Court Opinion

ID: 9781781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 17:32:00.830064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:39.372396
License: Public Domain

BROWN, J., Dissenting.
Candidate A finds the vehicles that candidate B has provided for his campaign workers, and A spray paints the water soluble message, “Fight corruption, vote for A” on the bumpers. The majority’s reasoning would find that notwithstanding the time it takes the workers to remove the paint and the expense they incur in altering the bumpers to prevent further unwanted messages, candidate B does not deserve an injunction unless the paint is so heavy that it reduces the cars’ gas mileage or otherwise depreciates the cars’ market value. Furthermore, candidate B has an obligation to permit the paint’s display, because the cars are driven by workers and not B personally, because B allows his workers to use the cars to pick up their lunch or retrieve their children from school, or because the bumpers display B’s own slogans. I disagree.
Intel Corporation has invested millions of dollars to develop and maintain a computer system. It did this not to act as a public forum but to enhance the productivity of its employees. Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi sent as many as 200,000 e-mail messages to Intel employees. The time required to review and delete Hamidi’s messages diverted employees from productive tasks and undermined the utility of the computer system. “There may ... be situations in which the value to the owner of a particular type of chattel may be impaired by dealing with it in a manner that does not affect its physical condition.” (Rest.2d Torts, § 218, com. h, p. 422.) This is such a case.
The majority repeatedly asserts that Intel objected to the hundreds of thousands of messages solely due to their content, and proposes that Intel seek relief by pleading content-based speech torts. This proposal misses the point that Intel’s objection is directed not toward Hamidi’s message but his use of Intel’s property to display his message. Intel has not sought to prevent Hamidi from expressing his ideas on his Web site, through private mail (paper or electronic) to employees’ homes, or through any other means like picketing or billboards. But as counsel for Intel explained during oral *1368argument, the company objects to Hamidi’s using Intel’s property to advance his message.
Of course, Intel deserves an injunction even if its objections are based entirely on the e-mail’s content. Intel is entitled, for example, to allow employees use of the Internet to check stock market tables or weather forecasts without incurring any concomitant obligation to allow access to pornographic Web sites. (Loving v. Boren (W.D.Okla. 1997) 956 F.Supp. 953, 955.) A private property owner may choose to exclude unwanted mail for any reason, including its content. (Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970) 397 U.S. 728, 738 [90 S.Ct. 1484, 1491 25 L.Ed.2d 736] (Rowan); Tillman v. Distribution Systems of America Inc. (1996) 224 A.D.2d 79 [648 N.Y.S.2d 630, 635] (Tillman).)
The majority refuses to protect Intel’s interest in maintaining the integrity of its own system, contending that (1) Hamidi’s mailings did not physically injure the system; (2) Intel receives many unwanted messages, of which Hamidi’s are but a small fraction; (3) Intel must have contemplated that it would receive some unwanted messages; and (4) Hamidi used the e-mail system for its intended purpose, to communicate with employees.
Other courts have found a protectible interest under very similar circumstances. In Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559 [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 468] (Thrifty-Tel), the Court of Appeal found a trespass to chattels where the defendants used another party’s access code to search for an authorization code with which they could make free calls. The defendants’ calls did not damage the company’s system in any way; they were a minuscule fraction of the overall communication conducted by the phone network; and the company could have reasonably expected that some individuals would attempt to obtain codes with which to make free calls (just as stores expect shoplifters). Moreover, had the defendants succeeded in making free calls, they would have been using the telephone system as intended. (Id. at p. 1563.)
Because I do not share the majority’s antipathy toward property rights and believe the proper balance between expressive activity and property protection can be achieved without distorting the law of trespass, I respectfully dissent.
The Instant Finding of a Trespass Conforms the Law on Electronic Mail to That of Other Forms of Communication
The majority endorses the view of the Court of Appeal dissent, and reviews a finding of a trespass in this case as a radical decision that will *1369endanger almost every other form of expression. Contrary to these concerns, the Court of Appeal decision belongs not to a nightmarish future but to an unremarkable past—a long line of cases protecting the right of an individual not to receive an unwanted message after having expressed that refusal to the speaker. It breaks no new legal ground and follows traditional rules regarding communication.
It is well settled that the law protects a person’s right to decide to whom he will speak, to whom he will listen, and to whom he will not listen. (Martin v. City of Struthers (1943) 319 U.S. 141, 149 [63 S.Ct. 862, 866, 87 L.Ed. 1313] (Martin) [noting the “constitutional rights of those desiring to distribute literature and those desiring to receive it, as well as those who choose to exclude such distributors”].) As the United States Supreme Court observed, “we have repeatedly held that individuals are not required to welcome unwanted speech into their own homes” (Frisby v. Schultz (1988) 487 U.S. 474, 485 [108 S.Ct. 2495, 2502, 101 L.Ed.2d 420]), whether the unwanted speech comes in the form of a door-to-door solicitor (see Martin, at pp. 147-148 [63 S.Ct. at pp. 865-866]), regular “snail” mail (Rowan, supra, 397 U.S. 728), radio waves (FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) 438 U.S. 726 [98 S.Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073]), or other forms of amplified sound (Kovacs v. Cooper (1949) 336 U.S. 77 [69 S.Ct. 448, 93 L.Ed. 513, 10 A.L.R.2d 608]). (See Frisby v. Schultz, at p. 485 [108 S.Ct. at p. 2502].)
