Comment Useless article. (Score 4, Insightful) 56
Not news for nerds. Not stuff that matters.
"Censorship" in these discussions is generally in the context of 1A/Free Speech. You have no such rights on private property and the government are, by definition, the only entity that can violate it as they are the only named party in the document that can. This is an important distinction that is often lost in these threads.
This is incorrect, and not how the amendment is written.
We, as humans, are recognized as being born with the inalienable right to free speech (as described by the 1st amendment to the US constitution). It is because of that right that the government is not allowed to practice censorship. (You seem to have this cause/effect backwards.)
However, censorship does happen by other entities, in violation of that right. Not in violation of the law mind you, but in violation of that right.
Also it's not censorship, because no one has a right to post on a third party's site anyway.
Dont you get tired of being wrong all the time?
Not trying to choose a side here, but removing content posted by a 3rd party from a web site you own is MOST CERTAINLY censorship. It is protected/legal censorship, but it is still censorship. You probably need to go back and refresh yourself with the definition of "censorship".
Isn't this just an example of recycling?
No, this is not recycling.
This is the more important and effective "reuse" part of the "reduce, reuse, recycle" mantra.
The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine
