Friday, January 27, 2006
Howard reports that a Maryland Court of Special Appeals pdf has upheld an anti-spam statute, which in practice regulates emails from any country to any country, which are both commercial and are alleged to be misleading. I don't like it.
This would seem to mean that any city town village or hamlet in Maryland can set its own rules for the world's email, without running into a commerce clause problem. The case makes an attempt to distinguish cases like Booksellers v Pataki which held state's can't censor internet speech. A dismissal was reversed. Unless there are further appeals, plaintiff, a law student running an antispam boutique, can proceed. Will he win anything? It's not clear. The spammer stopped once the guy asked to him to stop.
I hate spam, but I am not comfortable with the idea that Elkton Maryland can tell you what you can or can't email. I expect to see this on slashdot tomorrow.
This would seem to mean that any city town village or hamlet in Maryland can set its own rules for the world's email, without running into a commerce clause problem. The case makes an attempt to distinguish cases like Booksellers v Pataki which held state's can't censor internet speech. A dismissal was reversed. Unless there are further appeals, plaintiff, a law student running an antispam boutique, can proceed. Will he win anything? It's not clear. The spammer stopped once the guy asked to him to stop.
I hate spam, but I am not comfortable with the idea that Elkton Maryland can tell you what you can or can't email. I expect to see this on slashdot tomorrow.
Comments:
Post a Comment
