What’s up with Jeremy Jaynes?
Law, Professional, Technology Comments (0)
Several places I’ve frequented lately have been up-at-arms over the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision to grant a limited re-hearing on a question of standing in the Jeremy Jaynes case. So, here’s the lowdown:
Jaynes (a/k/a Gavin Stubberfield) was convicted in 2005 of certain criminal offenses defined in Virginia’s anti-spam statute. He claimed a few problems with his conviction. Jaynes never disputed being a spammer or sending email that falsified the identification of who he was. Instead his claims were, alternately:
- The Virginia statute violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
- The Virginia statute violates the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
- As a non-resident of Virginia he should not have been prosecuted a mere two weeks after the statute expanded to include criminal penalties.
The first two claims depend upon a concept called “standing”. That’s basically the concept that someone needs to be affected by the statute to challenge it. Now, since Jaynes was spamming and this was an anti-spamming statute you’d think this would be a lock. But, you would be wrong.
Jaynes was claiming that the statute is unconstitutional because it is overly broad. Specifically, he claims that it is overly broad because it does not have an exemption for political speech. By not exempting non-commercial speech, the statute became unconstitutional.
Jaynes’ lawyer, Thomas M. Wolf of Richmond, told the justices the case is “bigger than one criminal defendant, one state statute.”
Wolf said that by failing to eliminate non-commercial speech from the act, the legislature crafted an unconstitutional law. “One does have the constitutional right to communicate anonymously,” he added. (source)
The first time he tried this he was shot down. The Virginia Supreme Court said that since he didn’t send anonymous non-commercial messages that he had no standing to challenge the statute on the basis of its application to something that he did not do, and since he was sending commercial messages that the law was constitutional as it was applied to him. Go to Jail. Go directly to Jail. Do not pass “Go.” Do not collect $200.
Then his attorneys requested a rehearing on this question of standing and it was granted. This is significant for Jaynes. Why?
Because what he is hoping for, eventually, is a ruling that the statute as a whole is unconstitutional. If that is the case, then he’ll argue that the statute is void, and never should have been applied to him in the first place. Now, he’s passing “Go,” collecting his $200, and running over to Free Parking. But, first he has to have the Virginia Supreme Court agree that he has the standing to launch this challenge in the first place.
It’s an uphill battle for him. And we won’t find out how this ends until probably September.
MickC @ June 4, 2008