Spamming is not illegal, if it follows the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. FB claimed that Power Ventures's actions fell under the CAN-SPAM Act, and was a violation of t

Spamming is not illegal, if it follows the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. FB claimed that Power Ventures's actions fell under the CAN-SPAM Act, and was a violation of the act, and was a willful violation so FB could get 3x damages as restitution, plus attorney fees. There is nothing like that in rape law, where some rapes are legal and some are illegal. There are things like that in anti-peddling laws, which might allow only licensed peddlers in a region, or in telephone solicitation laws, which might restrict when calls can be made or prevent solicitors from calling people on a no-call list, or anti-bill posting laws which restrict posting a few public bulletin boards or kiosks, or anti-begging laws which prohibit aggressive panhandling. That's of course the legal distinction. Perhaps there is a cultural similarity in antipathy between the two that I don't recognize? You point about my hypothetical is valid. I was thinking more of conferences with an anti-sexual harassment policy which obligates the organizers to be more responsive to claims of rape than claims of murder, even if there is no other evidence. So, here's something more concrete. In http://www.swordandthescript.com/2014/06/linkedin-spam-reelseo/ http://www.swordandthescript.com/2014/06/linkedin-spam-reels... we see that Grant Crowell complained about "crass spam" by ReelSEO in advertising for their conference. He provided evidence of receiving on Linkedin, in one week, "the same message sent four different times, from three different people, including Greg Jarboe, co-founder of the marketing firm SEO-PR." ReelSEO (now known as Tubular Insights) responded to the complaint by by saying 'opt out'. This is not illegal spam under CAN-SPAM. However, and IMO, Crowell does correctly refer to it as spam. This is within the usual cultural definition of spamming. What are the "devastating social consequences" which resulted from that verified claim? I note that ReelSEO is still in business, under the new name "Tubular Insights". Should Crowell and others avoid using the term 'spammer' for anything other than verifiable CAN SPAM violations, because of these consequences? Now, imagine that someone made a claim of being raped, and had evidence to prove it. Do you really think that the reactions would be the same? (Nor can one "opt out" of rape, showing yet again it's a poor analogy.) As for "a multibillion dollar corporation suing you"; I look at how ACORN was shut down due to partially falsified and selectively edited videos when the ACORN members did nothing illegal or inappropriate. The devastation came from how FB's money and power could magnify any sort of FUD. Now, I can be wrong. Wikipedia tells me that ~1% of all spam really meets CAN SPAM's requirements, so there are a lot of spammers out there. Who else has faced the devastating social consequences of being called a spammer?