"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."