Spammers Lose Court Battle Against Univ. of Texas 288
voma writes "The University of Texas didn't violate the constitutional rights of an online dating service when it blocked thousands of unsolicited e-mails, a federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday. White Buffalo Ventures, which operates LonghornSingles.com, had appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, saying it had complied with all anti-spam laws."
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, institutions are really bad about this.. My high school, despite my multiple requests not to, released my information to all sorts of local corporations for them to spam me with prom/senior pictures/etc. related junk mail.
Constitutional questionability (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:3, Interesting)
The school sold all the addresses so that the students could be spammed. It is the school's job to protect their students from that e-mail spam.
It's not the school's right to stop mail from coming to the student's residences.
Most student address requests that I get in my office are for Army and Navy recruiting stations. They pay a $50 fee per list and receive a disk with the Access database of the names.
It's up to the students themselves to add a DNR (do not release) onto their records. It does make their lives a bit more difficult for their own record releases but at least they wouldn't be hounded by the companies that the school sold them off to.
I have a feeling that this particular University makes a lot more than $50 a list and that's why the spammers were pissed off.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Sell your website's email addresses to a spamming company*
2. Block all mail from company you just sold out to
3. Profit!!
* cook up some contract where they can't sue if the email doesn't go through
Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
I am sure this story will be praised by the slashdot crowd, and as I work for a mid sized ISP, I can't say I am upset to see it happen. I am, however, curious about implications of the free speech side of this.
Let us assume that instead of commercial spam, this was a single individual that was sending out an email about some governmental injustice. For instance, if he had a friend that was being held under patriot act provisions without trial. Sure, a lot of people would junk the message, but judging from the messages I get that start with RE:FWD:RE:FWD:(ad infinitum), a goodly number of people would likely read it.
My question to slashdot is; Should there be occasions where it is ok to spam, and if so, how do we legislate it? If it can be justified, is bulk commercial spam just the price we have to pay for another venue by which our citizens can freely express themselves?
I would be very much interested to see if anyone had any legal precedents in the world of snail mail that might apply.
And the moral of the story? (Score:4, Interesting)
From a UT Student: HOORAY! (Score:3, Interesting)
So here's a public thanks to my University's IT dept. and to the judge in question! Let's block more spammers!
*sigh* (Score:3, Interesting)
Their "right" to communicate over a private medium...
I think this is a fine example of how everyones priorities are fucked.
That said... I would disagree with the university if they blocked access to the website of the spammers. The site isn't hosted by the university, and blocking the communications medium would be wrong. However, the email server is a different matter. If it chooses to reject certain emails, too bad. It's a private server subject to the whims of the owner, and it should be beyond anyone to force someone to do something with their private server.
What's next, the spammers sue to make us all keep our relays open?
Re:right to your machine : Wrong analysis (Score:2, Interesting)
Murder by any other name (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance:
1. A human being is born, lives, and then dies.
2. A corporation is born, may be revived many times (by changing those who run it), and can eventually die.
1. If a human being kills another human being it is called murder.
2. If a corporation kills another corporation it is called a take-over, buy-out, etc... and is perfectly legal. Even though the other corporation dies a (sometimes) violent death. (Like being driven into bankruptcy.)
1. If a human being talks about shortcomings of someone else - it is not considered slander or terms for legal battles (for the most part) so long as it is truthful.
2. If a human being (or corporation) talks about shortcomings of another corporation - it IS grounds for legal battles of all sorts and kinds even if what the person/company is talking about IS the truth. (As the recent Mike Lyons problems can attest to.)
1. A single human being does NOT usually have enough money to influence the government to get unhealthy, stupid, ignorant, laws passed that would take away a fellow citizen's rights.
2. A corporation can draw upon millions (and sometimes billions) of dollars to hire lobbiests, create fake companies which will write fake letters using dead people's names and addresses to make local, state, and federal legislators think that what people want is what is being written to them. (And even though the act of writing fake letters falls under mail fraud - no one seems to be prosecuted for it. And companies justify doing this "because everyone else is doing it and we have to protect ourselves from this kind of chicanery.")
Seems to me that as long as you own a business - anything goes.
Re:1st Amendment = Free SPEECH (Score:3, Interesting)
A right on your part does not constitute an obligation on my part.
This simple idea applies to all the rights you hold under the U.S. Constitution, enumerated or not and leads to many conflicts.
Nothing to do with free speech (Score:3, Interesting)
The spammer's argument is analagous to:
Suing someone because they refused to answer the phone when you call
If they don't want to hear from you, that's their choice; if their employer or parents don't want you tying up the phone line, they can block you, and if you don't like it, tough.
Spammers have no inalienable right to send you their junk mail any more than the neighborhood trucking company can park their 18-wheelers in your driveway.
There's a big difference between snail mail and spam. Snail mail costs money to send; most spammers steal resources which is what makes their efforts economically viable even if their offers are unappreciated. People that send junk snail mail can only do it so long before it becomes economically impractical if their recipients have no need of their offers. Spammers however, don't have that problem, so they annoy people indefinitely until they're stopped.
Re:Since when... (Score:3, Interesting)
Joe Shitface gets a license to operate his business. It's a sole proprietorship... meaning the only one in charge of it, Joe Shitface, is a PERSON who DOES have guaranteed rights. Since he doesn't have a fictitious name license, he's gotta call it Joe Shitface's Get Laid Website. He then gets this license, and calls it LonghornSingles.com. It's still run by Mr. Shitface.
Months down the line, he incorporates it, because being a slimy SPAM dog is profitable! But, he still holds 100% of the non-public stock, so he's CEO, President, and all that happy bullshit at once. So, if he runs every aspect of the company, why shouldn't it have free speech rights like him?
That's their argument.