On 10/27/2011 5:26 PM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/2011 4:09 PM, Scout wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/11 06:14 , SaPeIsMa wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/26/11 13:24 , SaPeIsMa wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...


http://www.infowars.com/feds-order-y...ent-criticism/






Misleading title

It appears that a great many requests were for removal of defamatory
material against individuals due to a court order
I don't consider such removal to be interference with free speech.
Do you ?

The cause listed as 'defamatory' but the content was not revealed.
The Court has long and often stated that individuals who may be
public figures are not afforded some protections from so-called
defamation, even in such case as the allegations against such
individual are untrue. Malice of Intent must be proven. Very
difficult in the case of a public figure.

Further, the specific video involving 'government criticism' was
petitioned by the government.

It is the nature of Free Speech, that a case for defamation must
be made to a legal standard, and transparency is required.

It is also the nature of Free Speech that the government may not
silence content that is critical of itself. This is guaranteed by
the First Amendment.

And, it is the nature of Free Speech that protections are afforded
to speech that is neither popular, or comforting. Speech which is
popular and comforting requires no protection.

Be VERY careful about endorsing, sanctioning, or being complicit
with any government that seeks to silence criticism. Of any kind,
but most specifically of itself. It is the very essense of Freedom
that the citizen has the right, if not the duty, to speak back to
Power.

Even if that citizen is wrong.

When speech is silenced, transparency is obscured.






Google has a transparency report where requests for removal are
explained
http://www.google.com/transparencyre...nmentrequests/


"Google" and "transparency" are mutually exclusive terms.


Google is NOT the Government
It's a BUSINESS
It has NO NEED or DUTY to be ANYTHING..


That's extraordinarily dangerous thinking.

Google is not the government. But Google IS an entity operating within
the United States, and benefits from the freedoms enjoyed by the
citizens. When Google is petitioned by the Government to silence
criticism of that government, it has a responsibility to stand and
resist the violations of the Rights of the People expressed by the
Government's petition to silence that criticism.

Google most certainly does have a duty.

Even if that means keeping slanderous/libelous material on the site,
opening them up to legal liability and lawsuits as an accessory to such
defamation?




Yeah, frivolous lawsuits and prosecutions need to end also ...
political manipulations of events and elections, whether by hundreds
of millions of dollars or staged media events are crimes against the
citizens ...

That assumes the lawsuits would be frivolous.
What if the material really is slander/libel and the lawsuit utterly
justified?
Should Goggle open itself up to such legal liability simply because of
the subject that the slander/libel is contained within?
Let's say I paint some slander on your house about a neighbor. Your
neighbor complains to you that what I painted is slander?

So you stand on your soapbox and refuse to remove the slander because
you're not going to bend, or do you paint over the slanderous remarks I
'posted' on your property?

If it were simply criticisms, then I doubt it would have been an issue,
but since the criticism contains slander/libel then that makes it an
issue and Goggle can't selectively edit your work to remove the
slander/libel they simply dump the whole thing and if you wish to repost
it without the slander/libel then you could do so.


I don't think it is even deniable that google will always succumb to the
threats of criminals and political power. Nor do I think in this day,
at this time, that this is not an effective way to increase corporate
and stockholders interests ...

Indeed, while the old adage "crime doesn't pay" is seemingly honored in
its' logic, it really is false. I seem to see crime paying quite nicely
.... it is only getting caught which "doesn't pay!"

And, of course, when you are a criminal, the only safe place is in the
position of authority which is responsible for determining crimes and
punishments.

I expect google to be no different ... they should hardly be expected to
police themselves, indeed, no finer example of "the fox guarding the hen
house could be given!"

If we are to allow them to be able to control access to free speech, the
posting of videos, etc., simply on the claim "I am afraid I will be
prosecuted or punished", when we expect to see an end to this not
controlling their decisions in ways which are personally enriching and
self-serving?

If I were a republican, and owned a media outlet, I should think it
would be quite easy to let republicans speak all they wish ... and when
a democrat seeks to rebut, make the statement, "I am afraid of libel
and/or slander charges, he cannot say that here!"

Even "false fear" can be used as weapon ... and in this, we need to be
forever vigilant ...

Regards,
JS