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.

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

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/11 15:55 , SaPeIsMa wrote:

"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 ??


By observation, experience, incomparison to other companies operating in
the US. That declaration was made by a number of privacy advocate, and
corporate watchdogs.

Google's track record in matters of integrity and transparency is only
marginally better than that of the Ethyl Corporation. Read the TOS for
Google. The privacy policies for Google. Then read the privacy policy for
one of their products like GMail. The contradictions and obfuscations are
quite striking.

And while many users read the TOS associated with a product, few bother
to delve into the policies of Google, itself. It takes some pretty
determined digging, to find the real intent of the policies and product
TOS for Google.

The mantra "Don't be evil," is laughable on its face.



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 ?

And requiring actual transparency of a company issuing a transparency
report is putting the cart before the horse?


1) They don't have to put one out
They CHOOSE to do so
2) Who would "require it of them" anyway ?


You must have been a dream student in your debate class.


Yeah !
I usually rolled over wooly thinkers like you....

"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.

"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

On 10/27/2011 6:35 PM, 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.



I'd much rather he just ask you to stop attempts at ending dialog here.
If you don't like it, remove this newsgroup from your computer, feel
free to do that with any which are offending you, also ... :-)

Regards,
JS

On 10/27/2011 6:33 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/11 15:55 , SaPeIsMa wrote:

"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 ??


By observation, experience, incomparison to other companies operating
in the US. That declaration was made by a number of privacy advocate,
and corporate watchdogs.

Google's track record in matters of integrity and transparency is only
marginally better than that of the Ethyl Corporation. Read the TOS for
Google. The privacy policies for Google. Then read the privacy policy
for one of their products like GMail. The contradictions and
obfuscations are quite striking.

And while many users read the TOS associated with a product, few
bother to delve into the policies of Google, itself. It takes some
pretty determined digging, to find the real intent of the policies and
product TOS for Google.

The mantra "Don't be evil," is laughable on its face.



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 ?

And requiring actual transparency of a company issuing a transparency
report is putting the cart before the horse?


1) They don't have to put one out
They CHOOSE to do so
2) Who would "require it of them" anyway ?


You must have been a dream student in your debate class.


Yeah !
I usually rolled over wooly thinkers like you....



You think you do, anyway!

Indeed, I am quite left with the impression that you are a legend in
your own mind, unless there is someone else here who sees you the same ...

Regards,
JS

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

The U.S.Supreme Court has Ruled.
http://www.standeyo.com
cuhulin

On 10/27/11 20:33 , SaPeIsMa wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/11 15:55 , SaPeIsMa wrote:

"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 ??


By observation, experience, incomparison to other companies operating
in the US. That declaration was made by a number of privacy advocate,
and corporate watchdogs.

Google's track record in matters of integrity and transparency is only
marginally better than that of the Ethyl Corporation. Read the TOS for
Google. The privacy policies for Google. Then read the privacy policy
for one of their products like GMail. The contradictions and
obfuscations are quite striking.

And while many users read the TOS associated with a product, few
bother to delve into the policies of Google, itself. It takes some
pretty determined digging, to find the real intent of the policies and
product TOS for Google.

The mantra "Don't be evil," is laughable on its face.



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 ?

And requiring actual transparency of a company issuing a transparency
report is putting the cart before the horse?


1) They don't have to put one out
They CHOOSE to do so
2) Who would "require it of them" anyway ?


Read more closely. You missed the actual requirement.




You must have been a dream student in your debate class.


Yeah !
I usually rolled over wooly thinkers like you....


Yes. I'm sure you did.