Spam Revisited: Virginia-style
By Ethan Ackerman The Virginia Supreme Court revisits its First Amendment holding in Jaynes. In what is likely a second stroke of luck for criminal spammer Jeremy Jaynes, the Virginia state Supreme Court recently granted a discretionary rehearing on the…
Still Standing? Catching Up on the Jaynes Case
By Ethan Ackerman Virginia’s 1st-Amendment-deficient Spam law is still standing, but only because the Va. Supreme Court closely split over whether Jeremy Jaynes had standing to challenge it. A cynic could dismiss the most recent ruling in this fairly well-covered…
The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet: Ackerman’s Review of Daniel Solove’s Newest Book on Privacy and the Internet
My slightly incented [FN1] take on Dan Solove’s most recent book: The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet. by Ethan Ackerman Unfortunately, I have to advise against beginning to read this book late on a Friday…
“Making Available” as Copyright Infringement–Capitol v. Thomas
By Ethan Ackerman Capitol v. Thomas has been widely covered (even simul-blogged) as the first RIAA copyright lawsuit against an individual P2P downloader to reach a jury trial. But, to poorly paraphrase Stephen Sondheim, “a funny thing happened on the…
Fourth Amendment Privacy Case Law Bonanza
By Ethan Ackerman In June, privacy advocates generally celebrated the Sixth Circuit’s important 4th Amendment ruling in US. v. Warshak. But hot on its heels, the Ninth Circuit sobered the tone rather quickly in US. v. Alba, declining to find…
The 4th Amendment in your inbox
By Ethan Ackerman While the 4th Amendment gets litigated more often than, say, the 10th Amendment, it is still rare when a court finds federal law unconstitutional for inadequately protecting a 4th Amendment interest in email’s privacy. Earlier this week,…
When Congress Giveth, is the Dormant Commerce Clause Taken Away?–Free Speech Coalition v. Shurtleff
by Ethan Ackerman Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Shurtleff, 2:05CV949DAK (D. Utah March 23, 2007) Why do courts seem eager to use CAN-SPAM’s preemption language to give state email laws a free pass from the Dormant Commerce Clause? Utah’s courts…
Nails, Coffins, Spam, and the Dormant Commerce Clause?
…I think plans A & B in an alleged commercial spammer’s legal defense (the Dormant Commerce Clause and First Amendment challenges) have now taken enough hits to be declared at least in the coffin, if not dead. Why? In the case of the Dormant Commerce Clause, it isn’t the slow accretion of adverse cases swaying the tide of legal thinking, as with First Amendment Cases, but an intuitively and legally obvious reason I explain below. While plans A&B lay near death, courts (much like they have been doing for the last 200-plus years) are still struggling with notions of jurisdiction. As a result, plan C (resisting the jurisdiction of an out-of-state court) looks to remain a source of continued litigation between spammers and those who would sue them…
Your License, Registration and DNA, Please?
Congress Passes, President Signs, Press ignores…
As broader nationwide DNA database becomes law, states rush to fill database with expanded collection laws of their own.
Checking Your Spamming Burdens at the Dormant Commerce Clause/Jurisdiction Doors?
An update on the disjointed state of state spam law cases By Ethan Ackerman Despite the passage of the federal CAN-SPAM Act in 2003, state spam laws continue to be enforced by states, and it appears private litigation under them…