When someone "reports" you on Yahoo! Answers, are they contributing to

Question: When someone "reports" you on Yahoo! Answers, are they contributing to the loss of Freedoms and Free Speech
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Yes it is contributing to the loss off Freedoms and Free Speech!.
Its simple and someone with common sense can come up with this, u dont have to read agreements or made up contracts!.
Free Speech is ''free speech'', plain and simple, its self explanatory!.
No company, corporation or group can overwrite that for the excuse of providing their services!.
Yahoo provides this service under the constitution of this country so yahoo has to abide to the rules, one rule is 'free speech'!.
Since Yahoo doesnt follow this!.!.!.then who has higher authority!? =Yahoo or Constitution!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

No!. This is not a forum to rant, so not everything goes!. But you are free to start a forum like that and no one will be able to tell you what not to do or say!. I only report spam, because it annoys me to no end!.

I do agree with one of the other posters, however!. Those who "report" have a right to do so as well!. The sad thing about freedom of speech is that it most aggresively defended by those who are proponents of free speech only as far as it agrees with them!.

I also think that any private establishment in this country has a right to establish their own rules and guidelines and not cater to those who do not want to follow them!. Yahoo is not a government institution!. You don't like the rules--get out of the sandbox!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

No!. First of all, access to Yahoo Answers is not restricted to US residents!. Second of all, a website can have rules that users must abide to in order to use!. If you don't like it, don't use the website!. It has nothing to do with personal freedoms!. You have the ability to start your own website where you say anything you want!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

These are a few of the legal restraints as stated in the Constitution!.!.!.!. there are more (clickthe link below)!.!.!.!.!.!.!.

" Special exceptions

Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is one exception!. It is speech to which all of the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value!. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography!.)

Fighting words are words or phrases that are likely to induce the listener to get in a fight!. This previously applied to words like ******, but with people getting less sensitive to words, this exception is little-used!.

Speech that presents imminent lawless action (earlier, the legal test was for a clear and present danger, but this test has since been replaced by the imminent lawless action test) may also be restricted!. The canonical example, enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, is falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater!. The trend since Holmes's time has been to restrict the clear and present danger exception to apply to speech which is completely apolitical in content!.

Restrictions on commercial speech, defined as speech mainly in furtherance of selling a product, is subject to a lower level of scrutiny than other speech, although recently the court has taken steps to bring it closer to parity with other speech!. This is why the government can ban advertisements for cigarettes and false information on corporate prospectuses (which try to sell stock in a company)!.

Prior restraint

If the government tries to restrain speech before it is spoken, as opposed to punishing it afterwards, it must: clearly define what's illegal, cover the minimum speech necessary, make a quick decision, be backed up by a court, bear the burden of suing and proving the speech is illegal, and show that allowing the speech would "surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people" (New York Times Co!. v!. United States)!. U!.S!. courts have not permitted most prior restraints since the case of Near v!. Minnesota in 1931!.

Before we rant, it is best to be informed !.!.!.!. or we may make fools of ourselves !.!.!.!. thanks for the question it made me go look up the information !.!.!.!.!. I am so grateful for the internet !.!.!.!. it makes things like that so easy!!!!!

be wellWww@QuestionHome@Com

not nessasarally!.!.!.thats like saying there is a loss of free speech if u call someone fat in school and get in trouble!.!.!.usually people report u if u say something innapropriatethat could be offensive!.!.!.and yahoo answers has rules and guidelines that u agreed to follow when u joined!.!.!.just like in a school or job where there are rulesWww@QuestionHome@Com

Dr Lecter!. I think you have hit on something here!. It is certainly the cause of why anthropology thinks today as it does!. Through suppression of conflicting evidence, and the ruination of the careers of men and women who supported that evidence!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

No!. Freedom of Speech as granted by the bill of rights and constitution have a limit!. The first amendment does not grant you the right to libel, slander, seditious speech, or saying things that pose a threat to a person!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

Somewhat!. I had a question removed because I corrected spelling!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

They have the freedom to report! Every reporting event supports Freedoms and Free speechWww@QuestionHome@Com

yes, all authorities must be destroyed, long live anarchy!Www@QuestionHome@Com

DOGS ARE SHITTY!Www@QuestionHome@Com