So it seems that you can now get away with sending spam from one country at least, guess which; Russia? Africa? China? Nope. The good old US of A.

Thanks to a court decision last week which overturned the notorious spammer Jeremy Jaynes’ nine-year prison sentence, it’s now deemed “unconstitutional” to jail spammers.

The argument is that mass, unsolicited communication should be legal so that citizens can promote certain religious or political ideas. Fair enough; it’s important that if someone has some staggering news they can get it out there for the public good.

If someone had proof, for example, that George W. Bush was an alien, and that his whole administration was part of an intergalactic plot to take over the world, then I’d like to know, through spam or otherwise.

However, do spammers really need to fall under this protection? News of a new penis enlargement drug, whether it’s of interest to me or not, is spam. It’s quite simple to differentiate – if the sender is making money, then its commercial, and therefore spam.

Of course, non-commercial messages could be construed as spam, too, but banning commercial outfits is a good start. One that the US had made, but now seems to have reversed.

It doesn’t look like my inbox will be empty anytime soon, and not just because I’m lazy at replying to legitimate messages.