The Washington State Anti-Spam law found unconstitutional

March 28, 2000 11:18 AM

The Washington State Anti-Spam law found unconstitutional because the person named in the suit was in Oregon, and the law can't be enforced across state boundries. Damn. As if your location means anything on the internet. What a lame ruling.
posted by mathowie (8 comments total)

I am as opposed to spam as the next person. But, a state law is not the place to deal with it. Obviously, the federal level isn't that much better for internet related issues. The court ruled the only way it could have; they have no juristiction in this case.
posted by tpruett at 11:39 AM on March 28, 2000

How could we possibly ever legislate spam then? Form a global net-crime unit with jurisdiction all over the world?

The person named in the case sent out millions of unsolicited emails, clogging hundreds of mail servers and costing thousands in network admin time to clean up, and deserves to be held accountable for it.
posted by mathowie at 12:04 PM on March 28, 2000

There's only one man who can deal with this sort of World Crime Organization: Buckaroo Banzai.
"Spam while you can, Monkey-Boys!"
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 12:08 PM on March 28, 2000

Now where did I put that Oscillating Over-thruster?

...that really didn't sound right.
posted by jennyb at 12:59 PM on March 28, 2000

Geez, you just don't know where to look
posted by plinth at 1:20 PM on March 28, 2000

I enjoy tasty spam on the side while viewing www.emptyflower.com 's clubbing section.
posted by DeVere at 3:18 PM on March 28, 2000

The point was that the Federal Government has jurisdiction over anything (including communication) which crosses a state boundary. This law was tossed on Constitutional grounds, but not on First Amendment grounds. While the states don't have the ability to legislate about this, the Feds do.

So write to your Congress-critters.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:26 PM on March 28, 2000

If they're legislated against in their own country they'll just move offshore, it's what happened here in the UK when phone sex legislation was tightened. Instead of UK premium rate numbers they now use numbers in parts of Africa and Asia.
I guess it's the nature of the beast, there's never been anything like the web before so theres no legislation able to police it.
posted by Markb at 12:18 AM on March 29, 2000