Spam Creep Gets Creepier
In the same way that death row inmates regularly claim innocence (unfortunately,
sometimes they're right), spammer Jeremy Jaynes says he's 100 percent not guilty.
In Jayne's case, it's not that he didn't do it; it's that spam shouldn't be
illegal in the first place.
According to Jaynes' equally creepy lawyer, spam should be protected
as anonymous free speech. Of course, Jaynes' form of spam (er, anonymous
free speech) included using false originating addresses and messages meant to
trick us out of our money.
I'm all about free speech, but protecting spam is so wrong on so many levels,
I almost don't know where to start. First is the issue of decency. When you
send an unsolicited, filthy e-mail to my 11-year-old son, I have a problem.
Next, anonymous speech doesn't deserve universal protection. I shouldn't be
able to slander and libel you, and then hide like a coward behind anonymity.
And I shouldn't be able to sell you fake male enlargement products and then
claim a right to be anonymous.
Perhaps most important, while speech should be generally free, the Internet
actually costs money. Don't forget: The carrier lines, routers, servers and
all the rest cost someone money. And if your Trojan takes over my PC to spew
spam, that's costing me money.
I wish Jaynes all the luck in the world -- as long as it's bad!
While Jaynes' lawyers think spam laws are too strong, judging by my inbox and
quarantine, I say they're way too weak. What say you? Send your thoughts on
spam laws to me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on September 17, 2007 at 11:52 AM