Of course, speakers have rights too, and thus the result is a balancing: speakers have the right to initiate speech but the listener has the right' to refuse to listen or to terminate the conversation. This simple policy thus supports Hamidi’s right to send e-mails initially, but not after Intel expressed its objection.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Village of Stratton (2002) 536 U.S. 150 [122 S.Ct. 2080, 153 L.Ed.2d 205] does not compel a contrary result. Watchtower follows Martin, supra, 319 U.S. 141, in holding that the government may not bar a speaker from a homeowner’s door, but the homeowner surely may. The Martin court invalidated an ordinance that banned all door-to-door soliciting (in that case the speech was the noncommercial ideas of a religious sect), even at homes where the residents wished to hear the speech. This exclusion “substitute^] the judgment of the community for the judgment of the individual householder.” (Martin, at p. 144 [63 S.Ct. at p. 863].) Instead, the court authorized the property owner to indicate his desire not to be disturbed. “This or any similar regulation leaves the decision as to whether distributers of literature may lawfully call at a home where it belongs—with the homeowner himself.” {Id. at p. 148 [63 S.Ct. at p. 866].) A speaker is entitled to speak with willing listeners but not unwilling ones. *1370“A city can punish those who call at a home in defiance of the previously expressed will of the occupant . . . (Ibid., italics added.) Watchtower, supra, 536 U.S. 150, reaffirmed the listener’s complete autonomy to accept or reject offered speech.
Martin further recognized that the decisions regarding whether to accept a particular message must be made by a nongovernmental actor, but not necessarily by every single potential listener on an individual level. “No one supposes . . . that the First Amendment prohibits a state from preventing the distribution of leaflets in a church against the will of the church authorities.” (Martin, supra, 319 U.S. at p. 143 [63 S.Ct. at p. 863], italics added.) Unanimity among the congregation is not required. (See also Church of Christ in Hollywood v. Superior Court (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1244 [121 Cal.Rptr.2d 810] (Church of Christ).) The Supreme Court reaffirmed this rule in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972) 407 U.S. 551 [92 S.Ct. 2219, 33 L.Ed.2d 131] (Lloyd) and Hudgens v. NLRB (1976) 424 U.S, 507 [96 S.Ct. 1029, 47 L.Ed.2d 196], where private shopping mall owners validly excluded speakers from their malls. The owners could make this decision, even though they were not the “intended and actual recipients of [the speakers’] messages.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1365.) The owners had no obligation to obtain the agreement of every individual store within the mall, or of every employee within every store in the mall.1
*1371This rule applies not only to real property but also to chattels like a computer system. In Loving v. Boren, supra, 956 F.Supp. at page 955, the court held that the University of Oklahoma could restrict the use of its computer system to exclude pornographic messages, notwithstanding the contrary preferences of any individual faculty member (or student). Intel may similarly control the use of its own property, regardless of any specific employee’s contrary wishes. (See also Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17538.4, subd. (h).) In any event, Hamidi had ample opportunity in his preobjection e-mails to direct employees to his Web site or request the employees’ private e-mail addresses. He thus continues to use the internal Intel network to speak to an unreceptive audience.* 2
Accordingly, all that matters is that Intel exercised the right recognized in Martin to exclude unwanted speech. The instant case is considerably easier than Lloyd and Hudgens in light of the severe infringement on Intel’s autonomy. Whereas the mall owners had been asked merely to allow others to speak, Intel, through its server, must itself actively “participate in the dissemination of an ideological message by displaying it on . . . private property in a manner and for the express purpose that it be observed and read . . . .” (Wooley v. Maynard (1977) 430 U.S. 705, 713 [97 S.Ct. 1428, 1434-1435, 51 L.Ed.2d 752].)
The principle that a speaker’s right to speak to a particular listener exists for only so long as the listener wishes to listen applies also to mail delivery. (Rowan, supra, 397 U.S. 728.) In Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp. (1983) 463 U.S. 60 [103 S.Ct. 2875, 77 L.Ed.2d 469] (Bolger), the court struck down a law barring the mailing of information regarding contraception because the government was deciding which messages could be delivered. But Bolger cited Rowan with approval—a case that upheld the procedure by which private parties could refuse to receive specific materials. “[A] *1372sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail.” (Rowan, supra, 397 U.S. at p. 736 [90 S.Ct. at p. 1490].) Citing Martin, supra, 319 U.S. 141, Rowan held “a mailer’s right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee. [^[] . . . ffl] To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass.” (Rowan, at pp. 736-737 [90 S.Ct. at p. 1490], italics added.) Furthermore, Bolger expressly contemplated that some family members would exclude materials on behalf of others; the right to accept or reject speech thus belonged to the household, not each individual member. (Bolger, at p. 73 [103 S.Ct. at pp. 2883-2884].)
The pertinent precedent for an anti-spam case is Rowan, which involved private action, not Bolger, which involved governmental action. “ ‘[H]ere we are not dealing with a government agency which seeks to preempt in some way the ability of a publisher to contact a potential reader; rather, we are dealing with a reader who is familiar with the publisher’s product, and who is attempting to prevent the unwanted dumping of this product on his property.’” (CompuServe, supra, 962 F.Supp. at p. 1027, quoting Tillman, supra, 648 N.Y.S.2d at p. 635.)
Rowan further held the recipient could reject a message for any subjective reason, including annoyance or discomfort at its content. (Rowan, supra, 397 U.S. at p. 738 [90 S.Ct. at p. 1491].) A private actor thus has no obligation to hear all messages just because he chooses to hear some. A homeowner’s desire to receive letters from relatives or friends does not compel him to accept offensive solicitations. It is therefore possibly true but certainly immaterial that Intel might have expected that some unwanted messages would be sent to its employees. A store that opens its doors to the public should reasonably expect some individuals will attempt to shoplift, but the store does not thereby incur an obligation to accept their presence and the disruption they cause.
If we did create an “accept one, accept all” rule, whereby a party’s acceptance of outside mail abrogates the right to exclude any messages, the result would likely be less speech, not more. Courts have recognized the seeming paradox that permitting the exclusion of speech is necessary to safeguard it. “It is ironic that if defendants were to prevail on their First Amendment arguments, the viability of electronic mail as an effective means of communication for the rest of society would be put at risk.” (CompuServe, supra, 962 F.Supp. at p. 1028.) The Court of Appeal below likewise observed that employers’ tolerance for reasonable personal use of computers “would vanish if they had no way to limit such personal usage of company equipment.” (Cf. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974) 418 U.S. *1373241, 256 [94 S.Ct. 2831, 2839, 41 L.Ed.2d 730] [compulsory fair reply law would deter newspaper from speaking to avoid forced expression of disagreeable speech].) Furthermore, merely permitting exclusion may be insufficient absent a mechanism for enforcement. If spamming expands to a new volume of activity, “[t]he cost increases that would result from a massive increase in volume could even lead many sites to discontinue supporting standard e-mail altogether. Within a few years, e-mail may no longer be the near-universal method for communicating with people via the Internet that it is today.” (Sorkin, Technical and Legal Approaches to Unsolicited Electronic Mail (2001) 35 U.S.F. L.Rev. 325, 338-339, fn. omitted (Sorkin).)
The majority expresses its agreement with the dissent below, which found that if the lost productivity of Intel’s employees serves as the requisite injury, “then every unsolicited communication that does not further the business’s objectives (including telephone calls) interferes with the chattel. . • • [1] . • ■ [H] • • • Under Intel’s theory, even lovers’ quarrels could turn into trespass suits by reason of the receipt of unsolicited letters or calls from the jilted lover. Imagine what happens after the angry lover tells her fiancé not to call again and violently hangs up the phone. Fifteen minutes later the phone rings. Her fiancé wishing to make up? No, trespass to chattel.” But just as private citizens may deny access to door-to-door solicitors or mailers, they may also maintain the integrity of their phone system from callers they wish to exclude. A telephone, no less than an envelope, may be an instrument of trespass. (See Thrifty-Tel, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1566-1567.)
Individuals may not commandeer the communications systems of unwilling listeners, even if the speakers are jilted lovers who wish to reconcile. (People v. Miguez (1990) 147 Misc.2d 482 [556 N.Y.S.2d 231].)3 The Miguez defendant repeatedly left messages4 on the complainant’s answering machine and pager, “interrupting him in his professional capacity as a doctor.” (Miguez, at p. 232.) It was the disruptive volume (not the specific content) of calls from which the complainant was entitled to relief. Similarly, an individual could not lawfully telephone a police department 28 times in 3 hours and 20 minutes to inquire about a civil matter where the police told him not to call because he was disrupting police operations. (People v. Smith (1977) 89 Misc.2d 789 [392 N.Y.S.2d 968, 969-970].)
The law on faxes is even stricter. As faxes shift the costs of speech from the speaker to the listener, senders of commercial e-mail must obtain prior *1374consent from the recipient. (47 U.S.C. § 227.) Likewise, the users of automated telephone dialers also must obtain prior consent where they result in costs to the recipient. (47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(l)(A)(iii); Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. American Blast Fax, Inc. (8th Cir. 2003) 323 F.3d 649, 657 (Blast Fax).) Because e-mail permits mass unwanted communications without the sender’s having to bear the costs of postage or labor, there is a much greater incentive for sending unwanted e-mail, and thus the potential volume of unwanted e-mail may create even greater problems for recipients than the smaller volume of unwanted faxes. (Whang, supra, 37 San Diego L.Rev. at p. 1216 & fn. 112.) In any event, honoring the wishes of a party who requests the cessation of unwanted telecommunications, whether by phone, fax or e-mail, does nothing more than apply Martin to today’s technology. (Shannon, Combating Unsolicited Sales Calls: The “Do-Not-Call” Approach to Solving the Telemarketing Problem (2001) 27 J. Legis. 381, 394.)
Therefore, before the listener objects, the speaker need not fear he is trespassing. Afterwards, however, the First Amendment principle of respect for personal autonomy compels forbearance. “The Court has traditionally respected the right of a householder to bar, by order or notice, [speakers] from his property. See Martin v. City of Struthers, supra, .... In this case the mailer’s right to communicate is circumscribed only by an affirmative act of the addressee giving notice that he wishes no further mailings from that mailer.” (Rowan, supra, 397 U.S. at p. 737 [90 S.Ct. at p. 1490], italics added.) Speakers need not obtain affirmative consent before speaking, and thus have no reason to fear unexpected liability for trespass, but they must respect the decisions of listeners once expressed. The First Amendment protects the right not to listen just as it protects the right to speak.
The Trial Court Correctly Issued the Injunction
Intel had the right to exclude the unwanted speaker from its property, which Hamidi does not dispute; he does not argue that he has a right to force unwanted messages on Intel. The instant case thus turns on the question of whether Intel deserves a remedy for the continuing violation of its rights. I believe it does, and as numerous cases have demonstrated, an injunction to prevent a trespass to chattels is an appropriate means of enforcement.
The majority does not find that Hamidi has an affirmative right to have Intel transmit his messages, but denies Intel any remedy. Admittedly, the case would be easier if precise statutory provisions supported relief, but in the rapidly changing world of technology, in which even technologically savvy providers like America Online and CompuServe are one step behind spammers, the Legislature will likely remain three or four steps behind. In *1375any event, the absence of a statutory remedy does not privilege Hamidi’s interference with Intel’s property. Nor are content-based speech torts adequate for violations of property rights unrelated to the speech’s content. In any event, the possibility of another avenue for relief does not preclude an injunction for trespass to chattels.
The majority denies relief on the theory that Intel has failed to establish the requisite actual injury. As discussed, post, however, the injunction was properly granted because the rule requiring actual injury pertains to damages, not equitable relief, and thus courts considering comparable intrusions have provided injunctive relief without a showing of actual injury. Furthermore, there was actual injury as (1) Intel suffered economic loss; (2) it is sufficient for the injury to impair the chattel’s utility to the owner rather than the chattel’s market value; and (3) even in the absence of any injury to the owner’s utility, it is nevertheless a trespass where one party expropriates for his own use the resources paid for by another.

