Court Rules Spam Law Unconstitutional

gavelThe Virginia Supreme Court on Friday unanimously overturned the 2004 conviction and nine-year prison sentence of spammer Jeremy Jaynes on the grounds that the state's bulk e-mail law violates the First Amendment.

The court ruled that the law was invalid because it applied to e-mails containing news, opinion or other non-commercial speech as well as to ads.

Specifically, the 2003 Virginia spam law prohibited bulk e-mail senders from falsifying information about their IP addresses or domain names. The court found that this ban on false routing information infringes on the right to speak anonymously.

The law "is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face because it prohibits the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk e-mails including those containing political, religious or other speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution," wrote judge G. Steven Agee, who authored the opinion.

Jaynes had been found guilty of violating Virginia's anti-spam law by sending unsolicited e-mails offering to sell material like a "Penny Stock Picker" and "History Eraser" to AOL subscribers.

On three separate occasions, he sent more than 10,000 messages in a 24-hour period to AOL subscribers, according to the court's opinion. His home also contained compact discs with more than 176 million e-mail addresses, the court wrote.

Jaynes was prosecuted in Virginia because the e-mails went through AOL servers in Virginia. The authorities could not bring charges under the federal CAN-SPAM act because that statute didn't go into effect until 2004.

Earlier this year, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld Jaynes' conviction, but later voted to reconsider the matter. Jaynes is currently in federal prison on an unrelated securities fraud charge, according to press reports.

Friday's ruling is not considered likely to have a broad impact because most anti-spam laws--including the federal CAN-SPAM act--only apply to ads, and not to non-commercial speech.

In addition, other courts have tended to rule that spam laws are valid, according to Seattle-based lawyer Venkat Balasubramani, an Internet law expert. "Spam laws have held up pretty well against these types of challenges," Balasubramani said.

Next story loading loading..