> On Nov 20, 2020, at 4:45 PM, Rob McEwen <r...@invaluement.com> wrote: > > On 11/20/2020 4:37 PM, Eric Broch wrote: >> It seems spammers are using political arguments to justify their actions. >> I'll give them credit, at least they're trying to justify what they do by >> something greater than (outside of) themselves, albeit wrongly. >> It seems people on this side of the argument want to jettison politics (and >> religion) and have no justification (only personal preference) for what they >> do. Curious! >> At the core spammers seem more logically consistent than those who oppose >> them. > > > I have extremely large amounts of spams on file in my spamtrap spam > collection from all various political viewpoints, political parties, and > moral/ethical/religious viewpoints - MANY of them think that THEIR greater > good justifies spamming, and ironically their beliefs are often in 100% > contradiction to OTHER spammers who have opposite beliefs, but likewise think > that their spam is justified by THEIR "greater good". Thankfully, it isn't my > job to determine who is justified and, instead, I believe that NONE of them > are justified in sending spam - spam is about *consent* - NOT *content*.
I mean, remember campaign and I believe non-profit stuff in the US is EXEMPT from CAN-SPAM, so they don’t even have to play by the rules. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2015/08/candid-answers-can-spam-questions <https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2015/08/candid-answers-can-spam-questions> First amendment stuff is going to be very fun with this current crop of federal judges and the SC. A recent ruling said public health interests can be overruled because “masking” is somehow restricting speech, lol. Charles > > -- > Rob McEwen, invaluement >