Harmless Trespasses to Chattels May Be Prevented

Defendant Hamidi used Intel’s server in violation of the latter’s demand to stop. This unlawful use of Intel’s system interfered with the use of the system by Intel employees. This misconduct creates a cause of action. “[I]t is a trespass to damage goods or destroy them, to make an unpermitted use of them, or to move them from one place to another.” (Prosser & Keeton on Torts (5th ed. 1984) Trespass to Chattels, § 14, p. 85, ins. omitted & italics added.) “[T]he unlawful taking away of another’s personal property, the seizure of property upon a wrongful execution, and the appropriation of another’s property to one’s own use, even for a temporary purpose, constitute trespasses, although a mere removal of property without injuring it is not a trespass when done by one acting rightfully.” (7 Speiser et al., American Law of Torts (1990) Trespass, § 23:23, p. 667, fns. omitted & italics added (Speiser).)
Regardless of whether property is real or personal, it is beyond dispute that an individual has the right to have his personal property free from interference. There is some division among authorities regarding the available remedy, particularly whether a harmless trespass supports a claim for nominal damages. The North Carolina Court of Appeal has found there is no damage requirement for a trespass to chattel. (See Hawkins v. Hawkins (1991) 101 N.C.App. 529 [400 S.E.2d 472, 475].) “A trespass to goods is actionable per se without any proof of actual damage. Any unauthorized touching or moving of an object is actionable at the suit of the possessor of it, even though no harm ensues.” (Salmond & Heuston, The Law of Torts *1376(21st ed. 1996) Trespass to Goods, § 6.2, p. 95, ins. omitted.) Several authorities consider a harmless trespass to goods actionable per se only if it is intentional. (Winfield & Jolowicz on Torts (10th ed. 1975) Trespass to Goods, p. 403 (Winfield & Jolowicz); Clerk & Lindsell on Torts (17th ed. 1995) 13-159, p. 703.) The Restatement Second of Torts, section 218, which is less inclined to favor liability, likewise forbids unauthorized use and recognizes the inviolability of personal property. However, the Restatement permits the owner to prevent the injury beforehand, or receive compensation afterward, but not to profit from the trespass through the remedy of damages unrelated to actual harm, which could result in a windfall. (Thrifty-Tel, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1569; Whang, supra, 37 San Diego L.Rev. at p. 1223.) “The interest of a possessor of a chattel in its inviolability, unlike the similar interest of a possessor of land, is not given legal protection by an action for nominal damages for harmless intermeddlings with the chattel. . . . Sufficient legal protection of the possessor’s interest in the mere inviolability of his chattel is afforded by his privilege to use reasonable force to protect his possession against even harmless interference.” (Rest.2d Torts, § 218, com. e, pp. 421-422, italics added.) Accordingly, the protection of land and chattels may differ on the question of nominal damages unrelated to actual injury. The authorities agree, however, that (1) the chattel is inviolable, (2) the trespassee need not tolerate even harmless interference, and (3) the possessor may use reasonable force to prevent it. Both California law and the Restatement authorize reasonable force regardless of whether the property in question is real or personal. (Civ. Code, § 51; Rest.2d Torts, §77.)
The law’s special respect for land ownership supports liability for damages even without actual harm. (Speiser, supra, § 23:1, p. 592.) By contrast, one who suffers interference with a chattel may prevent the interference before or during the fact, or recover actual damages (corresponding to the harm suffered), but at least according to the Restatement, may not recover damages in excess of those suffered. But the Restatement expressly refutes defendant’s assertion that only real property is inviolable. From the modest distinction holding that only victims of a trespass to land may profit in the form of damages exceeding actual harm, defendant offers the position that only trespasses to land may be prevented. The law is to the contrary; numerous cases have authorized injunctive relief to safeguard the inviolability of personal property.
The law favors prevention over posttrespass recovery, as it is permissible to use reasonable force to retain possession of a chattel but not to recover it after possession has been lost. (See 1 Dobbs, The Law of Torts (2001) §§ 76, 81, pp. 170, 186; see also Deevy v. Tassi (1942) 21 Cal.2d 109, 118-119 [130 *1377P.2d 389].) Notwithstanding the general rule that injunctive relief requires a showing of irreparable injury (5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Pleading, § 782, p. 239), Witkin also observes there are exceptions to this rule where injunctive relief is appropriate; these include repetitive trespasses. (Id., § 784, p. 242.) The first case cited in that section, Mendelson v. McCabe (1904) 144 Cal. 230 [77 P. 915] (Mendelson), is apposite to our analysis.
In entering McCabe’s property, Mendelson exceeded the scope of the consent he received to do so. McCabe had granted Mendelson the right to pass through his property on condition that Mendelson close the gates properly, which he did not do. (Mendelson, supra, 144 Cal. at pp. 231-232.) McCabe “did not allege that any actual damage had been caused by the acts of [Mendelson] ... in leaving the gates open.” (Id. at p. 232.) After finding that Mendelson planned to continue his conduct over McCabe’s objection, we authorized injunctive relief. (Id. at pp. 233-234.) Our analysis in Mendelson applies here as well. “The right to an injunction is not always defeated by the mere absence of substantial damage from the acts sought to be enjoined. The acts of the plaintiff in leaving the gates open, if persisted in as he threatens, will constitute a continual invasion of the right of the defendant to maintain the gates .... Moreover, the only remedy, other than that of an injunction, for the injury arising from such continued trespass, would be an action against the plaintiff for damages upon each occasion when he left the gates open. The damage in each case would be very small, probably insufficient to defray the expenses of maintaining the action not recoverable as costs. Such remedy is inadequate and would require numerous petty suits, which it is not the policy of the law to encourage.” (Id. at pp. 232-233.)
