4 ms·
That's completely orthogonal. Yelp is not required to run a neutral public forum—they can institute whatever policies they want. The problem is when the govern
by morgante 10y ago
That's completely orthogonal.
Yelp is not required to run a neutral public forum—they can institute whatever policies they want. The problem is when the government forces censorship, not when private companies have their own policies on what they'll host.
Removing content from your own site is not censorship.
- nitrogen 10y ago> Self-censorship is not censorship. It really depends on what motivates the self-censorship.
- nitrogen 10y agoSince this was downvoted, let me clarify: self-censorship motivated by threat of some kind is censorship.
- lsaferite 10y agoThey are only able to publish libelous user content and NOT be sued due to government extended protections. To then turn around and cry foul when a legal ruling of libel (against one of their users) includes a provision that they remove the libelous content is ridiculous.
- pif 10y ago> when the government forces censorship Actually, in this case, it's the justice, not the government. At it makes a huge difference!
- cowsandmilk 10y agothere are three branches of US government and the judiciary is one of them.
- pif 10y agoSorry, I had read "government" as meaning "executive power". Anyway, I don't see any problem in having justice-sanctioned removal orders for unlawful posts.