On TV.com: Top 15 TV THEME Songs
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 45 of 61:
Next »
« Previous
It'd be nice if the article told us what that law said
Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many people questioning the judges ruling here.

For instance, does it restrict the states from restraining interstate trade only, or does it restrict the federal government from passing laws too (meaning a Spam constitutional amendment would be required)?

And to what extent does it restrict trade restrictions? Does it include unsolocited advertisement (which is what spam is)? And do other rights preclude the spammers right to spam (for instance, do individual privacy rights carry more weight than commerce rights, and are the spammers illegally creating unwanted expense to those to whom they are advertising)?
Posted by: Michael Kelly   Posted on: 12/15/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Suspicious basis  S.Howard-Sarin ZDNet Moderator | 12/15/04
That is probably the safest way to do it.  doe_z | 12/15/04
Had to happen  Roger Ramjet | 12/15/04
If you do not know where your email is going  Squawkbox | 12/15/04
"no way for a person sending e-mail to know where the e-mail is going"???  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
...then you shouldn't be sending it.  Jomo_z | 12/18/04
How does this differ from fax and telemarketing spam?  dvarona | 12/15/04
The stupidity of judges in the Internet Age...  BitTwiddler | 12/15/04
The stupidy of posters in any age.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
I Wholeheartedly agree  Roger Ramjet | 12/16/04
Well, technically,  rapson | 12/16/04
That's a very real possiblity  voska | 12/15/04
Spam is simple  ONEstar | 12/15/04
The Judge is RIGHT  RobertoSalazar | 12/15/04
The judge May be right, but you are WRONG!  Mack DaNife | 12/15/04
I'm Already Paying Enough To That Traitor Bush  itanalyst | 12/15/04
Where in the story does it say anything about the UN?  Squawkbox | 12/15/04
If you can get Junk Mail you can get Junk eMail  Kerensky97 | 12/15/04
Cost is the deciding factor  GregSalts | 12/15/04
Very well said GregSalts....so the solution is...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
GREAT IDEA!!!  itanalyst | 12/15/04
Here's an enhancement on that, I think.  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
Current technology yes...shortly after implementation, no...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
Damn.  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
One flaw..  Patrick Jones | 12/16/04
Even better solution.  Letophoro | 12/16/04
You're absolutely INCORRECT  d_jedi | 12/15/04
I'm Embarassed To Have Been A Maryland Resident  itanalyst | 12/15/04
The judge can only rule according to the law.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Not exactly...you are forgetting some things...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
Obviously your reasons don't change the law.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Law is very subjective and based to interpetation...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
Sorry you are 100% dead wrong.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Not since 7th grade...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
Hey, Don't Knock No_Ax  itanalyst | 12/15/04
Rant tulr, you lose.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Rant rule, you lose.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Rant Rules  SC-man | 12/17/04
No Ax, what state do you live in? I mean besides confusion...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
Ok, you've used that at least twice today...  BitTwiddler | 12/15/04
Just because you were psnaked with it, don't start crying.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
judges judge, that's it  voska | 12/15/04
Strange as it sounds, I have to agree with No_Ax on this one.  Letophoro | 12/15/04
Even stranger,,,, you're right.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
It'd be nice if the article told us what that law said  Michael Kelly | 12/15/04
The law in breif ...  George Mitchell | 12/15/04
I agree.  d_jedi | 12/15/04
The jurisdiction IS federal folks .. No_Ax is correct  George Mitchell | 12/15/04
If It's Legal For Them To Spam Us....  itanalyst | 12/15/04
This decision says nothing about the legality or illegality of spam  George Mitchell | 12/15/04
So the judge won't mind if we forward all our spam to him, right?  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
Is anyone sure interstate commerce laws apply here?  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
Obviously the judge is. I'm betting he knows more law than you.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Uh... ok  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
Sorry...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
LOL! (NT)  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
All I'm saying is that the judge could have done more...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
NO he can NOT! Judges can NOT ignore the law.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
This is why we have congress, God help us.  seosamh_z | 12/15/04
Courts Government on Spammer's side  cyberscan | 12/16/04
Anti-spam tools now unconstitutional too?  Sunny Jalolly | 12/16/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

Meet Doc

  • Here to help you with your Document Management Needs
  • Doc is an enigma. Born to a Russian ballerina and a German electrical engineer, he grew up in various locations in the United States. He’s seen the insides of more brands, versions, and generations of printer and printer-related hardware than almost anyone.
  • To learn more about this mysterious figure check out his blog on ZDNet and his Workspace on TechRepublic. You’ll be glad you did.
  • Produced by
    ZDNet and