What is the deal with all the censorship?

Question

On Tuesday, morning, I wrote a review for Gone With The Wind at Amazon and later found it had been deleted. This was most of my review..

I’m glad this book is fiction because no one would possibly believe it if it wasn’t. Scarlett O’hara in Mitchell’s own words “was not beautiful”…(matter of fact, you later discover that she is downright homely in so many words) but somehow, she is able to get all the guys, and they fall madly in love with her the second they meet her just because she acts desperate and dresses like a s**t.

Later, Scarlett O’hara goes on to have three children by three different men and Rhett Butler somehow still “wants” her with all of that baggage even when I‘m sure that as handsome as he is portrayed, he could have had his pick of several 20 year olds that had none and were at least pretty. Despite this book starting a conspiracy against beauty, it is blatantly racist. (cut off) Please read on...

Answer 1

HAHA! Sounds like you pissed some folks off..(Good for you). Yahoo has been censoring a lot recently.

Yet they somehow think people with legit questions though they may sound a little insulting are worse than

Idiots who stay on here 24/7 asking dumb questions about their s*x organs, or the idiots who use this place as a chatroom when the TOU clearly state That Answers! is not a chat room/blog or forum.

Answer 2

Yahoo and Amazon are private businesses.  When you joined them, you agreed to follow thier corporate guidelines.  If you violate them, then they have a right to change or delete your postings.

If you want to write whatever you want, start your own blog or website

Answer 3

Sounds like you are objecting to the freedom of someone else to delete your review or cancel your account.    Don't you want them to be free?

Seriously, do we live in a free society? No and frankly I don't want to.   Why?  Because then someone who doesn't like your question would be free to not just thumbs down you but hunt you down and kill you or maybe torture you a while.   Child molesters would be free to follow their passions.  Anyone who wanted your computer or mine would be free to just come take it and if you fought that free to kill you.   Someone doesn't like your dog then it is OK to hurt it.   Someone doesn't like you,  ditto.  Kids get hungry or inconvenient dump them in the river.   Baby (your own or anyone else's) crying wake you up get rid of baby.   There could be no personal possessions because anyone would be free to take anything.  There could be no safety because anyone would be free to do anything to anyone.   And of course anyone would be free to seek their vengence any way they could.  

Humans are so constructed at least since sin entered in that we need rules and bounderies.   We need to be able to have expectations of how things ought to work just as you expect to have a right to express yourself.  We need to be able to drive down the street and expect that the cars going the other way will stay on "their side" of the road.  We need to go to school or work without expecting to have to fight for our lives when we get there.  We need to be able to put people who hurt kids somewhere where they can't get to the kids to hurt them, etc.  

When you buy and pay for something it should be yours and you should be the one who gets to say who can and can't use it and what they can do with it.   Sometimes we forget that the net has private property too.   When someone or some group owns a web site they get to make the rules about what can and can't be done with it.   Many groups allow and want people to use their net space but in making it available almost always they say these are the conditions under which you can use this or can hang out here.  (Terms of Service) and when you join up you agree to thiose terms almost all of which have some phrase like "at the sole discretion of (site name) ...for any reasons for no reason"  posts or accounts can be delete.   The freedom then comes in our choice whether or not we want to join up under those conditions.

Answer 4

Well, your assessment is a values judgement of the story's characters rather than an objective review of the book as a whole.

You point your finger at Scarlet O'Hara and call her a s**t. Which is judgement or perhaps character assasination. Is this the language of a critique or are you just being snarky? Then you call her homely. And say she acts desperate, etc. You state that Rhett Butler is, in a word a player who could have whomever he wants in the way of 20 year olds.

But what you don't do is qualify why she, Scarlet, uses these behaviors as tool to get to what she needs. You don't explain the times she's living in, or the sexual tension between this character and Rhett Butler and why it is he finds her fascinating. Could it be because she is so very much like him, only in female form? Which would be so very very unusual considering the age in which the story is written.

And yes, indeed, racism is a very prevalent part of the story and the history of this country and this particular setting.

Consider how you word your language. You don't give the reader a clear and concise statement regarding how this plays into the story. You see, Rhett Butler's character doesn't really support racism, does he? He's conflicted. As were many people at the time.

The setting of this story is during the Civil War. Which is interesting in and of itself, especially as we look back and see how slavery was used as a tool to further wedge the south and north from each other. This is very important to the story as well since it plays a major role in keeping Rhett and Scarlet apart. And since it eventually destroys Tara as well, which is symbolic to Scarlet. Another very important point to the story.

Your review was taken down, not as censorship, but probably because it was seen as an inadequate review.

Answer 5

I was also censored here at yahoo answers for criticizing slavemasters by calling them too lazy to do their own chores. Evidently you can't even insult people who owned slaves who have been dead for over 100 years. Who did I offend?  My criticism of slavemasters was very informative, in addition to be historically accurate. This kind of censorship is very strange.