On 19 Nov 2020, at 14:25, Kevin A. McGrail <kmcgr...@apache.org> wrote: > So over the years, I have gotten a lot of complaints from spammers about how > I'm breaking their 1st amendment rights by blocking their spam as free > speech. I've had to explain that I'm not the government and hence there are > no 1st amendment rights involved.
A whole lot of people have decided their right to free speech means an obligation from others to listen to them. It's not just spammers, it's also racists, fascists, republicans, and god-botherers. Just because a spammer has the right to speak does not mean I have to listen. I am within my rights to drown them out with a loudspeaker while I stand next to them so I can't hear them, because that is MY rights to free speech. And, of course, their rights to free speech do not apply to anything but government interference. It does not apply to mailing lists, Twitter, web comments, and it does not give them the right to access my server and deliver crap to my users/accounts. > However, my friend, Steve Effros, just wrote a far more eloquent article > about it and I thought others on this list might appreciate it: > > <https://www.cablefax.com/regulation/first-things-first> It's a good summary. -- IT WOULD BE A MILLION TO ONE CHANCE, said Death. EXACTLY A MILLION TO ONE CHANCE. 'Oh,' said the Bursar, intensely relieved. 'Oh dear. What a shame.' --Eric
