Theres no such thing as a free speech absolutist.
Supposed free speech absolutists demand reversals of bans from platforms for people due to hate speech.
Not 1 is demanding the same for spammers or fraudsters.
Supposed free speech absolutists demand reversals of bans from platforms for people due to hate speech.
Not 1 is demanding the same for spammers or fraudsters.
We are in a discussion about free speech absolutism. Somebody who says they are a free speech absolutist who supports spam filtering, needs to either justify why spam is not speech (which is my question, why would it not be speech), or acknowledge that they agree there are limits to free speech.
Or is your argument that if it is commerce it's not free speech? That would allow all commerce to be censored (and we just kick the can down the road, what is commerce).
Lots of spam emails are for genuine services. But its generally accepted that because the speech is unwanted and the quanity of it lowers the quality of the platform, that its fine to filter it off.
Free Speech absolutism should incorporate it, but doesnt. (Which sort of indicates its mostly about broadcasting their opinions rather than being in favour of all speech)
*honk honk*
I'm a 3/4 black partially Jewish gay man, so you can imagine where I stand on "Free Speech absolutism". While I am for the most part on your "side", I want to stick to arguments that are persuasive.
Beyond that practical matter, the least bad definition I have for spam (and this is just off the top of my head right now) is: advertising that is unsolicited and disseminated in a bad faith style.
Any of us who are being honest with ourselves, maybe with exception to the acutely socially challenged, know spam when we see it.
Well that brings us right back to the moderation free speech absolutists are angry about.
Free speech absolutism shouldn't extend to: advertising that is unsolicited and disseminated in a bad faith style.
Sorry about the state of your reading comprehension (or lack of it). Unfortunate.