[H]ardNews 3rd Edition
Spam Law Flaws:
Apparently people are worried the new spam law is worded too broadly leaving it susceptible to legal challenges. The spam freaks will be out in force trying to sue their way back into your inbox.
More so than any other state antispam law, the California measure is worded so broadly it is thought to be especially vulnerable to expected legal challenges, either from unapologetic spammers who claim it violates their constitutional rights or from legitimate businesses that claim it interferes with traditional marketing practices. That's exactly the kind of lesson the Federal Trade Commission learned this week, after the Direct Marketing Association won a legal bid to nix the national "Do Not Call" list, just days before the Oct. 1 deadline for it to take effect.
O.K., you guys know my stance. I say outlaw spam all together and go after the company that use spammers. No companies use spammers, spammers go away, it’s that simple. BUT, this is my question to our legal savvy readers; E-mail is a service I pay for, what gives someone the right to infringe on my paid for service with unsolicited mail?




