Home	Tutorial	Online Casino Reviews	Best Online Casinos	Casino Software	Casino News

Online Casino Gambling --- Casino News

Victory for Protecting Inboxes

Spamming – it’s one of those accepted annoyances. Most everyone in the world who uses a computer has come to hate the loads of spam emails that log inboxes and some even carry potential threats to a computer’s well-being. No matter what you use the computer for – just to go to the online casinos, or as an integral part of your business, spam has become just a part of having an email account. But a Virginia court has made a precedence-setting decision in the 2003 court case against Jeremy Jaynes.

Jaynes was arrested and later convicted of the mass distribution of junk email. He is serving a nine-year sentence for the offense, which specifically violates Virginia’s anti-spamming laws. Jaynes was considered to be one of the top ten spammers in the entire world and was accused of sending as many as 10 million spam emails every day. Because the Internet is so relatively new, there is little in previous legislation to use as precedence – but the Virginia Supreme Court has now ruled that online spamming is not a protected First Amendment right.

Jaynes and his lawyers have spent year appealing the ruling and Jaynes’ sentence, but with the Virginia Supreme Court hearing the case and affirming the rulings by the lower courts, Jaynes’ case has essentially run its course. Attorney General Bob McDonnell notes, "Spam not only clogs e-mail inboxes and destroys productivity; it also defrauds citizens and threatens the online revolution that is so critical to Virginia's economic prosperity."

Everyone suffers from spamming – online casinos gamblers, those who engage in e-commerce, and internet based businesses. The Internet is such a useful medium that can so easily be used for criminal activity. Virgina is home to one of the largest email servers in the U.S. – AOL, and for that reason was aptly suited to rule on this case. The courts specifically noted that spam is not “free-speech” because it is instead misleading commercial speech, and therefore not entitled to First Amendment protection.