RSS
Twitter
Maryland Court Says All Your Spam Are Belong To Us
from the what-would-judge-wapner-do dept
A court in Maryland has ruled that spam sent from outside the state can violate its laws and fall under its jurisdiction, overturning an earlier decision and creating an interesting precedent regarding internet jurisdiction. We've noted before how the question of just whose laws apply on the net isn't settled, with some places taking the view that if something can be viewed in their locale, it's fair game. Not too many people are likely to get upset over a ruling that makes it easier to sue spammers, but the ruling can become problematic when it gets extended to other areas. It's not hard to see the argument that if Maryland's laws can apply to one internet activity -- spam -- they can apply to all others, as well. People already do jurisdiction shopping for libel cases, perhaps they'll start doing it against spammers now too.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Typo
You misspelled earlier.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Typo
and Local
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Typo
"Locale" is not a misspelling.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
whoo! zerowing!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
Go Steelers!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
Fuck yo couch nigga!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
What a buncha picknitters, nincompoops, and juvenile bedwetters...but I digress...normally, unless an international border is involved, the crime occurs where the person is victimized, ie: threatening phone calls, aircraft parts from the sky, utility bills, and so on.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
RIGHT ON~ Here We go!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
buy another one you rich mother fucker.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
I lik e fried corn?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
A simple case of 'push' versus 'pull'
Maryland has every right to declare spam as a crime within its jurisdiction - and this should not extend to other internet activities. This analogy might help:
Imagine that you're walking in the New York countryside on the border with Canada. Looking north, you see a billboard with a message on it that is legal in Canada, but not in the US. Now that's insensitive, offensive and may be cause for a diplomatic incident, but no crime has been committed.
The next day you're out walking again. From the other side of the border, somebody throws a paper plane at you. You never get to see who, because they dash into a Canadian forest after throwing the plane. Unfolding the paper plane, you read the same message that was on the billboard yesterday. The unknown aviator has not committed any crime in Canada, but by sending an illegal message over the border he/she has committed a crime in New York state.
Blogs and websites are like the billboard. Spam is like the paper plane. Or at least, that's how it should be.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: A simple case of 'push' versus 'pull'
Id like to shoot you with a gun from canada and then tell you its not a crime because i was in Canada while you were in NY.... Your completly annoying reply is why I hate politicians like you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: A simple case of 'push' versus 'pull'
Your counter-example is invalid. I'd like to see the look on your face when the mounties lock you up and remind you that homicide is illegal in both Canada and NY.
In the paper plane example, the message is carried by an object launched by a deliberate human act. Sue the aviator (if you can find him/her).
In the billboard example, the offending message is carried across the border by photons. To put a stop to that, you'd have to sue the sun.
If you had any capacity for logic, then you might have understood that an action can be both a crime and a non-crime, when its location straddles a jurisdictional boundary. You might also have realised that my being annoying does not allow you to infer that I'm a politician - I might be a lawyer :-)
As it happens, I'm a programmer. But enough about me, you need some help for those violent fantasies :-p
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: A simple case of 'push' versus 'pull'
chut it fatty
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Jurisdiction is Very Complicated
...in the USA. "Common sense" doesn't necessarily work. For a short introduction, start here: Choice of law (Wikipedia).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment