General discussion

Locked

First Ammendment limitations, with a reason?

By Oz_Media ·
As some may already know, Virgina courts are the first in the US to convict someone on felony charges for spamming. The convicted man faces 9 years for commercial shams and scams solicited by spam mail.

While the defense sought protection under the first ammendement, the court?s majority said misleading commercial speech is not entitled to First Amendment protection. (well done!)

I know it's been discussed numerous times here, free speech only applies under certain circumstances and really only protects you from the government passing a law to inhibit you from peacefully speaking out or demonstrating against the government; it certainly doesn't mean you can say what you want, when you want, without repercussions.

If people were given complete freedom of speech, TV commercials could advertise anything they wanted without having to live up to it, terribly misleading in the case of advertised car blowout sales etc. As for commercial speech, it must also fall under merchant laws restricvting false advertisement, bait and switch etc.

The man senetenced, Jeremy Jaynes, had been using SPAM to solicit scams by email.
"Prosecutors presented evidence of 53,000 illegal e-mails Jaynes sent over three days in July 2003. But authorities believe he was responsible for spewing 10 million e-mails a day in an enterprise that grossed up to $750,000 per month. Jaynes was charged in Virginia because the e-mails went through an AOL server in Loudoun County, where America Online is based."

I actually think this is correct application of law, that the person responsible is the lowest form of life, certainly not someone to be considered a businessman or merchant. I don't see any reason this person should receive anything less than any other con man who sucks 3/4 of a million from citizens worldwide.

Hang 'em high!


Your thoughts?
Does this infringe on the first ammendment, specifically how?
Is 9 years to much or is that reasonable considering the amount of money 'stolen' from unsuspecting buyers?


Wikipedia reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Jaynes

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

21 total posts (Page 1 of 3)   01 | 02 | 03   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Correct Oz

by Locrian_Lyric In reply to First Ammendment limitati ...

This is not a free speech issue, it's fraud, likely theft of services, and various other crimes.

Collapse -

good call on the part of the Court...

by dawgit In reply to First Ammendment limitati ...

For once. (IMHO) That would have been a misapplication of the 1st admendment. He's lucky they didn't get him for Interstate Commerce Violations in the Federal Court Sys. Oh-well, he's going to be a gurl-friend soon. :0

What I don't understand is the Money part. In "that grossed up to $750,000 per month" from whom? They should go down too. If there is way to stop the money flow to these jerks, maybe they'll fade away. (ok, maybe) -d

Collapse -

Accomplices

by Oz_Media In reply to good call on the part of ...

"He was sentenced to nine years in jail, while his buddy Anthony Franzzo was fined $7,500, and 5 years probation. A third defendant, Richard Rutkowski, was acquitted. DeGroot's conviction was later overturned by a judge, but Jaynes' conviction was upheld. Amongst the witnesses was John Levine, author of The Internet For Dummies.

He got the brunt of it, but they got spanked on teh bum too. That would be something that only the trial would validate. He could have been a complete mastermind behid it, with little help from his accomplices. I don't know that's the case of course, without reading the testimonies.

Collapse -

Any talk of restitution?

by jdclyde In reply to First Ammendment limitati ...

If the people scammed can be found, just like proceeds from drug sales, his assets should be taken and put towards making his victims "whole".

After spending 9 years being someones girlfriend, let him out without a penny to his name.

Collapse -

I agree

by Oz_Media In reply to Any talk of restitution?

And while I don't know how it is being handled, I will simply assume that the assets will be held in trust for later distribution to offset the court's time etc. th erest will simply get 'absorbed' as the state's cost, I would expect.

Collapse -

What a Jerk ...

by PSer In reply to Any talk of restitution?

Like when "Navin Johnson" had to write out a check for $1.09 to everyone who bought the 'opti-grab'!

On a serious note, I agree that this is a serious crime and that this fellow and anyone else involved should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. However, I have to ask ... who here thinks he'll serve the whole 9 years? JD's question of restitution ... why was that not mentioned? (The wiki link is all I know of this guy, never saw an article or 'discussion') Truth is, this guy will probably do a few years (if that) and come out the other side with more money than most of us will ever see. ****, he is out on a $1,000,000.00 bond right now ... Yup, that's f'ed up alright!

