Does a spammer have rights?
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- The question is raised by p2pnet reader Cody in a comment post to a p2pnet story which has Montreal spammer Adam Guerbuez (right) saying CTV, “spread vile lies” about him.
“Judge Jeremy Fogel ordered Guerbuez and his company, Atlantis Blue Capital, to pay Facebook $436.2 million in statutory damages, and another $436.2 million dollars in aggravated statutory damages, for violations of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM), p2pnet said yesterday, quoting Agence France-Presse.
Not that Max Kelly, Facebook’s director of security, expects Guerbuez to actually pay the money, says the story.
Earlier today, Guerbuez is accusing TV network CTV of spreading lies about him, we said, drawing from Guerbuez’s blog, A day in the life of Adam Guerbuez.
“Tonight I had several people contact me about a very disturbing news clip about me that aired on Ctv network news,” he says, continuing »»»
In the video they spread vile lies about me, including one that has caused quite a bit of damage. They state clearly that I have an EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD for VIOLENT CRIMES and they show some paperwork on a case that I was wrongfully accused and acquitted of all charges by a judge and jury trial in the year 2001.
I have absolutely NO criminal record, I have never in my entire life been convicted of any VIOLENT Crimes or any convictions for that matter. A National News Network spreading this kind of slander and defamation of character is beyond my comprehension and I will have this matter dealt with. Any one out there reading this who has an opinion , feel free to post it as a comment.
Does a spammer have rights? – asked Cody.
Of course.
But spammers are among the lowest of the low and what Cody is really asking is: Does Guerbuez deserve to be treated like anyone else in a similar predicament?
Of course he does, although (and IANAL) to what extent and to what degree probably depends on: whether CTV’s reporting was accurate; and, whether or not that’s so, did it defame him?
Be that as it may, however, “A retraction or apology from CTV is not acceptable,” John says, going on:
“News Agencies or anyone else can’t simply ‘throw something’ out there and then declare ‘oops’. Just as the US Court determine there must be consequences to your past actions (Facebook), so to should there be consequences to CTV. This is the only way people ‘get it’.”
So, he adds, “Sue CTV, for let’s say $873M. Then have it assigned to Facebook.”
Even better, donate whatever is winkled out of Guerbuez to something like the Last Wish Foundation for terminally ill kids.
JN
Did you enjoy this story, or find it interesting/useful? Help keep the posts coming by donating. No amount is too small. Cheers! And thanks.
p2pnet – Pay Facebook $873M, Canadian spammer told, November 25, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
a spammer has rights…. those to remain silent forever.
period.
end of discussion.
don’t bother to stay tuned or make an appeal.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
It would be poetic justice that this spamming a-hole receives back each and every spam he sent; by Internet, phone calls, junk mail, etc. I’m beyond angry with spammers who think they have the right to disrupt millions of people to make a nickel. At one point a few years back I was receiving 2,000 spams a day. I would’ve smashed those spammers skulls if I had the chance. No one has the right to disrupt millions of people, but my biggest contempt is reserved for spineless politicians who refuse to pass laws against spammers.
November 26th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I have a feeling the last two people would favor spammers get the death penalty or life in jail. The laws don’t currently say that, so spammers still keep any rights they had before being caught, minus in this case, going to Facebook. Defamation occurred, and should be dealt with in a legal fashion. Heck, if I was facebook, I’d encourage suing those who defame so that they can get money, but meh. Making a person look more evil than they really are with lies should not be tolerated.
November 26th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Spammers are right up there with kiddy porn makers .. i hope you get ass cancer and ya nuts fall off…
November 27th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I hope this guy sues the hell out of CTV. He’ll probably win too, since they clearly slandered him by calling him a violent criminal when clearly he is not. As well, he should keep the money.
We are in CANADA, which is a sovereign country in case some of you morons forgot, and the US laws and US courts have no jurisdiction here, as they shouldn’t. If you’ve got a problem with what this guy does for a living and think it should be illegal, take it up with the legislature, that’s what it’s there for.
This p2pnet used to have intelligent comments but now it seems to be dominated by retarded 14-year old children. I only visit once in a blue moon and now I remember why that is.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:35 am
@ Reader’s Write
… and after he sues CTV, we should sue his ass off, as Canadians, for all the damages he has done to us.
we also need to educate these 14 yr old kids that visit here so we don’t end up with mindless automatons.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:34 am
I feel spammers have a right but to an extent. it’s one thing to spam your ad of your product, idea, or company over the net and it’s another to over do it. Over spamming just to get noticed and get out there may do more harm than good as web users will get tired and frustrated with constantly seeing that specific ad. Spamming is a means of advertising and free speech, remember folks, Canada’s constitution says we have the right to freedom of speech. However, again, that needs ot be carefully looked at. Too much freedom can cause problems and upset many ppl. But I don’t feel spammers should be punished just for advertising. We have commercials on tv. How many times in an hour do they show commercials, and the same, ludicris, boring, rediculous ones over and over. My god, in a hour we end up with close to 15-20 min totoal of commercials, in fact, they seem to be getting longer and more of them everytime. Wel,l no different in my opinion for spammers. They are just advertising and getting noticed just like every other persons’ or companies ad and commercial out there. Go easy on them and hey, if you don’t like it, then direct spam into another folder called ’spam’ or ‘junk’ then you don’t have to see it or have it interfere with your daily mail. Install an ad blocker to avoid unneccessary ad’s from popping up while you surf, commen sense ppl- I do it.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Advertisers on tv pay so that you can watch your tv show. I haven´t seen a dime from the spam I received. So TV commercials and spam aren´t the same thing.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Of course he has rights. He is a human being, even if down in the slimy strata. But regardless of that, so long as CTV doesn’t say he has been convicted and simply reports that he was charged and acquitted, his rights have not been violated.
January 2nd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Yes! He has the right to be found, charged for loss of time, damages and forced to pay.