Our decision thus noted that injunctive relief was proper, regardless of actual injury, (1) if it is necessary to protect the trespassee’s right to control his property, or (2) if suits for damages are impractical, because no individual suit would be worthwhile. Accordingly, we reiterated the rule that “ ‘[a] trespass of a continuing nature, whose constant recurrence renders the remedy at law inadequate, unless by a multiplicity of suits, affords sufficient ground for relief.’ ” (Mendelson, supra, 144 Cal. at p. 233.) Both Mendelson grounds support an injunction here.
“Injunction is a proper remedy against threatened repeated acts of trespass . . . particularly where the probable injury resulting therefrom will be *1378‘beyond any method of pecuniary estimation,’ and for this reason irreparable.”5 (Uptown Enterprises v. Strand (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 45, 52 [15 Cal.Rptr. 486]; see also ibid, [an otherwise lawful “entry for the purpose of harassing the owner, giving his business a bad reputation ... or unjustifiably interfering with the business relations between him and his patrons is unauthorized, wrongful and actionable”].) Although Mendelson and Uptown Enterprises concerned real property, the principles of safeguarding a party’s possessory interest in property and of not encouraging repetitive litigation apply no less to trespasses to chattels. Accordingly, several courts have issued injunctive relief to prevent interference with personal property.
In 1996, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court considered the claim of plaintiff Tillman, who sought to enjoin the unwanted delivery of a newspaper onto his property. (Tillman, supra, 648 N.Y.S.2d 630.) He offered no specific critique of the newspaper’s content, observing only “ ‘[t]here is no reason that we have to clean up [defendant’s] mess.’ ” (Id. at p. 632.) Citing Rowan, Martin, and Lloyd, the court rejected the defendants’ argument “that there is nothing a homeowner can do to stop the dumping on his or her property of pamphlets or newspapers, no matter how offensive they might be,” and instead upheld Tillman’s right to prevent the mail’s delivery, regardless of whether his objection was due to the quantity (volume) or quality (content) of the messages. (Tillman, at p. 636.) In authorizing injunctive relief, the Tillman court found no need to quantify the actual damage created by the delivery; it merely noted that the homeowner should not be forced either “to allow such unwanted newspapers to accumulate, or to expend the time and energy necessary to gather and to dispose of them.” (Ibid.) Subsequent courts have extended this policy to the delivery of e-mail as well.
The CompuServe court followed Tillman in authorizing an injunction to prevent the delivery of unwanted e-mail messages. (CompuServe, supra, 962 F.Supp. 1015.) The majority summarily distinguishes CompuServe and its progeny by noting there the “plaintiff showed, or was prepared to show, some interference with the efficient functioning of its computer system.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1354.) But although CompuServe did note the impairment imposed by the defendant’s unsolicited e-mail, this was not part of its *1379holding. Just before beginning its analysis, the court summarized its ruling without mentioning impairment. “[T]his Court holds that where defendants engaged in a course of conduct of transmitting a substantial volume of electronic data in the form of unsolicited e-mail to plaintiffs proprietary computer equipment, where defendants continued such practice after repeated demands to cease and desist, and where defendants deliberately evaded plaintiffs affirmative efforts to protect its computer equipment from such use, plaintiff has a viable claim for trespass to personal property and is entitled to injunctive relief to protect its property.” (CompuServe, supra, 962 F.Supp. at p. 1017.) The cited criteria apply fully to Hamidi’s conduct. Likewise, the conclusion of CompuServe's analysis fully applies here: “Defendants’ intentional use of plaintiffs proprietary computer equipment exceeds plaintiffs consent and, indeed, continued after repeated demands that defendants cease. Such use is an actionable trespass to plaintiffs chattel.” (Id. at p. 1027.)
Post -CompuServe case law has emphasized that unauthorized use of another’s property establishes a trespass, even without a showing of physical damage. “Although eBay appears unlikely to be able to show a substantial interference at this time, such a showing is not required. Conduct that does not amount to a substantial interference with possession, but which consists of intermeddling with or use of another’s personal property, is sufficient to establish a cause of action for trespass to chattel.” (eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2000) 100 F.Supp.2d 1058, 1070.)6 “While the eBay decision could be read to require an interference that was more than negligible, . . . this Court concludes that eBay, in fact, imposes no such requirement. Ultimately, the court in that case concluded that the defendant’s conduct was sufficient to establish a cause of action for trespass not because the interference was ‘substantial’ but simply because the defendant’s conduct amounted to ‘use’ of Plaintiffs computer.” (Oyster Software, Inc. v. Forms Processing, Inc. (N.D.Cal., Dec. 6, 2001, No. C-00-0724 JCS) 2001 WL1736382 at *13.) An intruder is not entitled to sleep in his neighbor’s car, even if he does not chip the paint.
Hamidi concedes Intel’s legal entitlement to block the unwanted messages. The problem is that although Intel has resorted to the cyberspace version of reasonable force, it has so far been unsuccessful in determining how to resist the unwanted use of its system. Thus, while Intel has the legal *1380right to exclude Hamidi from its system, it does not have the physical ability. It may forbid Hamidi’s use, but it cannot prevent it.
To the majority, Hamidi’s ability to outwit Intel’s cyber defenses justifies denial of Intel’s claim to exclusive use of its property. Under this reasoning, it is not right but might that determines the extent of a party’s possessory interest. Although the world often works this way, the legal system should not.

