004 |
|
bistro777
Donuts-Is There Anything They Can't Do?
Premium
join:2002-02-07
Englewood, CO
| reply to MrJames
If the crime is committed in California, i.e. the recipients of spam are domiciled there, California courts hold jurisdiction. Same as if you'd struck a pedestrian in with a car registered in another state or committed mail or wire fraud in California without ever having crossed the state line.
The problem lies in forcing someone to appear in California court, especially spammers from overseas. Extradition is not an option, probably even in the US for this civil offense, so they would then have to refile in the jurisdiction where the spammer has seizable assets.
I think. 
Veni, Vedi, Napi. I came, I saw, I took a nap. |
|
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA | reply to MrJames
correct.. im going to route my email through a server in california |
|
MrJames
join:2003-05-19
Jacksonville, FL
·Comcast
| quote:
The bill, which would become law Jan. 1, allows the state attorney general to target spam operations anywhere in the United States and offshore.
If they can go after anyone in the US would we need any other state to pass a similar bill? As long as spam is being received by anyone in California they would be subject to the fines, correct? |
|
