Why isn't spamming illegal globally?

[jostpuur]

Is there some obstacles why using e-mail for commercial advertising couldn't be made illegal? I see the problem is international, but couldn't any individual nation make sending ads from their country illegal? Why couldn't governments of different nations get together, and set up some plan on how spamming would be made illegal everywhere?

Surely more than 99% of people would prefer spamming being illegal?

 

[Dale]

I disagree most strongly. I will fight for other people's freedom of speech with the same vigor that I fight for my own, because it is inevitable that curtailing one person's freedom will eventually come around with unintended consequences to limit my own. If today you give the government the permission to prevent someone else's free speech simply because you find it annoying then you had better hope that you never want to say something that might annoy someone else because then you will already have given them the legal justification to silence you.

So you don't like spam, that's what the delete key is for. They have the freedom to send you spam and you have the freedom to ignore it.

 

[jostpuur]

The amount of spam can get out of control. It could be you get some much spam that you inbox gets full and then you don't receive important mails. Then your "freedom of ignoring spam" is equivalent to an "unavoidable need of constantly being deleting spam".

But okey... if the first response was a disagreement, then my 99% guess could be wrong...

For heaven's sake, isn't it clear that the spam is 100% enemy of society? The society doesn't benefit from spam in any way. There is small elite of spammers who make money and make life of other people more difficult. It satisfies criteria for being declared to be criminal, if lawmakers would choose to declare so.

 

[jostpuur]

I hate these freedom of speech arguments. Perhaps I should start testing the limits of the freedom of speech by "speaking with a handgun"?

 

[Dale]

The amount of spam can get out of control. It could be you get some much spam that you inbox gets full and then you don't receive important mails.

My approach is to set up a free e-mail account specifically for giving out to businesses and receiving spam (hence my handle DaleSpam). I give that out to any business where I need to register an e-mail address and I almost never check it. I never give out my personal e-mail addresses to businesses, just friends and family.

It really works effectively, and doesn't require any government involvement.

I hate these freedom of speech arguments.

Then perhaps you shouldn't propose restricting other people's free speech.

 

[jostpuur]

Freedom of speech is not a universal tool to allow anything.

If somebody speaks words out of his mouth, we consider this speaking.

If somebody writes articles to a popular magazine, we consider this speaking, (in the sense that freedom of speech applies).

If somebody uses a computer program to gather hundreds of thousands of email addresses, and then uses a computer program to send unsolicited computer generated messages to all of them, is this considered speaking?

If it is somebody's opinion, that some person needs to get a bullet through his head, and then uses a handgun to speak out his opinion, is this considered speaking?

The truth is that we will need to draw a line somewhere.

Then perhaps you shouldn't propose restricting other people's free speech.

You have your own idea of where to draw the line, but some other guy might have a different idea of where to draw the line. You should not try to make it appear as if you are the one defending the freedom of speech, while the other guy would be attacking the freedom of speech, because the truth is, that you merely have a different idea of where to draw the line.

 

[Monique]

Is there some obstacles why using e-mail for commercial advertising couldn't be made illegal?

It is illegal to send spam in or from the Netherlands, it is part of the telecommunication law. I think the same holds true for the whole of Europe, we use opt-in while the US uses opt-out to manage the flow of information. Of course it only works when all countries cooperate, since I still get loads of spam.

I don't really see what spamming has to do with freedom of speech, the law does not target a specific group or opinion.

 

[B. Elliott]

I see spamming as no different than someone driving by my house every day and throwing out fistfuls of junk mail into my yard. It's not free speech, it's littering. Unless I sign up for it, I don't want it. A few years ago I had a problem with a couple of advertising companies throwing trash in my yard expecting me to read the crap. I got so tired if having to deal with it that I threatened to sue. After fighting for a month I finally go them to stop.

 

[Monique]

Recently there was a news article that the fugitive 'Spam king' Edward Davidson commited murder and suicide, after escaping out of jail. He was sentenced 21 months in jail for sending unsolicited (e-?)mail, from which he earned millions. This happened in the US, how do you explain the jail sentence?

 

[jostpuur]

It is illegal to send spam in or from the Netherlands, it is part of the telecommunication law. I think the same holds true for the whole of Europe, we use opt-in while the US uses opt-out to manage the flow of information. Of course it only works when all countries cooperate, since I still get loads of spam.

Very interesting information. According to the Wikipedia there is spam originating from Europe, anyway, so it doesn't seem to be controlled, whatever the legislature is. France, Germany and Great Britain are being mentioned in the top 12 list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)

 

[cristo]

Very interesting information. According to the Wikipedia there is spam originating from Europe, anyway, so it doesn't seem to be controlled, whatever the legislature is. France, Germany and Great Britain are being mentioned in the top 12 list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)

But if other countries around the world don't classify spam as illegal, then how would spam originating in Europe and being sent to, say, America be stopped? I imagine that spam from one European country to another would be policed more.

 

[ehrenfest]

There should be something like the National Do Not Call Registry for e-mails. Spammers have no right to distribute advertisements in a private venue like e-mail just like telemarketers have no right to call you during dinner and ask you to buy something. There are a lot of good appropriate places for advertisement these days so I think they are simply being abusive by using e-mail as well.

There are even rules against vendors coming to your house to sell something if you post up a sign forbidding them. And just like a phoneline, someones inbox is an electronic receiving center associated specifically with that individual.

The issue is really whether these spammers have the right to waste the time of massive numbers of people at the click of a mouse solely for the interest of business. A pure capitalist would say "of course they do" but the brand of capitalism used in the United States is not pure and for good reason IMO. We give the government the authority to regulate the marketplace to ensure fairness, optimal productivity, economic stability, etc.

Allowing the spammers to distribute mass e-mails instantaneously at no cost to themselves and interrupt the daily routine of thousands or hundreds of thousands of other people in order to make a pitch that 99.99% of them don't care at all about is an example of abusive and unfair and underhanded business practice. It is unfair because it puts the business people who actually respect other peoples time at a disadvantage.

Furthermore, allowing spammers to waste my time by regularly sending mass e-mails undermines the efficiency of the communication system which is something all of society should be interested in protecting.

For these reasons, the US should regulate it just like it regulates the quality of meat products.

 

[Monique]

Very interesting information. According to the Wikipedia there is spam originating from Europe, anyway, so it doesn't seem to be controlled, whatever the legislature is. France, Germany and Great Britain are being mentioned in the top 12 list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)

From what year are those numbers? I know that in the Netherlands they are actively enforcing the law.

From the European Commission website, look on the second page:
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/doc/factsheets/024-privacy-and-spam-en.pdf

 

[jostpuur]

I assumed that spamming wouldn't be illegal, because I hadn't heard talk about spamming being illegal before, but the Edward Davidson's name lead me here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Davidson, which lead me here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003. Now I got too much stuff for reading -->

 

[jostpuur]

Recently there was a news article that the fugitive 'Spam king' Edward Davidson commited murder and suicide, after escaping out of jail. He was sentenced 21 months in jail for sending unsolicited (e-?)mail, from which he earned millions. This happened in the US, how do you explain the jail sentence?

According to the Wikipedia, Edward Davidson violated the CAN-SPAM Act, but on the other hand, according to the Wikipedia, CAN-SPAM Act has been criticized for not really working, although on the other hand... it seemingly worked very well on Davidson

 

[Dale]

If somebody uses a computer program to gather hundreds of thousands of email addresses, and then uses a computer program to send unsolicited computer generated messages to all of them, is this considered speaking?

Certainly. Advertising is most definitely a constitutionally-protected form of speech.

If it is somebody's opinion, that some person needs to get a bullet through his head, and then uses a handgun to speak out his opinion, is this considered speaking?

I politely ignored this comment the first time, but now it seems like you were seriously comparing murder and free-speech. That is a truly moronic argument: I think spam is protected as free speech therefore I support murder.

The truth is that we will need to draw a line somewhere.

Yes, and the courts have already placed many limits on freedom of speech. The courts have generally done a good job of keeping speech one of the most well-protected freedoms that we enjoy.

There should be something like the National Do Not Call Registry for e-mails.

That sounds like a good idea to me. I also think there should be a similar registry for paper junk-mail. They have the right to speak and we have the right to ignore them.

For these reasons, the US should regulate it just like it regulates the quality of meat products.

There is one huge difference. There is no constitutional right to sell bad meat, so regulations on meat are generally constitutional. But there is a constitutional right to free speech, so regulations there are generally unconstitutional.

 

[jostpuur]

That is a truly moronic argument: I support spam as free speech therefore I support murder.

That was not my argument.

 

[Dale]

That was not my argument.

Then maybe you can clarify without any hyperbole, because that is exactly the way it came across to me.

 

[dst]

There should be something like the National Do Not Call Registry for e-mails.

Great idea, we need a nationwide list of e-mail addresses available to spammers just so they know who uh... not to spam.

 

[ehrenfest]

Great idea, we need a nationwide list of e-mail addresses available to spammers just so they know who uh... not to spam.

So they know who to not spam in order to avoid prosecution.

 

[russ_watters]

Several things.

First, there are some laws in the US regulating spam:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.shtm

People have been arrested and convicted the US under this law. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/371772_spamking23.html

But as others have pointed out, the biggest problem is controlling spam from other countries.

I disagree most strongly. I will fight for other people's freedom of speech with the same vigor that I fight for my own, because it is inevitable that curtailing one person's freedom will eventually come around with unintended consequences to limit my own. If today you give the government the permission to prevent someone else's free speech simply because you find it annoying then you had better hope that you never want to say something that might annoy someone else because then you will already have given them the legal justification to silence you.

So you don't like spam, that's what the delete key is for. They have the freedom to send you spam and you have the freedom to ignore it.

