The Virginia Supreme Court has overturned a state antispam law and the 2004 conviction of long-time spammer Jeremy Jaynes, saying the law is an overly broad prohibition on anonymous free speech.

The Supreme Court, in a decision released Friday, said the 2003 Virginia spam law didn't distinguish between commercial e-mails and those with political messages, and thus was an overly broad prohibition on free speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Jaynes was convicted in 2004 and sentenced to nine years in prison for sending millions of unsolicited e-mail messages a day from his home in North Carolina. He was the first person to be convicted of sending illegal spam in the U.S.

The Virginia spam law "prohibits the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk e-mails including those containing political, religious or other speech protected by the First Amendment," wrote Virginia Justice G. Steven Agee in the opinion.

The Virginia law allowed jail sentences for spammers if they altered e-mail headers or other routing information and attempted to send either 10,000 messages within a 24-hour period or 100,000 in a 30-day period. The sender could also be prosecuted if a specific transmission generated more than US$1,000 in revenue, or if total transmissions generated $50,000.

Jaynes' prison sentence was longer than those of other prolific spammers convicted in recent years. In July, "Spam King" Robert Soloway was sentenced to 47 months in prison after pleading guilty to fraud, spamming and tax evasion.

Virginia prosecutors argued the spam law was a trespass law focused on the e-mail servers of companies such as AOL and not a free speech law, but the Supreme Court rejected that argument. The law's prohibition against changing e-mail headers took away the ability of e-mail senders to be anonymous, the court said.

The court also drew a distinction between false and fraudulent header information, when prosecutors used those descriptions interchangeably. False header information doesn't necessarily mean the information is fraudulent, and false information is the only way to protect an e-mail sender's right to be anonymous, the court said.

"Because e-mail transmission protocol requires entry of an IP [Internet Protocol] address and domain name for the sender, the only way such a speaker can publish an anonymous e-mail is to enter a false IP address or domain name," Agee wrote.