Emphasis is placed on the problem of spam on the commercial free speech. The argument in relation to the ethical agreement of commercial spam emphasizes upon the moral standard in terms of the freedom of expression among individuals. Globally the freedom of expression among individuals is protected as a result of the benefits that are associated with the application of freedom of expression. Thus, freedom of expression is an important requisite in a liberal democratic state. The freedom of expression entails commercial forms of expression such as the use of spam (Spinello, 2006).
Spam should therefore be protected as a commercial free speech. This is attributed to the fact that if the use of such spams are not protected various contents that can be considered as harmful may be consumed by individuals. This protection will therefore entail various forms of restrictions that will ensure that only credible form of information is consumed by the audience. Various countries such as China and United States have engaged in some form of restriction of spam as a commercial free speech in order to take care of such contents such as pornography (Rooksby, 2007).
However, there are enough reasons in relation to the fact that commercial expression should not be protected as a form of free speech among individuals. Commercial expressions in its essence do not promote truth as an essential aspect in free speech or freedom of expression. Furthermore, spams are not known to promote the beliefs or opinions of individuals in the freedom of expression. Thus, the use of spam as a commercial expression should not be protection as it does not promote truth in its expression (Rooksby, 2007).
Additionally, citizens of any particular state have a right in regards to freedom of expression. This right to liberty therefore guarantees an individual with a right to