Also: "Any fraudulent, abusive, or otherwise illegal activity or any use of the Services or Content in violation of this Agreement may be grounds for termination of Subscriber’s right to Services or to access the Network." Now, to be fair, the verbiage is "may be grounds for termination". Still, I agree this is a rather offensive case as demonstrated by - if nothing else - the votes in this thread.

Why is everyone getting so hung up on the spam argument? It's much more simple than that. From the ToS (emphasis mine): "Under no circumstances will Subscriber use the Network or the Service to ... (d) knowingly post any false, inaccurate or incomplete material..."

+1 This was also discussed recently in the IT Security beta's Meta: meta.security.stackexchange.com/q/4/953