What happened to Jeremy Jaynes, the spammer in question?
Why can't I find anything on Google about his life for the last 3-odd years??
Did he change his name?
Anywho, dig the VA Supreme Court's somewhat unexpected but surprisingly robust support of freedom of speech in the context of SPAM, which they compare, somewhat mind-boggingly, to the
Federalist Papers:
The United States Supreme Court recently reviewed the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine in United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1830 (2008).
The Court noted
(i)n order to maintain an appropriate balance, we have vigorously enforced the requirement that a statute’s overbreadth be substantial, not only in an absolute sense, but also relative to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep....
(I)t is impossible to determine whether a statute reaches too far without first knowing what the statute covers.
553 U.S. at ___, 128 S.Ct. at 1838.
Applying that inquiry under Williams in this case is relatively straightforward as Code § 18.2-152.3:1 would prohibit all bulk e-mail containing anonymous political, religious, or other expressive speech.
For example, were the Federalist Papers just being published today via e-mail, that transmission by Publius would violate the statute. [ Comment: Is this a legitimate comparison? Weren't the Federalist Papers sold via serialization in newspapers? Under the technology available at the time, for the Federalist Papers to be analogous to spam, they would have to have been dumped for free on people's doorsteps, in multiple copies, day after day, week after week. This comparison to the Federalist Papers is RIDICULOUS and indeed "fanciful" in my opinion. Despite the lame analogy, however, and regardless of the general noxiousness of spam, the court is correct to err on the side of free speech rather than its suppression, amirite? ]color>
Such an expansive scope of unconstitutional coverage is not what the Court in Williams referenced “as the tendency of our overbreadth doctrine to summon forth an endless stream of fanciful hypotheticals.” 553 U.S. at ___, 128 S.Ct. at 1843.
We thus reject the Commonwealth’s argument that Jaynes’ facial challenge to Code § 18.2-152.3:1 must fail because the statute is not “substantially overbroad.”
. . . .
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the circuit court properly had jurisdiction over Jaynes. We also hold that Jaynes has standing to raise a First Amendment overbreadth claim as to Code § 18.2-152.3:1.
That statute 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.
Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the [Virginia] Court of Appeals and vacate Jaynes’ convictions of violations of Code § 18.2-152.3:1.
Reversed and final judgment.
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1062388.pdf