Unsolicited commercial e-mail, the internet and the first amendment: Another free speech showdown in cyberspace?

Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 670-689

  Samoriski, Jan H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN DEARBORN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347965584     PISSN: 08838151     EISSN: 15506878     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08838159909364516     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. 15 USC Sec. 1126. (1996). False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden.
2. America Online again takes aim at operators of pornographic Web sites. (1998, March 4). [On-line], Available: http://www-db.aol.com/corp/news/press/view?release=291&
3. America Online, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. (1996). 948 F. Supp, 436. E.D. Pa.
4. America Online, Inc. v. Over the Air Equipment, Inc., and Joe Tajalle, Civil Action No. 97-_. (1997, 4 November). United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division.
5. America Online, Inc. v. Prime Data Systems, Inc., Prime Data Worldnet Systems, Inc., and Vernon N. Hale, Civil Action No. 97-_, (E.D. Va., 1997).
6. AOL Legal. (1998, 3 March). Legal Department @ AOL [On-line], Available: http:// legal.web.aol.com
7. AOL victorious in spam skirmish. (1997, 18 December). Wired News. [On-line], Available: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/story/9265.htm
8. Bigfoot Partners, L.P. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. and Sanford Wallace. (1997, 6 October). United States District Court, Southern District of New York.
9. Barnouw, Erik. (1990). Tube of plenty. New York: Oxford.
10. Branscum, Deborah. (1998, June 22). The big spam debate. Newsweek, pp. 84&86.
11. Board of Trustees of the State University of New York et al. v. Fox et al., 492 U.S. 469, 476 (1987).
12. Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp. 463 U.S. 60, 72. (1983).
13. A brief history of junk (1998, 6 March) Federal Trade Commission. [On-line], Available: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/privacy2/comments1/junk/variety.htm
14. Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission. (1980). 447 U.S. 447, 557.
15. City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., et al., 507 U.S. 410 (1993).
16. Cohen, A. (1997, 15 September). Can the Spam: Bills declare war on junk E-mail. New York Law Journal, p. 1.
17. CompuServe Inc., v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. and Sanford Wallace, Case No. C2-96-1070. (1996, 9 May). United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio.
18. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (1996). 18 U.S.C. 1039(5)(A).
19. Concentric Network Corporation, Inc. v. Sanford Wallace and Cyber Promotions [Case No. C-96 20829-RMW(EAI). (1996, 5 November). United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.
20. Cranor, L. & LaMacchia, B. (1998) Spam! Communications of the ACM. [On-line], Available: http://www.research.att.com/∼lorrie/pubs/spam/spam.html
21. Crimes - Electronic Mail Misuse - Penalties [Maryland House Bill 778]. (1997).
22. Crotty, C. (1997, November). Stopping junk E-mail. Macworld, p. 34.
23. Deck, S., & Hamblen, M. (1997, 18 August). Spam attacks send angry firms to court. Computerworld, p. 1.
24. Destination Ventures, Ltd. V. F.C.C. (1993). 844 F. Supp. 632; 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19917; 22 Media L. Rep. 1171.
25. Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. F.C.C. (1995). 46 F.3d 54. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
26. Direct Marketing Association web site. (1998, 3 March). [On-line], http://www.the-dma.org
27. Douglas K. Snow v. Daniel Doherty. (1997). Civil Action File No. 3:97-CV-0635 (RM). U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend District.
28. Earthlink v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. (1997, 7 May). L.A. Super. Ct.
29. Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (1993).
30. Electronic Privacy Communications Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. 2701 (a).
31. Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation. 438 U.S. 726 (1978) (Quoting Justice Sutherland in Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 388) (1926).
32. Federal Trade Commission. (1998, 2 February). Junk E-Mailers [On-line], Available: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9802/junk.htm
33. H.R. Rep. No 317, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 10, 1991
34. H.R. 1748, Netizens Protection Act of 1997 (105th Congress, 1st Session). (1997). Washington, D.C.
35. H.R. 2368, Data Privacy Act of 1997 (105th Congress, 1st Session). (1997). Washington, D.C.
36. H.R. 3888, The Anti-slamming Amendments Act (105th Congress, 1st Session). (1998). Washington, D.C.
37. H.R. 4124, E-Mail User Protection Act of 1998 (105th Congress, 2d Session). Washington, D.C.
38. H.R. 4176, Digital Jamming Act of 1998 (105th Congress, 2d Session). Washington, D.C.
39. Hall-Smith, V. (1997, February). Direct your pitch. Small Office, pp. 48-49.
40. Head, S., & Sterling, C. (1987). Broadcasting in America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
41. Hewitt, M. (1997, 17 July). It's high time for e-mail senders to can the Spam. Marketing, p. 16.
42. Internet E-Mail: The campaign against junk E-mail (1997, March 11). [On-line], Available: http://legal.web.aol.com
43. Jack of all trades: The man in the middle of the V-Chip. (1996, 18 March). Broadcasting & Cable, p. 28.
44. Jacobs, P. (1997, 3 November). Privacy: What you need to know. Infoworld, pp. 111-112.
45. Juno Online Services, L.P., v. Scott Allen Export Sales, No. 97 Civ. 8694 (S.D.N.Y). (1997, 21 November.).
46. Macavinta, C. (1997, 20 January). Nevadans against spam. CNet News.
47. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 115 S. Ct. 1511 (1995).
48. Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974).
49. New York v. Woodside Literary Agency (1997). [On line], Available: http://www.techweb.com/ wire/story/TWB19971202500009
50. Ohio Revised Code Section 2913.01-04. Ohio Fraud and Theft Law. (1996).
51. Parker v. CN Enterprises (Tex.Travis County Dist. Ct., Sept. 17, 1997).
52. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California, 475 U.S. 1 (1986).
53. Pavlik, J. V. (1998) New Media Technology: Cultural and Commercial Perspectives, 2nd Edition. Boston, Allyn & Bacon, p. 170
54. People v. Lipsitz, _N.Y.S.2d_, 1997 N.Y. Slip. Op. 97, 459, 1997 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 382, 1997 WL 555721 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 23, 1997).
55. Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission on "Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail." (1998, June 17). [Senate Hearing]. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Communication of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. United States Senate. Washington, D.C. [On-line], Available: http://www.ftc.gov/os/9806/email.htm
56. Prodigy v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. (1996, 13 December). United States District Court, Southern District of New York.
57. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).
58. Reno, Attorney General of the United States, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et al., 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
59. Riley v. National Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (1988).
60. Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. 397 U.S. 728, 737 (1970).
61. S. 1618, Anti-Slamming Amendments Act of 1998 (105th Congress, 2d session). 1998. Washington, D.C.
62. S. 771, Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Choice Act of 1997 (105th Congress, 1st session). (1997), Washington, D.C.
63. S. 875, Electronic Mailbox Protection Act of 1997 (105th Congress, 1st session). (1997). Washington, D.C.
64. Service Mark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. 1114(1).
65. Simons, J. (1997, 12 May). The battle over spam gets ugly. U.S. News & World Report, p. 55.
66. Sullivan, R. L. (1996,22 January). "You've got spam!" Forbes, p. 38.
67. Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. §227.
68. The Feds' case against Bill Gates. (1998, 9 March). Newsweek, pp. 42-43.
69. Voters Telecommunications Watch. (1997). Final Comments to the Federal Trade Commission on Unsolicited Commercial Email. Washington, D.C.
70. Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977).