spamassassin-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Broch <>
Subject Re: Apache SpamAssassin and Spammers 1st Amendment Rights
Date Fri, 20 Nov 2020 14:03:57 GMT
In summation the Bill of Rights (1-10 amendments) protects (or is 
supposed to protect) the life, liberty, and property of the individual 
from abuse by the newly created government and are commands of the 
people to this governments' servants.

If I tell one child not to draw on the walls with crayons does that mean 
that it's okay for another child to do so? I think not! So, when the 
people command their government not to trample their rights, this in no 
way gives permission for others to do so.

It is not okay, for say, Antifa, to rob my store. Government was 
instituted to protect the innocent from others while not abusing the 
innocent itself.

The 1st Amendment is not a right, it's a command from the people to the 
central government. That's why it's illegitimate to say, "I have a 1st 
Amendment right."

The words of spammers are complete B.S. They rob people of time and 
money by clogging legitimate communications, email. It's like a third 
party continually interrupting a conversation two people are having.

Basically rights are things that my Creator has authorized me (and 
others) to do. Spammers are not authorized to interrupt communications 
between consenting parties. Their interruptions waste our livelihood. We 
could be spending time in more profitable endeavors. So, basically, 
spammers are thieves.

To Google and other social media: The terms of their establishment 
dictate that they cannot prevent free speech. These institutions are 
acting as arms of the establishment in pushing the official narrative 
and silencing descent.

On 11/19/2020 2:25 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Afternoon Everyone,
> 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.
> However, my friend, Steve Effros, just wrote a far more eloquent 
> article about it and I thought others on this list might appreciate it:
> <>
> Regards,

View raw message