Re: Re: Protest Yahoo Sponsorship of Racist/FascistGroups

[JKSCHW]

In a message dated 00-02-17 13:16:10 EST, you write:

<< I think that the problem for many (some?) (one?) of us is that we 
 tend to view Yahoo not as a private firm but as a creator and 
 maintainer of public space in which _Areopagitica_ should rule. Thus 
 "abusive... vulgar, obscene... invasive of another's privacy, 
 hateful, or racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable" has no 
 rightful place in Yahoo's terms of service (although the "unlawful, 
 harmful, threatening... tortious, defamatory... libelous" does). >>

Why not? I mean, why can't Yahoo set any terms it likes, including _only_ 
promoting abuse (we'd do well there), vulgarity, etc. (Btw. "obscene" is 
legally unprotected speech, in the same class as libelous, if you want to be 
legalsitic about it.)  If Yahoo wants to be the Hatenet provider, that is its 
business, but since it has said it won't be, why not hold it to that? --jks

--jks