Again, Oz, I did not see the discussion where these people were so outraged or why they felt the way they did. Why they felt that 9 years was to long is beyond me. The appeal being argued that the sentence is an "unconstitutional infringement of free speech" ? total BS! I don't buy any of these arguments on this guys behalf to be valid in any way shape or form. However, while these people who you quoted may have been championing the wrong cause with misguided zeal, there was a point or two in there. I do NOT agree with the arguments you have quoted for the case in question. I do, however, feel some frustration in the Law of this land. "Why is it he got 9 years when so many violent criminals get so much less"? "Had he robbed someone on the street with a gun", he probably would have received equal or less jail time. Had he raped a woman, child, or another man even ? less if any REAL 'time', for sure! I mean seriously he WOULD have gotten more time for possession of a freaking 'Weed'!!! These are things that makes me think ? WTF!?!?!? WTF for us ? not this Jerk!

I was at a advocacy benefit this past Saturday night and "literally" (bumped into him in the silent auction tent) ran in to Congressman Lloyd Doggett. We chatted a bit about the importance of where we were and who we were there for (victims). Spent the whole evening (and $1500.00) in similar discussions with other politicians, judges, law officials, counselors, and other plain old folks, such as myself. I voted this morning and will be back there for the caucus at 7:00 tonight. I am doing all I can and have been for a very long time! It's EXTREMELY frustrating when you see so many wrongs slip through so many cracks that leaves so many victims behind in the name of the "Law"!!! AARRGGGGHHHHH ... (oops, ranting)

Bottom line, I agree this guy's a crook and should be dealt with accordingly, as should ALL other perpetrators of crimes of equal and or much greater magnitudes ? otherwise ? WTF?!?!?

Lady liberty is not only blind ? but deaf and dumb as well!! We ... the people ... need to get more involved to right the wrongs in our society, our laws, and the people who are supposed to be representing!

<jumps off of soapbox>

That is all ...

Collapse -

kicking soapbox

by Oz_Media In reply to What a Jerk ...

"Hey mister, down here!"

As for teh quotes, they were not on TR, otherwise i would have provided links. It was a forum on a P2P site, just something I stumbled on while searching for case history for an unrelated crime (good search engine result?!?).

The folks there are not the brightest bulbs on the string, mostly kiddies and Europeans with a bone to pick with Americans. I omitted those posts as they are purely US bashing for no legit reason and simply don't hold water or relevance. Example: These guys make ME look pro-Bush!
Mind you it goes both ways, just Euro vs America bashing with no point made, no relevance to a subject of any sort, just lunacy really.

Collapse -

Lady liberty letting wrongs go unrighted

by jdclyde In reply to What a Jerk ...

maybe she needed some midol? :0

A big part of the problem is non-techs still don't see the HARM in computer crimes because they don't see a physical thing being damaged or taken.

Collapse -

I KNEW you guys were smarter!

by Oz_Media In reply to First Ammendment limitati ...

Here are comments where I actually found the article, I didn't post it there though.

"9 years, WTf!"

"Spam pisses everyone off but nine years is absolutely rediculous(sic)."

"This guy has been sentenced longer than some freakin rapists and most of you think this is reasonable?"


"He should have robbed people in the street with a gun. He would get less time this way? Come on, nobody likes spam but 9 years is way overboard. He was probably singled out as an example?"


"That does seem unconstitutional! And WAY too harsh. People get less time for violent crimes. I mean COME ON!!!!"

This just goes to show the absolute absence of any hope of comprehension by many readers. I am actually starting to believe in the TR peers again for being more astute and aware than the norm. How can people be so easily blinded by the key "9 Years" as to not recognize the severity of this crimes goes well beyond simply sending spam mail?

Collapse -

9 years is not enough

by jdclyde In reply to I KNEW you guys were smar ...

if he had been caught sending 50,000 fraudulent emails, that should be a year for each offense......

Back to Networks Forum
21 total posts (Page 1 of 3)   01 | 02 | 03   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums