Creative Commons license icon

Reply to comment

What furry news is doing is not censorship. Only government can censor and is exclusively prohibited by the 1st amendment of the US Constitution. Private sites property like Flayrah, Furry News, and Dog Patch press do not come under the 1st amendment and are free to set commenting policy and remove comments on their site even though it may or may not hurt their reputation.

Censorship and the First Amendment while related are not the exact same. If they were then no other country on earth could be accused of committing censorship.

I even state in the article this fact that they do have the right to censor as they are not the government. From the article above:

he above recording could be seen as a selfish complaint. At the end of the day, it’s just a comment, and it’s the site owner’s right to decline it. Get over it, Tantroo; you don’t have the right to speak everywhere. I’d agree with that statement – and I might not have pointed it out, had said owner not been launching accusation of censorship at other furry media establishments such as Flayrah and Dogpatch Press.

Their accusation of Flayrah censorship is quoted in the above article as well. Why are you not complaining to Furry Times that Flayrah can't commit censorship because we are not the US Government? Why are you holding one to a different standard then the other when they made the first accusation of censorship? If they didn't make that statement I literally would have no ground to base an article on.

Reply

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.