Is Yahoo violating my rights?

Status
Not open for further replies.

product74

New Member
I logged onto Yahoo news yesterday and found that they were censoring any word closely associated with religion. Any mention of the words: God, Allah, Buddha, Jesus, et al were being replaced with nonsense symbols. You are not even able to vaguely recognize what someone is attempting to type; which makes discussions extremely difficult to follow and respond to. My question is: Is this a violation of free speech rights or my freedom of religion rights or both? Also do I have grounds to sue Yahoo over their course of actions?
 
Freedon of speech refers to the Government not privately owned websites. Where on yahoo is this censoring going to happen? It makes a difference
 
Nope thats fine. Yahoo owns the site and all sites (this one included) has a "terms of use" These rules say what is ok and wha tis not. You can read the same terms of use here as well. If you violate one of those rules the admin or a moderator (like myself) can remove the forbidden postings. There is nothing unlawful about this. You either deal with it or find another blog post
 
Hello Jacksgal,

I understand your point. Now for my next attempt. Could I sue them on the grounds of discrimination?
 
The short answer is no, your rights have not been violated and you don't have any reasonable argument to make in court.
 
Problem solved

Hello,

This is no longer an issue. It seems that yahoo has reversed their decision to block these words on their blogs. I had gone over their terms of service and it did not make any reference to opposing religious words. However; there was other language that suggested they had the right to do whatever they wanted and not be held liable. I believe that several people, including myself, sent e-mail to the customer service department and that sparked internal debate; which in turn caused them to change their minds on the censorship.
 
Bottom line- it is their website and they can do what they want with it. They can censor your comments any way they like. Their reversal wouldn't have been based on any legal grounds, but a matter of customer service... keeping the customers happy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top