No they don't. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but your understanding of how the 1st amendment works is just plain wrong. Spam quite simply is not protected under freedom of speech because it is something forced on you that you have to pay for (like unsolicited cell phone calls) and it is invasive. You may not agree with that, but it's the truth and the USSC is always consistent when it comes to these simple interpretations of the limits on free speech.

Certainly. Advertising is most definitely a constitutionally-protected form of speech.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it is totally without limits. Spam is one type of advertising that is not protected.

 

[russ_watters]

More info on regulating advertising speech:

Despite this protection, commercial speech remains a lesser category than political speech for two reasons: Government can regulate it for truthfulness, and it is "hardier," or more resilient, than political speech–people will still buy ad time even if they have to tell the truth. In contrast, political speech once suppressed may stay squashed.

In 1980 the Court established a formal test for determining whether restrictions on commercial speech are constitutionally permissible–now familiar in the courts as the Central Hudson test. The Court defined commercial speech as "expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience," and ruled that government may ban "forms of communication more likely to deceive the public than to inform it, or commercial speech related to illegal activity." To regulate commercial speech that is neither misleading nor unlawful, the Court established a four-part test: 1) the State has to assert a "substantial interest" to be achieved in regulating the speech; 2) the regulation must be in proportion to that interest; 3) the regulation must directly advance the State interest; 4) the regulation must be the most limited means available to achieving the State’s interest.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/archives/17/freespeech.html

Q. Isn't spam protected by national Free Speech laws?
No. Free speech guarantees you the right to say what you want, within reason; it does not guarantee you a platform to make yourself heard in. My daily newspaper will take any commercial advertisement, subject to two constraints: (a) it must fit within their advertising guidelines, and (b) the advertiser must pay for the costs of distribution. Spam fails on both of these counts.

Furthermore, different countries have different free speech laws. What may be legal in one country may be entirely unlawful elsewhere. Even in the U.S., where there are strong explicit free speech protections, the Supreme Court has upheld many restrictions on speech, far beyond the stereotypical example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

There have been no serious challenges to the U.S. junk FAX law, which restricts the ability of advertisers to send unsolicited messages to FAX machines, on the ground that the cost is borne by the recipient.

Q. Isn't spam just the same as traditional paper advertising (third class or "junk" mail)?
No. Third-class mailers pay a fee to distribute their materials. Spam is the equivalent of third-class mail that arrives postage-due. Real people pay real money, in the form of disk space charges, connect time, or even long-distance net connections, to transmit and receive junk e-mail and newsgroup postings. Unless we utterly overhaul the Internet's mail and news software to charge a mailing fee, spam is taking advantage of the cooperative nature of the Net.

http://spam.abuse.net/faq/

 

[Dale]

First, there are some laws in the US regulating spam:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.shtm
... Sure, but that doesn't mean it is totally without limits. Spam is one type of advertising that is not protected.

Thanks for the link, very good info. I am certainly aware that no form of speech is without limits. As I said above, I think the courts have generally done a good job protecting freedom wrt speech while setting those limits.

I did not realize that spam was legally considered "costly" to the recipient in the same way that telemarketing to cell numbers is. I guess since I traditionally use free e-mail services that connection didn't occur to me, and since it never cost me anything personally it has never bothered me on those grounds.

The existing law you linked to makes sense in those terms. I wouldn't argue for anything further than enforcement of the existing law.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess since I traditionally use free e-mail services that connection didn't occur to me, and since it never cost me anything personally it has never bothered me on those grounds.

There is no such thing as a free email service. Someone is paying for it and that means they are paying for the spam. Please think these things through - that line of reasoning you took is extremely naive.

 

[Evo]

Lots of people are being prosecuted for spamming.

 

[ehrenfest]

I can't imagine how someone could live with himself if his job was to send annoying e-mails out to hundreds of thousands of random people a day. I would think that would be strong enough deterrent. At least there is some "thrill" in creating and sending out viruses and at least there must be some interesting conversations you have if you are a telemarketer...but being a spammer seems like just boring, unmotivated misanthropism and callousness.

 

[Moonbear]

No they don't. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but your understanding of how the 1st amendment works is just plain wrong. Spam quite simply is not protected under freedom of speech because it is something forced on you that you have to pay for (like unsolicited cell phone calls) and it is invasive.

Exactly! Spam isn't free speech quite simply because it requires someone else to pay for it, for the added servers, routers, bandwidth, software to block it if you don't want to see it, etc. A business doesn't have a right to set up a billboard on someone else's front lawn to advertise their wares, and sending spam to email addresses is basically the same thing. The spammer isn't paying for the right to advertise.

Of course, the difficulty is that spam is international, so while state or national laws can be created regarding spam sent within a country, there's not much that can be done to stop it from being sent from another country.

 

[russ_watters]

I can't imagine how someone could live with himself if his job was to send annoying e-mails out to hundreds of thousands of random people a day.

It's easy: buy yourself a Ferrari to drive on Monday, a Lamborghini to drive on Tuesday, a Lotus to drive on Wednesday...