StrictNon-Conformist

The Yahoo-Microsoft Soap Opera Continues

220881, you're a complete and utter twit: they're not restricting your rights of free speech in the least, but they are being perhaps discriminating against twits like you that think that because they've got a free way to post to someone else's posting place (whether it be on a wall they own in the brick and mortar sense, or servers they run in the internet sense) that they have the right to post whatever they please, all in the name of "free speech" which is bogus. Even disregarding the fact that there's no such thing as protection to screaming "fire!" in a crowded theatre when it's not on fire, fact of the matter is that no site is obligated to post anything that they don't want to post, and aren't obligated to service any particular poster, which is definitely true with the subset of the webizens you represent: that of being an unpaid commentator on a site dedicated to its own views. If you want your "Free speech" go and post your own blog on your own paid-for (however that's arranged) server, and spew forth all your hatred there: there's no limits to that except your will and way of getting access to such servers. Be aware, though, that there's many ISP's and web hosting services that have these pesky things known as TOS's which may get in your self-proclaimed right (but misunderstanding of what it really means) of free speech. I'm sure you're completely against any idiot coming into your house and screaming "You're nothing but a piece of sh!t not worth bothering with, and I'm going to kill you!" and yet, from the way you tirade online, you seem to think you have exactly the same right to go into the domains of others and do it, all under the guise of "free speech" which, in reality, is a subset of all utterances possible, and always has been, and always will be.

As to your username choice? Keep in mind, once again, this is the internet, and things are largely automated. Based on the comments I see here, chances are you were again being a total twit and spouting off beyond reason, and they decided you weren't worth bothering with.

When you're working within the confines of some country conducting business, you're stuck having to deal with the law enforcement of that particular country if you wish to do business. If you don't, you're still stuck with the consequences. Those Chinese dissidents that had their information handed over, and as a result they were dealt with according to the government's whims? Well, once again, that demonstrates the point that just because you want to state "I have free speech!" and you do it on someone else's domain, doesn't mean you're protected, and according to the laws of China, they were determined to be guilty of something. "But that's not fair!" I can see you screaming with an idiotic expression, well, be that as it may, surely if someone went running into your house and screaming a death threat at you, you'd also say "Get out of here, or get the crap beaten out of you, you're violating my rights!" but then again, it isn't reasonable to expect stupid hypocrites to recognize themselves for what they are. The only solution any multinational country has to the problem of following the laws of a given country and remaining in business is to not have any presence at all within those countries: if you actually check, most large corporations are distinctly multinational, and have to play by the rules of their associated countries, or be seized by the local government. The biggest difference just happens to be in the case of internet giants like Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft is that it's more feasible to use them as digital meeting places, printing presses and hideouts, at least until they're found by their governments. In effect, Yahoo!, Google and Microsoft as online entities are stuck in much the same place as accessories to crimes as defined by the local governments as phone companies are when meetings and conversations of a subversive nature are done over the phone: they're stuck having to deal with turning over the information to the authorities when they demand them. If you think China and the Yahoo! or Google incidents are an isolated thing, I strongly encourage you to research the PATRIOT act, which is the US's currently standing bit of legislation that makes it harder to expect protection by carriers of similar actions and "speech" as in China. Oh, now there's an inconvenient truth! Before you whine about how one company treats citizens in another country according to its laws, first make sure your own country changes its own laws to match your ideals, so you don't look like the idiot you clearly are.