Intel Suffered Injury

Even if CompuServe and its progeny deem injury a prerequisite for injunctive relief, such injury occurred here. Intel suffered not merely an affront to its dignitary interest in ownership but tangible economic loss. Furthermore, notwithstanding the majority’s doubts, it is entirely consistent with the Restatement and case law to recognize a property interest in the subjective utility of one’s property. Finally, case law further recognizes as actionable the loss that occurs when one party maintains property for its own use and another party uses it, even if the property does not suffer damage as a result.

Intel suffered economic loss

Courts have recognized the tangible costs imposed by the receipt of unsolicited bulk e-mail (UBE).7 Approximately 10 percent of the cost of Internet access arises from the delivery of UBE, because networks must expand to ensure their functioning will not be disturbed by the unwanted messages and must design software to reduce the flood of spam. (Whang, supra, 37 San Diego L.Rev. at pp. 1203 & fn. 10, 1207 & fn. 37.) Especially where bulk e-mailers mask the true content of their messages in the “header” (as Hamidi did), there is a shift in costs from sender to recipient that resembles “ ‘sending junk mail with postage due or making telemarketing calls to someone’s pay-per-minute cellular phone.’” (Ferguson v. Friendfinders, Inc. (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1268 [115 Cal.Rptr.2d 258] (Ferguson), quoting State v. Heckel (2001) 143 Wash.2d 824 [24 P.3d 404, 98 A.L.R.5th 703] (Heckel).) E-mail may be cheaper and more efficient than *1381other means of communication, but “[t]here is no constitutional requirement that the incremental cost of sending massive quantities of unsolicited [messages] must be borne by the recipients.” (CompuServe, supra, 962 F.Supp. at p. 1026.)
The Ferguson court noted the tangible economic loss to employers created by unwanted e-mail. “Individuals who receive UCE can experience increased Internet access fees because of the time required to sort, read, discard, and attempt to prevent future sending of UCE. If the individual undertakes this process at work, his or her employer suffers the financial consequences of the wasted time.” (Ferguson, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 1267, italics added.) CompuServe likewise observed the recipient of unwanted e-mail must “sift through, at his expense, all of the messages in order to find the ones he wanted or expected to receive.” (CompuServe, supra, 962 F.Supp. at p. 1023, italics added.) Unwanted messages also drain the equipment’s processing power, and slow down the transfers of electronic data. (Id. at pp. 1022, 1028.)
The economic costs of unwanted e-mail exist even if Intel employees, unlike CompuServe subscribers, do not pay directly for the time they spend on the Internet. No such direct costs appear here, only the opportunity costs of lost time. But for Intel, “time is money” nonetheless. One justification for the strict rule against unsolicited faxes is that they “shift[] costs to the recipients who are forced to contribute ink, paper, wear on their fax machines, as well as personnel time.” (Blast Fax, supra, 323 F.3d at p. 652, italics added.) (In re Johnny M. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1128 [123 Cal.Rptr.2d 316] [vandalism that diverted salaried employees from ordinary duties caused economic loss through lost work product].)
Courts have also recognized the harm produced by unwanted paper mail. Mail sent in violation of a request to stop creates the “burdens of scrutinizing the mail for objectionable material and possible harassment.” (Rowan, supra, 397 U.S. at p. 735 [90 S.Ct. at p. 1489], italics added.) The Tillman court thus held a newspaper could not compel unwilling recipients “to spend their own time or money unwillingly participating in the distribution process by which a newspaper travels from the printing press to its ultimate destination, i.e., disposal.” (Tillman, supra, 648 N.Y.S.2d at p. 636, italics added.)8
Although Hamidi claims he sent only six e-mails, he sent them to between 8,000 and 35,000 employees, thus sending from 48,000 to 210,000 messages. Since it is the effect on Intel that is determinative, it is the number of *1382messages received, not sent, that matters. In any event, Hamidi sent between 48,000 and 210,000 messages; the “six” refers only to the number of distinct texts Hamidi sent. Even if it takes little time to determine the author of a message and then delete it, this process, multiplied hundreds of thousands of times, amounts to a substantial loss of employee time, and thus work product. If Intel received 200,000 messages, and each one could be skimmed and deleted in six seconds, it would take approximately 333 hours, or 42 business days, to delete them all. In other words, if Intel hired an employee to remove all unwanted mail, it would take that individual two entire months to finish. (Cf. Tubbs v. Delk (Mo.Ct.App. 1996) 932 S.W.2d 454, 456 (Tubbs) [deprivation of access to chattel for “ ‘less than five minutes’ ” constitutes actionable trespass, although found justified there].)

Intel’s injury is properly related to the chattel

The majority does not dispute that Intel suffered a loss of work product as a matter of fact, so much as it denies that this loss may constitute the requisite injury as a matter of law. According to the majority, the reduced utility of the chattel to the owner does not constitute a sufficiently cognizable injury, which exists only where the chattel itself suffers injury, i.e., its “market value” falls. ° The Restatement and related case law are to the contrary.
The Restatement recognizes that the measure of impairment may be subjective; a cognizable injury may occur not only when the trespass reduces the chattel’s market value but also when the trespass affects its value to the owner. “In the great majority of cases, the actor’s intermeddling with the chattel impairs the value of it to the possessor, as distinguished from the mere affront to his dignity as possessor, only by some impairment of the physical condition of the chattel. There may, however, be situations in which the value to the owner of a particular type of chattel may be impaired by dealing with it in a manner that does not affect its physical condition.” (Rest.2d Torts, § 218, com. h, p. 422, italics added.)
The Restatement goes on to explain that A’s using B’s toothbrush could extinguish its value to B. The brushing constitutes a trespass by impairing the brush’s subjective value to the owner rather than its objective market value. (Rest.2d Torts, § 218, com. h, p. 422.) Moreover, there can be a trespass even though the chattel is used as intended—to brush teeth—if it is used by an unwanted party.
As the Court of Appeal’s opinion below indicated, interference with an owner’s ability to use the chattel supports a trespass. The opinion recalled *1383the rule, which dates back almost 400 years, holding that chasing an owner’s animal amounts to a trespass to chattels. (See, e.g., Farmer v. Hunt (1610) 123 Eng.Rep. 766; Winfield & Jolowicz, supra, Trespass to Goods, p. 403.) These authorities do not require injury or damage to the animal; the interference with the owner’s use of the animal suffices to create a trespass. (Winfield & Jolowicz, p. 40.) Interference is actionable if it “deprives the possessor of the use of that chattel.” (Fleming, The Law of Torts (9th ed. 1998) Trespass, § 4.1, p. 598.) Moreover, such interference need not permanently deny the owner the ability to use the chattel—mere delay is enough. (See Tubbs, supra, 932 S.W.2d at p. 456.)
A contemporary version of this interference would occur if a trespasser unplugged the computers of the entire Intel staff and moved them to a high shelf in each employee’s office or cubicle. The computers themselves would suffer no damage, but all 35,000 employees would need to take the time to retrieve their computers and restart them. This would reduce the computers’ utility to Intel, for, like the chased animals, they would not be available for immediate use. If the chasing of a few animals supports a trespass, then so does even minimal interference with a system used by 35,000 individuals.
CompuServe is in accord, as it observed how a bundle of unwanted messages decreased the utility of the server. (CompuServe, supra, 962 F.Supp. at p. 1023.) Here, Intel maintains a possessory interest in the efficient and productive use of its system—which it spends millions of dollars to acquire and maintain. Hamidi’s conduct has impaired the system’s optimal functioning for Intel’s business purposes. As the Restatement supports liability where “harm is caused to some . . . thing in which the possessor has a legally protected interest” (Rest.2d Torts, § 218, subd. (d)), Hamidi has trespassed upon Intel’s chattel.

