Editorial
Slicing and dicing spam

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

The Washington Court of Appeals deserves the thanks of computer users everywhere.

In a unanimous, three-judge ruling written by Judge Faye Kennedy, the court said Washington's honesty-in-spam law is valid and may be enforced. It has ordered Oregon spammer Jason Heckel to pay a $2,000 fine — and $96,197 in legal costs the taxpayers of Washington have incurred trying to apply the law to him. This is the first case brought under our state's spam law. It has taken six years. Previously, the Washington Supreme Court ruled the anti-spam law does not violate the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the power to regulate commerce among the states to the federal government.

The ruling this week said Washington's law also did not violate freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Commercial speech is protected only when it is truthful. Washington's law forbids commercial e-mails with misleading subject lines and false origins.

According to court documents, Heckel was sending out ads for his $39.95 booklet, "How to Profit from the Internet," with the misleading subject lines "Did I get the right e-mail address?" and, "For your review — HANDS OFF!"

He also made e-mails look like they came from 13.com, an Internet address he didn't own and had no permission to use. Actually, he was using free Internet accounts and changing them every couple of days.

Still, he was immune from Washington's law unless he knowingly sent e-mails to people here. His argument was that he didn't know if any particular e-mail was going here, so the law didn't apply to him.

Judge Kennedy said his reasoning was absurd. He was sending out 100,000 to 1 million e-mails a week, so of course some of them would end up here.

"These are issues every spammer is going to raise," said senior counsel Paula Selis, who handled the case for the state. It took several years to answer them, but then they are answered and enforcement can begin.

And none too soon.