Does free speech apply in privately own venues?
87311
The First Amendment states:\n\nCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\n\nThe principle is extended generally to Government although there are exceptions for defamatory or offensive speech. As Yahoo is a private company, it can set its own rules providing they are compliant with US or other laws.
901078
Government censorship is a constitutional violation. The protections in the constitution only apply to govt (not private) action.\n\nIf you're talking about Yahoo, that's a private forum. And private forums are subject to whatever internal rules and policies they choose to adopt. Yahoo has guidelines that you argee to follow as a condition of using this private service.\n\nI agree with your core concept -- people need to stop being so irrationally sensitive, and allow broad discussions. I don't agree with personal attacks, because they are largely pointless, but rarely is a general comment actually going to be a personal attack.\n\nThat being said, again this is a private forum, with established rules.
25267
Sorry, in a public place you do not have an expectation of privacy, though you can probably get the paper to print a clarification and apology so that it becomes public record that you were not getting busted for something.
1172918
There is something called the "plain view doctrine". If it's in plain view, then it's free for all. You cannot claim the right to privacy if you place the object in such a situation wherein it can be accessed by anyone.
306706
This is a real hot potato - your right to free speech is crucial\nBut there is also a responsibility to ensure others aren't offended and minors aren't corrupted\n\nSo maybe the answer is to have a safe area and an open area - in the open area anything goes but access is restricted to over 16's and people who are easily offended won't look there either??
794309
Free Speech should only be limited to threaten to do physical harm to a person. However; to report someone with a different political, sexual, religious, or social view; is simply vindictive and creates censorship.
597270
You dont want just anyone having unfettered access to a place as private as that. Understand? Pervs might turn it into a meeting place.
1129435
What utter nonsense. What you want is freedom to say whatever you want without consequences.  That's a very different thing.\nPeople using this kind of question to make political points against ANY administration are just silly, as some of your answers did.  They are willing to undermine our country's reputation for political "points".\nTruth is, we have free speech, and so do the people who respond to you, argue with you, disagree with you, and even insult you. If you are watching what you say, it's because you are too timid to say what you mean and stand by it.\nYou still have the freedom to do that, and that was all that was ever granted us in the first place.\nPeople also have a right to respond to your speech.\n\nYahoo! Answers and other groups that provide a forum for you to speak get to add their own rules.  Just because you use the forum does not mean you get the right to dictate what the rules of that forum are.  They have the right, as owners of the site, to determine that.  If they wanted to limit it to people who can talk only about pink dyed poodles without the participants using the letter "p", they could (not much of a market in that), and have the right to do so.\n\nSomeone loans you a soapbox, but they get to decide whether you use it, or get to take it away if you don't follow their rules.\n\nHOWEVER, you are free to start your own website, your own newsletter, your own T.V. station, your own radio station, and you get to make the rules.\n\nIF you did, would you want people coming with insults about you and your views, or spewing filth to insist that you had to spend your money so they could "speak freely"?\n\nWhat nonsense.  You have no right to ask that.
827027
If you argue with a fool, take care you don't become one.  I think the right of a debate at any venue may have to be a majority decision or in this case the decision of the University Board of Governors who may have to stand aside from mob rule and decide what is best for a place of learning not conflict and that might mean giving a platform to a controversial group in the spirit of free exchange of views.  Being pragmatic though they would probobly take the view that there would be rabble rousers there hell bent on causing a riot to make some misguided point
41286
In my opinion if you put something out in public space you should expect it to be public. Also since it is not copyrighted it is not protected in the fact that someone can come along and use what you say in another public forum without giving you/blogger credit. \n If the blogger has any common sense/civility he should let his friends know that what they say could end up on his blog just like a journalist should be letting his quotes know that they will end up in print/ public view.
1011881
Yes. Not only is it a free speech issue - it is the most protected form of free speech under the Constitution - political free speech.
99994
Did I miss something here? So far two people have referenced riot.\n\nYou have the right to free speech until someone finds it offensive and takes you to court for it.\n\nI belive the case was Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. \n\nIn short, if what you are saying in a public place offends the majority of the people around you and pose a 'breach of peace', you are not protected.
132957
I am not sure about speech but I do know that when you are convicted of a crime you basically give up all rights that the constitution gives you. You do not have the right to denie them searching your house. You do not have the right to go anyplace you want. You do not have the right to vote. I don't see how they can take your right to free speech away but if they can they will. Once your debt to society is paid all rights are restored with the exception of the right to bare arms. However they can not take away what is known as your basic human rights.
1038454
That is pretty much up to the Church. That is not only "private" property, but Church property. Most jurisdictions "cut Churches some slack" for such events. IF the "fund raiser" is for the direct benefit of the Church or one of it's non-profit groups, there should be no problem.
168630
In general, yes, it bans freedom of speech.  If, however, a company (say a privately owned nightclub) refuses to play a song within its doors because it does not like the messages in the song, the club's owners are within *their* rights to do so.  Does that ban creativity?  Not really, since the club owners aren't telling the artist that he/she can never play it or record it anywhere.  They aren't silencing the artist, they're merely not supporting them.  Now if the government showed up at the doors of the artist and forbid them from having anything ever to do with the song, that would be spitting on freedom of speech.  There's the difference.
869510
When you begin telling people that certain legal activities cannot take place that is deprivation of personal liberties.  When you decide any religion is offensive, it is a violation of the United States Constitution...When you take away the right to own property through Imminent Domain it is an infringement on personal property rights that are pillars of democracy  that violate the United States Constitution.  You cannot shout Fire in an occupied building and expect for it to be considered Free Speech or insult people different than yourself because of race or gender, there are limits.....Becoming too politically correct, being the thought and food police under the guise of liberty is really a ruse to infringe upon individual liberty one by one until your government has become socialist/communist.  That is never a good thing.
202318
Well they say we have free speech but i think its really limited speech you can say what you want as long as it dont offend somebody which is hard to do cuz you can say something and not mean nothing by it but someone could get offended