According to the Virginia Supreme Court, if spam comes from a preacher or a politician, it is not actually spam. Last week, the court tossed the commonwealth's anti-spam law because it bans anonymous religious and political junk e-mail. Attorney General Bob McDonnell quickly promised to appeal the ruling. The nation's top court should hear the case.
Like anti-spam laws in other states, the commonwealth's law forbids spammers from sending Viagra, software and **** advertisements using falsified routing information. Spammers may not hide behind a veil of anonymity. Unlike other states' laws, though, Virginia's applies to religious and political messages, too.
That, the court concluded, is a problem. Religious and political expression receives the strongest First Amendment protection in America, and because it sometimes is inflammatory or controversial, speakers must be able to conceal their identities.
The court cited the Federalist Papers as an example. If James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay had not been able to maintain their anonymity, they might never have published those crucial documents.
The court is to be commended for recognizing the value and importance of anonymous expression in a democracy. It erred, however, in concluding Virginia's anti-spam law somehow would have hindered the authors of the Federalist Papers and that it prevents today's politicians and preachers from spreading their messages.
Nearly all of the Federalist Papers first appeared in a newspaper. Today, they might appear on a blog, in the forums of a Web site or on YouTube. Preachers and politicians can take advantage of the same venues. There, Americans have a choice whether to view the messages, just as they have a choice to stop on a street corner and listen to a speaker.
Even worse, with spam the recipients of unwanted e-mail are forced to pay for the messages, if only indirectly. When spam shows up in an...

More... (http://www.toptechnews.com/story.xhtml?story_id=61925)