In my original question I asked if our police have become too militant. How is this question in violation? I am still waiting for an outcome as I have petitioned the moderators. Free speech or censorship? Note that I am a criminal justice and sociology major at a university.
2006-10-26 19:10:17 · 12 answers · asked by scotttorrez 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yes.
I answered a question and the result was that this was not an answer.
2006-10-26 19:12:42 · answer #1 · answered by gjmb1960 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I haven't been in the situation you are in, but it is probably just some bored person who feels like disrupting the system. I doubt yahoo would censor a question like that; probably just a jerk messing with you.
And just for the hell of it, it feels like police has become too militant alot of the time. Maybe its a shoot first ask questions later mentality, but I thought that the police was intended to protect and serve.- Not harass and occasionally aid. The answer to this question will probably depend on who you ask though, as i doubt that the police views different races/ financial classes in the same way- that will more than likely determine how the see you, and how you see them.
2006-10-26 19:18:48 · answer #2 · answered by wernerths 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it all depends on who is viewing your answer. Anyone can report you for a violation. They probably receive a ton of reports a day because some people don't have anything better to do that come on here and click that button. You can then petition.
As for your question I don't think it is in violation. If you take a look at some of the other questions proposed and even some of the answers that slip by you'd be amazed. It depends alot too on which section you are posting in.
2006-10-26 19:17:01 · answer #3 · answered by Bonecrusher 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I didn't post the question, but I answered a question which pertained to someone here. They found my "answer" as not in the form of a question or an answer which is in violation of their rules. My answer was not at all malicious nor derogatory but got deleted and lost 10 points over it.
Now, I'm thinking if I should even be responding to your question but you have a very valid point!
2006-10-26 19:21:43 · answer #4 · answered by mpicky2 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The police are far too militant and disrespectful of the people. They need to be prosecuted for every offense. We need zero tolerance for criminal cops!
Ever notice how government always says that police need to be held to a higher standard, then proceed to hold them to no standard at all? How long will the people fall for this double-talk?
2006-10-26 19:17:21 · answer #5 · answered by Paladin 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, but my valid answer turned out to be a violation
2006-10-27 04:01:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As I had to explain before to some of my other Yahoo! friends, this site is a commercial site. As with any commercial business, they have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason (so long as the methods they use to refuse service are not based on race, sex, national origin, religion, ect...).
To quote Yahoo!'s Terms of Service: "You acknowledge that Yahoo! may or may not pre-screen Content, but that Yahoo! and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse, or move any Content that is available via the Service. Without limiting the foregoing, Yahoo! and its designees shall have the right to remove any Content that violates the TOS or is otherwise objectionable. You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of any Content, including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such Content. In this regard, you acknowledge that you may not rely on any Content created by Yahoo! or submitted to Yahoo!, including without limitation information in Yahoo! Message Boards and in all other parts of the Service."
Since by using the services Yahoo! provides, you imply that you agree to their terms of service. When you agree to their terms of service, you agree, in essence, that they don't have to post your comments if they choose not to. Basically, by agreeing to the terms of service, you agree to have your freedom of speech abridged in what you post in any Yahoo! areas.
Since Yahoo! is a commercial business, and you have agreed to the terms outlined by Yahoo! to use their service, they are not violating your freedom of speech, in my opinion.
Often times, people believe that no one can abridge their freedom of speech at any time. That, however, is not the case. So long as they do not limit your speech or content on the basis of the above issues I listed (race, sex, ect...), a commercial entity can pretty much do what it wants. If people don't like the abridgement of speech they have agreed to under the terms of service, the person is under no obligation to continue doing business with the commercial entity.
To make another analogy, a restaurant can enforce the policy of "no shirt, no shoes, no service". Wearing a shirt or shoes or not can be considered a right under the freedom of speech. However, the company is not mandating that you must wear such items all together. It is simply mandating that, if you want to use their service, you must meet their requirements. Such policies are not questions of freedom of speech, but rather a question of the business' practices.
Hoped that helped you understand things! It might not be fair, or "right", but it is legal, as far as I can tell.
-Saffyre
2006-10-26 19:48:47 · answer #7 · answered by the_vampiress_saffyre 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
militant is being nice. try down right scum. although it isnt fair to generalize , i do have to say they put the stresses on them to be that way or lose thier job (i.e. traffic cops) so screw or be screwed. your better off nowadays being a crook. they will bend over backwards to help and "reform" you
no not yet to your original question
2006-10-26 19:16:39 · answer #8 · answered by tencutty 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i can say i havent been but some people dont get what a violation is unless it suits them
2006-10-26 19:42:49 · answer #9 · answered by PAM d 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Seems like they indirectly justified your question
2006-10-26 19:38:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