2007-09-26 18:45:02 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
That's JUST what i've been wondering!!
The reasons are probably: 1)Yahoo is, unfortunately, a private enterprise company (& doesn't HAVE to abide by 'free speech laws, etc.
2) Little kids may use it (parents want EVERYONE to watch their kids for them, in EVERY WAY!)
3) Some 'adults' may find content offensive (like the second you ay ANYTHING to disagree w. them, or when they can't handle the truth!)!
YAHOO, u need to let people have MORE FREEDOM on this site!! LISTENING???
(didn't we actually verified we are 'over 18/adults' when we joined?)
So let parent protect their own kids/let FREELY speak!
2007-09-26 19:02:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well, the simple answer would be, provactive questions posted specifically to enlicit a negative response are censored (I guess it could be argued yours does it by challenging the website, but another question I saw did so blantantly....some tirade about how white poeple are responsible for all the worlds ills), and that this idea violates free speech.
A more correct answer would be to dwelve into one of the many realms of thought on why corporations are evil, that being that they have the right to basically do whatever they want, and skirt bans put upon the federal government, even while the two go hand in hand (and corporations often give the marching orders to the government).
However, the answer I would most stand by is the fact that in the US there has been a general movement towards erasing the first ammendment, which has been done by amongst other things, creating hundreds of situations where violating the first ammendment is somehow permitted under some obscure justification, with the goal being to gradually have people accept these minor affronts to their rights, such that the degradation of the protected freedoms continually expands.
A better way to put these three items together, is tha originally, it would have been unthinkable for a censorship issue like what is happening here to occur, since it flagrantly defies the spirit of a nation under the constitution, yet now it seems completely reasonable to lock someone out if they start trolling the boards.
I have listened to a lot of complaints about the fascist nature of corporately owned message board systems (ie. myspace and digg), censoring out "dissident speech," and long diatribes about how awful the websites were. I have not been on yahoo answers for that long a time (so I could be completely wrong), but thusfar, it appears that the moderatiors here are not as zealous and only delete things covered under my first point (blatantly provocative statements, that serve no point other than to incite conflict).
However, it's quite possible that I've missed a larger pattern of censorship, in which case my following points become applicable!
I hope I answered this well enough for you.
I personally just get bothered by people who violate the question nature of this forum, and ask a "question" with the sole intention behind it to tell the audience something (ie. Did you know Canada is next to the US, vs. what country is next to the US), however, in respect of others freedoms etc, I would never censor those things.
2007-09-27 02:11:39 · answer #2 · answered by Zen Cat 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This site is run by Yahoo, and they can decide what is appropriate and what is inappropriate material for posting on their service.
edit: After re-reading your question, just noticed that you used censured, as in to punish or reprimand publicly. Did you mean to use that word?
2007-09-27 03:39:31 · answer #3 · answered by Mike W 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The United States has freedom of speech. Basically that means, the federal government can't restrict your freedom of speech. The constitution only applies to the government, not private companies or private citizens.
A private company (yahoo) is different from the federal government. The constitution does not apply to them at all. And they are free to censor or restrict what you say in anyway they feel like.
Look at it this way, if someone comes over your house and starts talking about something you don't want to hear, you have the can tell them to stop, if they do not, you can make them leave.
2007-09-27 01:53:34 · answer #4 · answered by Kenneth C 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Freedom of speech does not mean there aren't limits to speech. You must still show respect to others by not lying, by not being obscene,...
As others have indicated, the owner of the service may reasonably set their own definitions for what it means to show respect to others. This is comparable to the owner of a restaurant setting standards of dress or not allowing people to smoke. So in other words, freedom doesn't just apply to consumers, but to service providers as well.
2007-09-27 02:39:48 · answer #5 · answered by Bryan Kingsford 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think this question was answered quite well by former President Ronald Reagan in a 1980 New Hampshire Debate. The person paying for the microphone (in this case Yahoo) gets to determine who can use the microphone. If you don't like it, get your own microphone.
2007-09-27 02:15:20 · answer #6 · answered by Tmess2 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Congress shall make no laws.... this doesn't mean that we get to go running our mouth on other people's private property. Never would I allow anybody to conduct a satan worshiping ritual in my home, I am not required by law to allow that. On the other hand, the Gov cannot forbid you to practice satanism if you so choose in your own home nor can it forbid you to preach it.
2007-09-27 01:49:30 · answer #7 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You seem to forget that you are using someone elses servers to post this question and all of your answers.
People have become so inundated with free things that you stop to think ... wait...someone is paying for this and it isnt me.
You are lucky that Yahoo is kind enough to provide these services.
2007-09-27 01:51:00 · answer #8 · answered by Noone i 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The term "free country" does not imply that rules and laws do not exist.
2007-09-27 01:51:49 · answer #9 · answered by Beckers 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because this site is considered private property.
2007-09-27 01:48:25 · answer #10 · answered by ǝɯɐuɹǝsn ɔıɹǝuǝƃ 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