Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

•  

  

  Yozoo, Apr 17th, 2009 @ 12:15pm

  
  

  Huh?

  The Constitution now protects us from Yahoo as well? Tell me this guy doesnt have a member of any bar working with him?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Nick, Apr 17th, 2009 @ 12:53pm

  
  

  duh?

  Hello everybody... Wake up... you can't sue everybody just because you don't like what they did to you. Just go pout in the corner and get over it. It doesn't make it illegal.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2009 @ 12:58pm

  
  

  Re: duh?

  Actually, you can sue people for doing things you don't like. You aren't very likely to win, though. Then you could end up having to pay attorney's fees.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2009 @ 1:09pm

  
  

  "...- but Yahoo has every right to remove his comments."
  
  If the courts think this person is wasting their time they can say so .... what exactly is your point ?!!

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2009 @ 4:38pm

  
  

  Re:

  I think the point is that stupid losers are dragging our legal system further into the toilet by wasting the valuable time and energies of the court.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2009 @ 11:47pm

  
  

  Re: Re:

  The wastage of court time here is insignificant compared to the amount wasted on abuse of DMCA etc. and it isn't going to stop just because some people get bent out of shape about "stupid losers" !

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Xerloq, Apr 17th, 2009 @ 1:12pm

  
  

  Will he win, that depends

  The speech clause in the First Amendment was originally intended to govern laws prohibiting speech however, though precedent of various court cases, this guy might have a case. It all depends on whether the Yahoo stock forums can be shown to be a public forum of ideas (which isn't likely, but possible).

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2009 @ 2:03pm

  
  

  I am reminded of a quote from one of the admins in an online community I used to hang around in:
  
  "I'm American. I respect the Bill of Rights. Freedom of Speech is one of the greatest parts of being American. That being said, you have no rights in here, whatsoever."
  
  
  Private companies can do what they want with their property. Yahoo can take down any comments they want and block whoever they want for basically whatever reason they want. They won't win awards for overusing the power, and using it too much will probably get some negative publicity, but it's their right. Same as the way newspapers aren't legally obligated to publish letters you send in to them; it's not a violation of your rights, it's an enforcement of theirs.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  DJ, Apr 17th, 2009 @ 2:24pm

  
  

  Re:

  The most frustrating aspect of civil rights violation claims is that these people have forgotten that while we have the Constitutional right to say what we want; we also have the Constitutional right to wholeheartedly, and vehemently, disagree with what everyone else says; AND TO DEMAND THAT THEY NOT SAY IT IN OUR PRESENCE!
  
  unrelated tangent: if it's a spoken untruth it's slander; if it's a written untruth, it's NOT slander, it's libel.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Trerro, Apr 17th, 2009 @ 4:20pm

  
  

  Free speech is vs the government, not vs. private property

  If you walk onto someone's property and decide to be a jackass, the owners of said property have every right to tell to shut up, kick you out, or both. That the property in question is a message board rather than a physical location doesn't change this fact. Getting banned = getting kicked off their property, it really is that simple.
  
  Accusing someone of a crime or unethical act with no evidence to back it up is indeed a good reason for an admin to ban your account, and it appears that's what happened here.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Steve, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 1:14pm

  
  

  People these days seem to get their rights and their overinflated sense of entitlement mixed up. See what happens when you don't spank your fucking kids as they grow up?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment