Comments on: Spamming and Free Speech!! http://lawiscool.com/2008/12/14/spamming-and-free-speech/?nucrss=1 The law school blog and podcast from Canada Mon, 07 May 2012 13:10:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Blawg Review #190 - Bill of Rights Day « The Legal Satyricon http://lawiscool.com/2008/12/14/spamming-and-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-4359 Blawg Review #190 - Bill of Rights Day « The Legal Satyricon Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:39:05 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1187#comment-4359 [...] that tell us that blocking annoying incoming email messages is not a First Amendment violation. Law is Cool gives us a refreshing discussion on the same issue (and links to us in the [...] [...] that tell us that blocking annoying incoming email messages is not a First Amendment violation. Law is Cool gives us a refreshing discussion on the same issue (and links to us in the [...]

]]> By: Omar Ha-Redeye http://lawiscool.com/2008/12/14/spamming-and-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-4358 Omar Ha-Redeye Mon, 15 Dec 2008 05:06:37 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1187#comment-4358 I would agree, sending 1 billion unsolicited spam e-mails a year selling Viagara is pretty controversial, and I would want to remain anonymous too. How that relates to free speech rights though is beyond me. Although freedom of expression in Canada does <a href="http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1988/1988canlii19/1988canlii19.html" rel="nofollow">include advertising</a>, infringement of corporate free speech has been justified under s. 1 in <em><a href="http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1989/1989canlii87/1989canlii87.html" rel="nofollow">Irwin Toy</a></em>. The spammers might have a tougher case north of the border. I would agree, sending 1 billion unsolicited spam e-mails a year selling Viagara is pretty controversial, and I would want to remain anonymous too.

How that relates to free speech rights though is beyond me.

Although freedom of expression in Canada does include advertising, infringement of corporate free speech has been justified under s. 1 in Irwin Toy.
The spammers might have a tougher case north of the border.

]]>