Three months ago I asked the question: "If you had to make the decision to save a newborn child or save an endangered species who would you save?" I also added a sidebar of, "what if," that child was Hitler and by killing him as a child, you would save countless human lives.... would you kill a child?
Beside the fact of what a person thinks about this question. Should it not be my right of "free speech", even if my opinion offends someone?
I will add I have no idea why Yahoo, (unless in cases of threats to another person) censor yahoo answers (the yahoo rules totally violate any Idea of "free speech")
2006-09-13 03:31:24 · 10 answers · asked by USuck79 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Since the First Amendment's inception, a lot has changed. People are relying upon an amendment made in - what 1791 - come on, that is over 200 years old! 200 years ago people were not running airplanes into buildings, standing outside abortion clinics with pictures of dead fetuses, screaming bible quotes out of a megaphone on street corners, or posting stuff on the Internet for - literally - all of the world to see. I don't buy that First Amendment crap. It should be updated.
p.s. Did they even have the f-word back then? It's just too darned old to be effective in today's world.
2006-09-13 03:44:03 · answer #1 · answered by Zelda 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Freed speech is a right guaranteed in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. That means the federal government cannot prevent anyone from making any statement (there are, however, limits on that - i.e, political speech is 100% protected but commercial speech can be regulated). The 14th Amendment makes sure that states can't violate a person's rights as guaranteed in the First Amendment.
BUT - Did you notice that the only parties prevented from restricting speech are the federal and state GOVERNMENTS. Yahoo is a public corporation NOT owned by a government, meaning that it can set up any rules and regulations, even against speech, it wants to.
There is a case in CA about a mall that threw out people distributing fliers about a political candidate. The court held the private mall could NOT be forced to allow people to distribute the fliers because it was a privately owned mall.
2006-09-13 04:24:16 · answer #2 · answered by J T 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure, we can exercise free speech all we want from a LEGAL standpoint. Even if we're completely right about something though, other people won't necessarily recognize it as valid and may take EXTREME offense from what we've stated.
The idea of any right is to give people the option and opportunity to ascertain liberties and freedoms. Rights though aren't always needed for a given circumstance, so some people will think we're messed up as much as we know we're just trying to find out what other's think (we can't PLEASE everybody, but we can APPROACH them).
As far as Yahoo!'s concerned, remember: private instituions can do whatever they want with their own resources and ownership. Just as much as we are able to kick people off our property for trespassing, Yahoo! is allowed to censor content and censure users for what they may believe to be "too much."
Yahoo! is viewed as a respectable and prestigious organization
not only because of it's sheer size and popularity, but because of how nearly anybody can use it's services without feeling targeted or constricted. Likewise, when it censures a user as such, it's only preserving it's image while protecting the main user body from anomalistic (and offensive) behavior.
2006-09-13 03:52:40 · answer #3 · answered by Mikey C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1st Amendment freedom of speech protections apply to government (state/federal) action. They provide no protection against the actions of private companies.
Yahoo is a private forum. It is run by a private company, under speccific Terms of Service. You contractually agree to those Terms of Service by using the forum. And part of that agreement gives Yahoo the right to remove any content that violates their standards.
Free speech only protects you against the government. And despite being fairly large, Yahoo is not the government.
2006-09-13 04:52:59 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
yes i agree nothing is free including speech.
1. U waste a lot of enery.
2. U give room for individuals to either agree or disagree.
3. Individuals who favour u, will accpet, and ur enemies will reject ur ideas, and ur hypoethesis.
4. Speech given by different individuals is mostly misinterpreted based on one's own list of priorities.
5. Causes engrossing listening, or irritating behavior by hearers who detest the speech giver.
6. Hearing and listening are two different responses to speech.
2006-09-13 03:43:27 · answer #5 · answered by weirdoonee 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is your question? And in regards to Killing Hitler, do you think that if he had been accepted in the Vienna School of Arts that history may have been totally different?
Another way to look at it is Hitler may have been the only person to keep Stalin at bay. There are reasons in the Universe for events that we are not privy to. We are not God.
2006-09-13 03:39:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't understand Yahoo/Answers censor - I was censor once and I have no idea what I said or answer or whatever - go figure!@
2006-09-13 03:42:22 · answer #7 · answered by nswblue 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
1st admend says you can
2006-09-16 08:45:00 · answer #8 · answered by S B 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
ffgdfgfdgdf
2016-10-24 13:04:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
now you have lost it.
2006-09-13 04:17:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