The unlawful use of another’s property is a trespass, regardless of its effect on the property’s utility to the owner

Finally, even if Hamidi’s interference did not affect the server’s utility to Intel, it would still amount to a trespass. Intel has poured millions of dollars into a resource that Hamidi has now appropriated for his own use. As noted above, “the appropriation of another’s property to one’s own use, even for a temporary purpose, constitute[s] [aj trespass[].” (Speiser, supra, § 23:23, p. 667, in. omitted.) The use by one party of property whose costs have been paid by another amounts to an unlawful taking of those resources—even if there is no unjust enrichment by the trespassing party.
In Buchanan Marine Inc. v. McCormack Sand Co. (E.D.N.Y. 1990) 743 F.Supp. 139 (Buchanan), the plaintiff built and maintained mooring buoys *1384for use by its own tugboats. The defendants’ barges used the buoy over the plaintiffs objection. (Id. at pp. 140-141.) The federal district court found such unlawful use could constitute a trespass to chattels (if the facts were proved), and thus denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. “[Djefendants’ meddling with [the buoy] is either a trespass to a chattel or perhaps a conversion for which [the plaintiff] may seek relief in the form of damages and an injunction.” (Id. atpp. 141-142.) There was an allegation of damage (to the plaintiffs barge, not the buoy itself), which could support a claim for damages, but this was not a prerequisite for injunctive relief. Even if the defendants did not injure the buoys in any way, they still had no right to expropriate the plaintiffs property for their own advantage.
The instant case involves a similar taking. Intel has paid for thousands of computers, as well as the costs of maintaining a server.9 Like the Buchanan defendants, Hamidi has likewise acted as a free rider in enjoying the use of not only Intel’s computer system but the extra storage capacity needed to accommodate his messages. Furthermore, Intel’s claim, which does not object to Hamidi’s speaking independently,10 only to his use of Intel’s property, resembles that of the Buchanan plaintiff who “has not sought to prevent others from placing their own mooring buoys in the Harbor,” but only the use of the plaintiffs property.11 (Buchanan, supra, 743 F.Supp. at p. 142.) Hamidi has thus unlawfully shifted the .costs of his speaking to Intel. (Ferguson, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 1268; Blast Fax, supra, 323 F.3d at p. 652; Heckel, supra, 24 P.3d at p. 410.)
Moreover, even such free ridership is not necessary to establish a trespass to chattels. Had the Thrifty-Tel defendants succeeded in making free telephone calls without authorization, they would stand in the same position as the Buchanan defendants. But the record does not show they ever succeeded in making calls for which another subscriber (or the phone company itself) would have to pay. Thus, neither injury to the trespassee nor benefit to the *1385trespasser is an element of trespass to chattel. “[T]respass to chattel has evolved considerably from its original common law application—concerning the asportation of another’s tangible property—to include even the unauthorized use of personal property.” (Thrifty-Tel, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1566.)
As in those cases in which courts have granted injunctions to prevent the delivery of unwanted mail, paper or electronic, Intel is not attempting to profit from its trespass action by receiving nominal damages. Rather, it seeks an injunction to prevent further trespass. Moreover, Intel suffered the requisite injury by losing a great deal of work product, a harm properly related to the property itself, as well as the money it spent in maintaining the system, which Hamidi wrongfully expropriated.
Conclusion
Those who have contempt for grubby commerce and reverence for the ratified heights of intellectual discourse may applaud today’s decision, but even the flow of ideas will be curtailed if the right to exclude is denied. As the Napster controversy revealed, creative individuals will be less inclined to develop intellectual property if they cannot limit the terms of its transmission. Similarly, if online newspapers cannot charge for access, they will be unable to pay the journalists and editorialists who generate ideas for public consumption.
This connection between the property right to objects and the property right to ideas and speech is not novel. James Madison observed, “a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.” (Madison, Property, Nat. Gazette (Mar. 27, 1792), reprinted in The Papers of James Madison (Rutland et al. edits., 1983) p. 266, quoted in McGinnis, The Once and Future Property-Based Vision of the First Amendment (1996) 63 U. Chi. L.Rev. 49, 65.) Likewise, “a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, “freedom of speech and property rights were seen simply as different aspects of an indivisible concept of liberty.” (Id. at p. 63.)
The principles of both personal liberty and social utility should counsel us to usher the common law of property into the digital age.

