On 10/27/2011 6:37 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/2011 1:57 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/2011 4:13 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 10/26/2011 11:24 AM, 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 ?

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



Yes, when they allow others and pick the ones they don't agree with
for banning, I do! MOST CERTAINLY!


Too bad
Google is NOT the government
The Ist Amendment does NOT apply.




No. They are simply breaking the law by saying one thing and doing yet
another ...

Go ahead and cite the law that they are breaking ?


I think..

That's where your problem is
YOu confuse "believing" with "thinking"




You mean like the practice of fraudulent deception in claimed business
practices, mission statements, and implied foundations of the
contracts you are agreeing to, and for the purpose of gaining or
increasing profits? Really? That needs explaining? If so, I don't
believe any possible will be acceptable to you!


Well, then feel free to explain away..
I'm sure it will be both amusing and entertaining



Well, to be blunt, and restate, so you don't miss the point, this time
.... it would be an excise in hopeless to explain most anything to a
moron, such as yourself. I find it only angers the moron -- you, and
wastes the time of the one explaining -- me.

Regards,
JS