Ether-slime poses slippery legal questions

THEY'RE CREEPY and they're skanky. They're odious and icky. They make us really cranky. We all love to hate spam.

Few people get the warm First Amendment fuzzies as they're deleting dozens of promotions for anatomical enhancements and erotic limericks from their e-mail inbox.

But there are free speech issues to be considered as states try to crack down on those obnoxious spammers. The Virginia Supreme Court decided last week to plunge into the ether-slime and sort out some of the questions raised by the Old Dominion's anti-spam law.

Earlier this year, the justices upheld the high-profile conviction of notorious spammer Jeremy Jaynes, who prosecutors say unleashed more than 10 million fraudulent messages daily during his heyday in 2003.

A majority of the justices concluded Jaynes was a valid target for the law. He peddled dubious products and services, and he used fake return addresses to avoid detection. But the 4-3 split on that decision was a clue the justices aren't completely comfortable with the statute.

Last week, they agreed to consider whether the law is so broad that it violates the First Amendment. That's an appropriate inquiry. In her earlier dissent, Justice Elizabeth Lacy noted that the law "bars all unsolicited bulk e-mail, including those containing political, religious or other speech."

The law may require tweaks to ensure that fraudulent commercial come-ons are covered without netting the overly-earnest folks who truly believe thousands of strangers want to hear their opinions about the war or taxes.

Examples of narrower laws targeted at commercial spam can be found in Delaware, California and Washington.

Unfortunately, as states seek to find the right balance between consumer protections and free speech, the real bad guys will figure out new ways to blur the lines. Brace yourself for an influx of e-mail peddling Viagra for Veterans.