A libertarian will argue that fraud is an act that is not the same as free speech and hence is not covered by free speech. I don't agree with the libertarian viewpoints overall, however I will acknowledge they have a point about the distinction between those two things.

And what is spam? I can acknowledge fraud not being free speech (although it's a stretch as well), i.e. it's intended to harm (again one could argue about a lot of other speech as well), but how can they make the same argument for spam?

Spam is literally commerce. But almost every platform acknowledges it needs to be removed because its unwanted.

I'm not asking what spam is, I'm well aware.

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).

No I am taking the view that spam is speech, and should be included in an absolutists agenda.

That's quite the take. My hat goes off to you, ya crazy bastard. <3

The problem with spam isnt the content, its the quantity.

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)

> people I do not align with and have fundamental disagreements with with should adopt this absurd viewpoint I am presenting as their own.

*honk honk*

They are welcome to change their moniker to "Free Speech Marginalist" otherwise, if they continue to advertise as absolutist I will continue to insist they live up to it.

Spam is far too obviously not speech is the thing. They will continue to use the moniker "Free Speech absolutist", and ignore you. But keep campaigning as the one lone voice with that, I'll still continue cheering you on while the rest of the world ignores your funny viewpoint that isn't believable for you to actually even have.

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.

Spam can be whatever who so happens to be the site moderator, or maybe some very tiny yet obnoxiously vocal minority, wants it to be.

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.

So free speech absolutism shouldnt extend to bad faith?

Well that brings us right back to the moderation free speech absolutists are angry about.

I suggest to review the comment you replied to.

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.