Isn't CENSORSHIP of ANY controversial speech/press ILLEGAL in America?

Question

Email monitoring by anonymous Feds, "reporting abuses" to nameless Yahoo! gatekeepers, questions and answers disappearing or being cut short without dialogue of who or why or by whom, one-way access of public profiles personal info... we're on a slipperly slope people, no wonder we commoners are getting angry and suspicious of all these COVERT actions at so many levels both here and abroad. Hope this ? and your answers survive...

Answer 1

Pretty much.

The 1st Amendment protects against government action (directly against federal, and via the 14th for state/local). So, action taken by government agencies that deny people the opportunity to express and share their opinions and beliefs is generally a constitutional violation.

There are exceptions, such as revealing the locations of troop deployments, identities of undercover police agents, or speech that incites imminent and unlawful action, or which poses a clear and present (immediate) danger to public safety.

As far as Yahoo Answers, that's not a government agency. Despite how big Yahoo is, they aren't Big Brother. So, Yahoo as a private company is free to set any policies they want for access to their services. And when you signed up to use Yahoo services, you agreed to abide by those policies.

One would hope that the reporting function is handled objectively, and that people's accounts or messages are only actually removed for objective violations of posted policies. But if you don't trust Yahoo to do that, there's no requirement that you use their forums.

That's the main reason that the constitutional limits only apply to government action. We don't really have the same choice to opt-out of interacting with the government the same way we could decide not to use Yahoo. The government is the only game in town, and Yahoo is not (because of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws). So, the analogy doesn't quite apply.

Answer 2

ok, enable's start up with the basics. The shape establishes what the government can and can't do. the 1st modification prohibits the government from interfering with the unfastened expression of theory in speech. First modification rights do not enhance TO the interior maximum SECTOR to stay away from inner maximum persons or agencies, even those with vast interplay with the generic public, from censoring or proscribing your rights to unfastened speech. for this reason, Yahoo is exempt from that constitutional burden. next, enable's address the Feds and their monitoring of inner maximum conversations. that's not a usual modification concern...they don't seem to be prohibiting or proscribing constitutionally secure expressions or speech. What they're doing is, possibly, violating the FOURTH modification protections against unreasonable seek and seizure, in that they are "looking", by way of covert ability and with out warrant, by ability of monitoring inner maximum communications. Now for the different Yahoo solutions subject concerns of being pronounced and those disappearing Q&A's etc., all i will say is strengthen UP... this internet site is in basic terms a stupid little diversion for inner maximum entertainment and not a brilliant conspiracy geared in the direction of thwarting your self expression...for that, I definitely have 2 little words for you...have been given weblog???

Answer 3

Well, no. Censorship by government is unconstitutional.

Yahoo Answers is a free service, with Terms of Use that include abiding by the Guidelines.

When you signed up, you agreed to abide by the rules of this service. Failure to do so results in your writing being pulled.

If you want to use this service, follow its rules. If you don't want to follow the rules, don't use this service.

I find the terms and guidelines reasonable -- they are necessary for this service working as a valuable resource and form of entertainment. If they were arbitrarily restrictive, I wouldn't come here. If they were completely unenforced, I wouldn't come here, as the things I come here for would go away as people found that all it contained was hate speech and people trying to bring the system to a halt.

Answer 4

apparently not - they do it all the time. you see it on tv, hear it on the radio, and even on some websites - america likes its censorship. look at what a big deal they made out of a single BOOB popping out of a woman's dress - a boob. we've all seen one, we've all had one between our lips at some point or another, it wasn't in any type of pornographic content - and yet. so if things like this happen and dictate a whole new approach to live broadcast, the road to making arrests based on internet action is quite short. yes, arresting pedophiles based on their internet work is quite an important thing, but when they started arresting people for downloading music - that's when **** really hit the fan. afterwards, they even started arresting some internet people who were fans of tv shows, accusing them in theft - for using movie type ratings in their stories. just for writing things like "R" and "PG-13"!
but back to my original point - censorship. after all i've said, i do think that reporting abuse may be the least of our problems. because if you didn't do it, then you would just explode with anger at all the racism, homophobia, antisemitism and other sicknesses that go on here. i've seen some terribly offensive terms and questions expressed around here, as well as annoying spam posts. what does bother me is the language censorship, which is plain dumb and vanilla. but i suppose that's just me. either way, there's a difference between setting rules and censorship, and that's an important thing for me to stress. language control is unnecessary and often foolish, but then again, many people would disagree with me. but set rules i.e. no racism and no spam and no playing unfairly are just here to keep the site fun.
ahem. i hope my point was at all clear.

Answer 5

The black helicopter will be at your house shortly.

No, its not illegal. Mel Gibson will be charged, most likely with a "hate crime" for his comments, and people are charged all the time with "inciting riots" or some such with their "hate speech" Yahoo is a community, and as such, it can make guidelines for what can and can't be said within its confines. You can sit in your house and say all the dirty or hateful stuff you please, but walk to a park, or go to the mall, and start saying that stuff, and someone's either gonna escort you out (if they work there) or simply knock you the heck out.

Just because you have the right to say it, doesn't mean we have to read it.

Answer 6

If you don't like the rules of this site, you have the right to not use it. They are very clear and concise in regards to their Community Guidelines. You also can't yell fire in a theater, does that infringe on your rights of free speech also? You are finding problems where there are no problems.

If you want free rein then I recommend you invest your own money, personnel, equipment and time developing your own answers website.

But as long as we are in Yahoo's house, we need to abide by their rules.

Answer 7

If you ask Mr.Bush about the constitution and bill of rights and things of that nature his response is, "It's just a God damn piece of paper" so ever since he stepped into office and passed the patriot act we lost our rights. They try and try to justify their eaves dropping but to no avail. But what do we do about it? We have our rights stripped and we just sit back and continue our daily lives, waiting for a new president to come in 2 years. All we have to do is show them we aren't messing around anymore. If I may quote a good movie "The people shouldn't be afraid of their Government, the government should be afraid of their people".

Answer 8

My gov. prosessor described it as your rights end where some one elses begins, You have the right to swing your arm as much as you want until it comes in contact with some one elses nose. Then your right to swing your arm has ended and you have committed an offense. Same goes for speech, you don't have the right to incite violence, etc. This however is only on government controlled issues, as far as Yahoo! goes, if you don't like it leave it.

Answer 9

What America have you been living in for the past 20 or more
years?

You ought to try preaching on the street sometime, if you want
to see REAL censorship, bud!

Answer 10

No, its not illegal but it should be. It goes against the 1st amendment.

Personally I like standing in the center of a crowded area and screaming, "He's got a gun!"