"High volumes of junk e-mail devour computer and storage capacity,
slow down data transfer between computers over the Internet by
congesting the electronic paths through which the messages travel,
and cause recipients to spend time wading through messages they
do not want. It is ironic that if defendants [CyberPromo] were
to prevail on their First Amendment arguments, the viability
of electronic mail as an effective means of communication for
the rest of society would be put at risk."
Judge Graham, Compuserve vs. Cyber Promotions
"There is no constitutional requirement that the incremental cost of
sending massive quantities of unsolicited advertisements must be
borne by the recipients."
Judge Graham, Compuserve vs. Cyber Promotions
"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or to view
any unwanted communication, whatever its merit... We therefore
categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under
the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into
the home of another... We repeat, the right of a mailer stops
at the outer boundary of every person's domain."
Mr. Chief Justice BURGER
U.S. Supreme Court
ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT. , 397 U.S. 728 (1970)
"[They] have come to court not because their freedom of speech
is seriously threatened but because their profits are; to dress
up their complaints in First Amendment garb demeans the principles
for which the First Amendment stands and the protections it was
designed to afford."
Judge Stanley Sporkin
Turner Broadcasting v. FCC
"The statute does not prevent anonymous speech, as appellant
argues, but prohibits trespassing on private computer networks
through intentional misrepresentation, an activity that merits
no First Amendment protection,"
Judge James W. Haley Jr. wrote in the
unanimous opinion. The Court of Appeals
of Virginia has upheld the country's first
felony conviction for computer spamming.
"Plaintiff e360Insight, LLC is a marketer. It refers to itself
as an Internet marketing company. Some, perhaps even a majority
of people in this country, would call it a spammer."
James B. Zagel
United States District Judge
e360Insight, LLC. v Comcast Corporation
April 10, 2008
"This chain letter deceptively claims the program is
legal and urges recruits who question its legitimacy to contact
the FTC's Associate Director for Marketing Practices.
Well, I am the Associate Director for Marketing Practices,"
said Eileen Harrington, "and these chain letters are illegal."