"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?

On 10/27/11 06:14 , SaPeIsMa wrote:




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..


While you may argue the point of need, or duty, that Google offers a
report claiming transparency, while being the second most deceptive and
disingenuous corporation on the planet would be laughable if it weren't
so tragic.

If they're going to offer a 'transparency report,' they DO ideed have
a need and a duty to be transparent.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:58:31 -0500, D Peter Maus wrote:

On 10/27/11 06:14 , SaPeIsMa wrote:




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..


While you may argue the point of need, or duty, that Google offers a
report claiming transparency, while being the second most deceptive and
disingenuous corporation on the planet would be laughable if it weren't
so tragic.

If they're going to offer a 'transparency report,' they DO ideed have
a need and a duty to be transparent.

The internet is a massive tool of mind control and disinformation. Google
has perfected subliminal means to steer your thoughts. Resist.

On 10/27/2011 5:58 AM, D Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/27/11 06:14 , SaPeIsMa wrote:




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..


While you may argue the point of need, or duty, that Google offers a
report claiming transparency, while being the second most deceptive and
disingenuous corporation on the planet would be laughable if it weren't
so tragic.

If they're going to offer a 'transparency report,' they DO ideed have a
need and a duty to be transparent.



Well said ...

Regards,
JS

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




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..


While you may argue the point of need, or duty, that Google offers a
report claiming transparency, while being the second most deceptive and
disingenuous corporation on the planet would be laughable if it weren't so
tragic.


ANd who declared Google to be
"second most deceptive and disingenuous corporation on the planet "
And by what standard was this defintion made ??


If they're going to offer a 'transparency report,' they DO ideed have a
need and a duty to be transparent.


You seem to have a real issue with putting the cart before the horse.
Why is that ?

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!

Regards,
JS

"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.

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 ... I think deception to support
profits/political-interests/etc. can be, and is in some situations,
criminal. But, until it enters a court of law the finer details are
simply an exercise in argument ... it remains to be seen if an when
anything is done about it.

Regards,
JS

"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"