 The majority distinguishes Church of Christ on its facts, by asserting that a former church member could be barred from church property because she had a “tangible presence” on the church’s property. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1364.) But the majority does not refute the legal point that “the mere judicial enforcement of neutral trespass laws by the private owner of property does not alone render it a state actor.” (CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. (S.D. Ohio 1997) 962 F.Supp. 1015, 1026 (CompuServe))
The First Amendment does not shield Hamidi’s speech, and the majority’s authorities do not suggest it does. On the contrary, the high court recognized that the First Amendment does not preclude generally applicable laws, even where they incidentally restrict speech. (Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (1991) 501 U.S. 663, 669 [111 S.Ct. 2513, 2518, 115 L.Ed.2d 586].) There is thus no right to intrude upon privately owned property simply to generate speech. (Ibid.)
The majority cites New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254 [84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 95 A.L.R.2d 1412], as well as NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982) 458 U.S. 886 [102 S.Ct. 3409, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215], and Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc. (1994) 512 U.S. 753 [114 S.Ct. 2516, 129 L.Ed.2d 593], none of which is apposite. In these cases, speakers enjoyed First Amendment protection when they spoke to the public through a newspaper advertisement (with the newspaper’s consent) or a protest on a public street, a traditional public forum. (Schneider v. State (1939) 308 U.S. 147 [60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155].) If Hamidi had similarly expressed his anti-Intel feelings in a newspaper advertisement or from a public street, these authorities would be on point. By contrast, nothing in New York Times entitles a computer hacker to alter an online newspaper’s content so that it expresses the hacker’s opinions against the paper’s wishes.
Intel’s right to use reasonable force (see maj. opn., ante, at p. 1352), to prevent interference with its property distinguishes this case from the majority’s United States Supreme Court *1371precedents. Whereas Intel could attempt to block the unwanted messages, Sullivan, who claimed to have been libeled by the newspaper, could not have burned the newspapers to prevent their publication, nor could the targets of the public protesters in Claiborne Hardware or Madsen have driven them from the public streets where they were speaking. Contrariwise, Intel, as the majority does not dispute, would have been allowed to suppress Hamidi’s messages if it had been able to do so.

 Hamidi required employees to take affirmative steps to remove themselves from the mailing list. Not only might some employees have declined to do so because such removal might involve a greater burden than simply deleting the unwanted message, but they also might reasonably have assumed that such requests could be counterproductive. (Whang, An Analysis of California’s Common and Statutory Law Dealing with Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail: An Argument for Revision (2000) 37 San Diego L.Rev. 1201, 1205-1206 (Whang).) “ ‘Don’t respond [to spam]! Don’t ask them to “take you off a list.” People who respond—even negatively—are viewed as Grade A targets. You will probably get more junk than ever.’ ” (Id. at p. 1206 & fh. 24, quoting Campbell, Waging War on Internet Spammers, Toronto Star (Aug. 26, 1999) p. L5.)

 New York further proscribes such conduct as criminal. {People v. Miguez, supra, 556 N.Y.S.2d 231.)

 Some of the messages reflected a desire to reconcile: “ ‘ “Please don’t hurt me anymore. You’ve hurt me enough, I still love you.” ’ ” A later call stated, “ ‘ “Eddie I want to give you my number; even if you don’t call me, I want you to have it.” ’ ” (People v. Miguez, supra, 556 N.Y.S.2d at p. 232.)

 The majority asserts Intel was not deprived of its computers “for any measurable length of time” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 1353), which supposedly fits this case within the rule that a “ ‘mere momentary or theoretical’ ” deprivation is insufficient to establish a trespass to chattel (maj. opn., ante, at p. 1357). There is a chasm between the two descriptions. The time needed to identify and delete 200,000 e-mail messages is not capable of precise estimation, but it is hardly theoretical or momentary. Most people have no idea of how many words they spoke yesterday, but that does not render the figure de minimis.

 The majority asserts eBay does require impairment, because the opinion noted that the wide replication of the defendant’s conduct would likely impair the functioning of the plaintiff’s system. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 1354-1355.) Of course, the “wide replication” of Hamidi’s conduct would likely impair Intel’s operating system. Accordingly, a diluted “likely impairment through wide replication” standard would favor Intel, not Hamidi.

 There is considerable debate regarding whether “spam” encompasses only unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE) or all UBE, regardless of its commercial nature. (Sorkin, supra, 35 U.S.F. L.Rev. at pp. 333-335.) Because parties object to spam due to its volume rather than the sender’s motivation, UBE is a preferable definition. (Id. at p. 335.) Moreover, as our decision in Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939 [119 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 45 P.3d 243] made plain, there is no bright-line distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech. (See also City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc. (1993) 507 U.S. 410, 419 [113 S.Ct. 1505, 1511, 123 L.Ed.2d 99].)

 Citing to Bolger, supra, 463 U.S. at page 72 [103 S.Ct. at page 2883], for the proposition that the Constitution imposes on recipients the burden of disposing of unwanted mail, is inapposite because, as explained in part I, ante, Bolger involved the government’s objections to the delivery, not the objection of a nongovernmental actor like Intel, which, under Rowan, supra, 397 U.S at pages 736-738 [90 S.Ct. at pages 1490-1491], may exclude unwanted mail.

 In fact, Intel pays to maintain a high capacity to ensure that the system does not crash (or slow down); if Intel had not preempted such harm, there is no dispute that Hamidi would be liable for damages. As Professor Epstein cogently observes, Intel is thus being penalized for engaging in preemptive self-help. According to the majority, Intel would do better by saving its money and collecting damages after a crash/slowdown.

 Intel does not object to Hamidi’s transmitting the same message through his Web site, e-mail to employees’ home computers, snail mail to their homes, distribution of materials from outside the company’s gates, or any other communication that does not conscript Intel’s property into Hamidi’s service. Intel does object to the use of its property, regardless of its message. Although Intel objected that Hamidi sent antagonistic messages, Intel would presumably also object if Hamidi sent “blank” messages that slowed down both the Intel system and the employees who use it.

 As with the hypothetical toothbrush, the Buchanan defendants used the buoy for its intended use. (Buchanan, supra, 743 F.Supp. at p. 140.)