I would think that users could be allowed to choose to have a spam filter on their own account--in the same way that I can choose to screen calls on my telephone service--but, if Google unilaterally decides that I am not allowed to receive the call even if I am interested (giving me no way to opt out of their spam filter or allow people I consider not spam), then that could be a problem.
I don't understand your point or what you are responding to :(. The issue at hand is whether the concept of a spam filter violates the position of these laws, and I do not think it does as long as the spam filter is not a universal configuration that is forced on everyone. As long as you can either deactivate the spam filter entirely or whitelist specific senders (though I can make more elaborate arguments where this isn't quite sufficient due to bias) / specific content (which should be sufficient), then I believe that Google's spam filter is not the same thing as "moderation" which deletes or blocks the content for everyone, whether they wanted to see it or not.
In which case I am saying that that seems dangerous for them to be doing under this law, but that the concept of a spam filter isn't fundamentally broken and so people--such as the person I am responding to--who seem concerned that they won't be able to filter spam going forward are off-base, as I would think the spam filter need only be configurable (and, certainly, it would not prevent a third-party spam filter from existing).
The language in the law says that email providers cannot do something "impeding the transmission of email messages based on content." So, they can probably give you tools to allow/deny emails from addresses you can enter, at least. Given that spam filters blocking fundraising emails from conservative groups is already something discussed among conservatives, it seems at least plausible that making spam filters illegal was actually intended here. I guess we'll find out as soon as someone sues (or the supreme court throws it out).
