On 10/27/2011 7:44 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/11 20:35 , SaPeIsMa wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/11 19:10 , Scout wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/11 18:09 , 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?

Defamation, in this case, was not defined.

Sorry, but the law most certainly does define what it is.


LOL. Nice try. The law does. But the instance under discusssion...The
specifics were not revealed.



You can always write them a letter and ask nicely for the details
Don't let us stop you..
And it would be far more productive than you whining here about it.




LOL!


Nice Dodge, Mrs Iaccoca.


Now what did I dodge ?
Are you slightly confused as to whom you're responding to ?
Check the headers, sonny



Hard to tell, you would have to stand still first so we could see what
is striking you as, at this point it looks like everything!

Regards,
JS