Well hey!

[curvemudgeon]

It's legal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater in Virginia again!as long as you include some political or religious reference, or are offering pills that make your dick bigger. Oh, and wear a mask.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091201211.html?hpid=topnews

Agee [wrote], "the right to engage in anonymous speech, particularly anonymous political or religious speech, is 'an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment," Agee wrote, citing a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court opinion.

Except the statute in question wasn't speaking to "anonymous political or religious" speech. It was speaking to unsolicited bulk email.

The court noted that "were the 'Federalist Papers' just being published today via e-mail, that transmission by Publius would violate the [current Virginia] statute."

Since the court has opened the door to the hypotheticals...it should now be perfectly legal for me to give my own version of the "Sermon on the Mount" (although mine will make many references to wheat, noodles, proper tomato handling, and the importance of garlic in any tomato-based sauce) at 3am, through a bullhorn, while standing on Agee's driveway. Furthermore, I can invoice Agee for the batteries I use while giving my sermon and he is obligated to pay them.

Comments

[vicar.livejournal.com]

Yeah that was actually a slap at the leg for sloppy drafting. They even gave pointers for how to do it write [sic] as any const law student would have known. There are different standards for freedom for different types of speech.

[curvemudgeon.livejournal.com]

My recollection is fuzzy, but I recall the drafting of the legislation being held up specifically because of trying to work out phrasing that would survive challenges on the 1st and 14th (both of which spammers were already making noises about challenging under). Enumerating the protected or unprotected classes was discussed and discarded as too easily manipulated and burdensome to argue so they (to me) cleverly decided that it wasn't the content of the message that was to be legislated but rather the method of delivery. The maintenance of the sender's anonymity was not considered because the target was the advertising market and what legitimate marketing entity wants to hide their existence?