Comments about ‘Online speech may be free but is subject to delete’

Free speech is so very important that anyone can infringe upon the rights of others and then by calling it free speech they will be protected by "law".
I am sure the Founding Fathers didn't intend for it to be that way.

Freedom of Speech has no limits and censorship is a crime. If a person doesn't like what they see or read then let them pluck thier own eyes out. The truth is fact and censorship is fiction, and we have enough of that in government. If a company or business elicits individuals to blog, comment, or ask opinions then censorship is an act that should not be allowed. The national and local news media are active in censorship of news reports and the truth but individuals still have the right of free speech without oppression. Censorship and the loss right to assemble is the first step in an opressive government to strip freedoms. The internet has become the meeting house of free thinkers and uncensored information for those that wish to assemble and spread the truth. Businesses and government should not be interfering. You Tube and My Space are not information sites, they are a lonely hearts club of people that only harms the users.

"seemingly public spaces"

Ignorance of private property and the rights of the owner of said is not censorship or a loss of free speech.

Only the extreme right-wing wants government intervention (censorship).
Try all they want, we liberals will always keep America free.

Bob G 7:54 a.m. July 7, 2008: "If a company or business elicits individuals to blog, comment, or ask opinions then censorship is an act that should not be allowed."

A company or business eliciting blogs or comments is not asking for foul language, for example, which should be censored.

Obviously the room of full of liberals Today. Lets do some Constitution 101 and help fix your liberal problem.

Freedom of Speech is guaranteed as long as it is not libel or slander. Libel and slander are falsehoods written or spoken. Therefore there are things which are NOT protected under the 1st ammendment.

You can say whatever you like--but businesses are not required to host it.

Your comment of 7:54 seems to support a position of absolutely no limits, neither governmental nor privately imposed, on what can be posted online.

If that is indeed your position, then you support the unfettered right of any sicko to post images of child porn, or murder or torture, just to mention a few types of content that are now banned.

You may have felt your post was arguing against Government and Big Business suppressing the "free speech" rights of people to post online otherwise legal content.

But anarchy - the absence of limits - is no more a solution in the cyberworld than it is in the streets.

Many people fail to understand this simple truth: it is thru the rule of law that we enforce our rights to inherent freedoms, including free speech.

Anarchy is the 180-degree counterpoint to freedom - it's the rule of and by the lawless.

Your "pluck thier (sic) own eyes out" comment seems to say "If you don't want to see child porn, don't go to those sites."

But that attitude does nothing, for example, to protect children from sexual exploitation - which is inarguably in society's best interest.

jay bird

It seems everyone would like to censor someone. So far the internet is the "wild and woolly west," just the way many of the folks like it. For the most part, it is a matter of, he who pays the piper calls the tune. In other words those who pay for the servers and other expenses have an agenda, and they wish to indoctrinate us with their point of view. So, if others won't support YOUR agenda, get off the free ride and pay for your own.

Many websites try to appear to present both sides of the issue. These are the ones most likely to be giving you some load of unseen propaganda, and you need to take the information with a very cynical mind.

I can offer the side of my building for graffiti artists to practice their "wares". I am, however, under absolutely no obligation to accept anything and everything they might decide to put there as it still remains MY space. The same goes for virtual forums. Unless it's public domain, you have absolutely no right to free speech without consequence.

The author is way off base and does not understand the First Amendment or basic property rights.

- Free speech goes hand-in-hand with property rights. If I own property, such as a Web site, I get to control what takes place there.

- The First Amendment specifies that the federal government may not abridge free speech. Yahoo is NOT the government. Yahoo has the right to restrict what goes on its own Web site.

- The First Amendment restricts the government from abridging free speech but does not guarantee a time and place for free speech to anyone. If you want to use a stage, you have to obey the stage owner's rules, or you have to build your own stage.

- If I post content on Yahoo that triggers a frivolous lawsuit, who is going to get sued? Little old me, or deep-pocketed Yahoo? Yahoo has the right to protect itself.

- If you want to post something on the Web that violates mainstream sites' terms of use, then start your own Web site.

It's rubbish to think that anyone but the federal government is restricted by the First Amendment.

Conservatives LOVE censorship.
Even their all-time conservative guru commands his loyal servants to ignore what they read in the newspapers calling it "the drive-by media."

Conservative campaigns to censor movies and TV and music were doomed first by cable TV and then by the Internet.

Liberal means freedom. Real Americans will never roll over for that shrinking conservative movement that calls itself conservative that tries to get the government to intervene on everybody's private business.

"...the room of full of liberals Today."

"Freedom of Speech is guaranteed as long as it is not libel or slander."

This is the same type that thinks nothing of saying "Liberals worship Satan!"

Who are these neocons think they are trying to kid?

Liberals are the ones who would like to put conservative talk radio off the air. I think that they are over the top, but that doesn't mean they should be censored. The "airness doctrine" is another word for censorship.

Deseret News censors this all the time....but if one is pro Mormon everything is accepted

Conservatives tell each other in their dysfunctional group that liberals want to shut down Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.
Another neocon lie.
Let the divisive extremists shoot their mouths off all they want. It only makes it easier for the moderates come November.
Neocons only appeal to the reddest of rednecks.

Conservatives try to censor everything they don't agree with.
Liberals are always open and free.

This isn't about conservative or liberal biases.

This is about the freedom of Yahoo. Why should we be able to tell Yahoo what they can and can't put on THEIR site? Isn't that censorship? But I guess if its a big business they had it coming, right?

Seriously, reverse the roles, let's say Yahoo wanted to post something on this guys blog. Like an advertisement. And he came and deleted it. Same thing right? Except this guy has a sob story because Yahoo misinterpreted his picture and won't let him share! Boo hoo.

While I respect what the Liberals that have posted are trying to convey, I seriously question your objectivity in this situation and hope you take a moment to look at both sides before flinging anymore accusations. You're stepping over the freedom of the company to champion the freedom of an individual. News flash! Individuals make up companies.

This article makes an interesting comment "First Amendment protections generally do not extend to private property in the physical world, allowing a shopping mall to legally kick out a customer wearing a T-shirt with a picture of a smoking child."

This is a simplistic understanding of free speech law. Marsh ruled that "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."

The argument that the First Amendment doesn't apply to private property is incorrect. The Courts seek to balance private property rights against First Amendment rights but the claim that the right of private property takes precedent over the right to freedom of speech would mean renters technically can't exercise freedom of speech in the homes they rent without permission of the property owner.

Or those who purchase homes on mortage since they technically don't own the home and their banks or loan company which does could restrict the speech of the FAMILY ON THEIR PROPERTY until they pay for the right to speak freely on that property.