15 ms·

If I were a spammer I would very much not appreciate the notion that you will allow them to remove my content, but not your "political content". Why is your co

If I were a spammer I would very much not appreciate the notion that you will allow them to remove my content, but not your "political content". Why is your content okay, but mine isn't?

paulgb 6y ago
Just incorporate political messages into your spam. (I kid, but I think it gets at the biggest flaw in reasoning of people who think there is an objective distinction between political speech and spam.)
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  Courts are well practiced at sorting these kinds of things out. They would review the content, presentation, targeting, etc. of the emails to determine if it is commercial speech or political speech.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    This is a nightmare scenario. Take down a platform by flooding it with ambiguously political spam and then bring lawsuits until a judge rules censorship. Color me unsurprised that the end game of the nominally pro–free speech crowd is letting the government determine what legal speech should be censored.
  - paulgb 6y ago
    The two problems with this approach: 1. Even if the courts always get it right, small sites are not going to want to want to hire a lawyer and go to court to defend someone else's speech. They will instead err on the side of caution (as many do now for DMCA violations), causing a chilling effect on speech. 2. In a system where whether a platform is liable for its content is ultimately decided by courts we cede a lot of power over speech to the government. I really don't think the courts are the path we want to take.
    - verroq 6y ago
      The government is forced to honour the Constitution unlike private corporations. As courts set precedents, the process will become more streamlined. Ultimately becoming codified into law by congress.
pnw_hazor 6y ago
If the spam is commercial speech it can be subjected to significant regulation as long as the regulation is viewpoint neutral the same as other commercial speech.

If I were a spammer I would very much not appreciate the notion that you will allow them to remove my content, but not your "political content". Why is your content okay, but mine isn't?

paulgb 6y ago

Just incorporate political messages into your spam. (I kid, but I think it gets at the biggest flaw in reasoning of people who think there is an objective distinction between political speech and spam.)

pnw_hazor 6y ago
Courts are well practiced at sorting these kinds of things out. They would review the content, presentation, targeting, etc. of the emails to determine if it is commercial speech or political speech.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  This is a nightmare scenario. Take down a platform by flooding it with ambiguously political spam and then bring lawsuits until a judge rules censorship. Color me unsurprised that the end game of the nominally pro–free speech crowd is letting the government determine what legal speech should be censored.
- paulgb 6y ago
  The two problems with this approach: 1. Even if the courts always get it right, small sites are not going to want to want to hire a lawyer and go to court to defend someone else's speech. They will instead err on the side of caution (as many do now for DMCA violations), causing a chilling effect on speech. 2. In a system where whether a platform is liable for its content is ultimately decided by courts we cede a lot of power over speech to the government. I really don't think the courts are the path we want to take.
  - verroq 6y ago
    The government is forced to honour the Constitution unlike private corporations. As courts set precedents, the process will become more streamlined. Ultimately becoming codified into law by congress.

pnw_hazor 6y ago

If the spam is commercial speech it can be subjected to significant regulation as long as the regulation is viewpoint neutral the same as other commercial speech.