"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..

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.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:52:26 -0500, D. Peter Maus wrote:


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.

Most Constitutional guarantees of freedom apply to all persons in the
jurisdiction of the United States, not just citizens.

"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..


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.

The only duty Goggle has is to it's shareholders.

It's you that engages in collectivist thinking and THAT'S dangerous.

On 10/27/11 14:17 , Tom S. wrote:
"D. Peter 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..


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.

The only duty Goggle has is to it's shareholders.

It's you that engages in collectivist thinking and THAT'S dangerous.


Yes. Looking beyond the boardroom to issues of First Amendment
protection definitely makes ME the problem.

On 10/27/2011 5:52 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
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.




I agree.

I don't care if the government is attempting to prevent or control free
speech or it is an individual or corporation, any attack on, or attempt
to repress, free speech needs to be dealt with quickly and severely ...

Else, let them declare their intentions openly and let the chips fall
where they will!

Regards,
JS

"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 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. And in the case of a
public figure, is all but impossible to pursue. So, until the terms of
these particular defamation cases are revealed, this is all just
conversation.



But the reason for the removal of the material that was critical of
the government was 'government criticism.'

That's where the duty to resist pressures from the government stands.
The government, the First Amendment, precludes the Government from
silencing, or causing to be silenced, those critical of the government.

"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.

And in the case of a public figure, is all but impossible to pursue.

On the contrary, they simply have to fail a lawsuit like anyone else.


So, until the terms of these particular defamation cases are revealed,
this is all just conversation.

As is the assertion they shouldn't remove them either.

But the reason for the removal of the material that was critical of the
government was 'government criticism.'

Yea, and from reports in a slanderous/libelous manner.

Sorry, but if the material was defamation in the legal sense or even could
reasonable be, then Goggle has a self interest to remove the material to
protect itself from legal liability as being an accessory.
The same as if you post copyrighted work and so on. If they are notified and
they fail to remove it, then they open themselves up to legal liability by
being an accessory.


That's where the duty to resist pressures from the government stands.

Sure, if it's purely a 1st Amendment issue, however slander/libel isn't
protected under the 1st and for good reason.


The government, the First Amendment, precludes the Government from
silencing, or causing to be silenced, those critical of the government.

Not if the criticism is slander or libel. Then it most certainly can do so.

Just as the FCC can notify goggle they are hosting a copyrighted video and
so on. If they fail to cease the copyright infringement then that would open
Goggle up to legal action against them.

On 10/27/2011 5:10 PM, 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.

And in the case of a public figure, is all but impossible to pursue.

On the contrary, they simply have to fail a lawsuit like anyone else.


So, until the terms of these particular defamation cases are revealed,
this is all just conversation.

As is the assertion they shouldn't remove them either.

But the reason for the removal of the material that was critical of
the government was 'government criticism.'

Yea, and from reports in a slanderous/libelous manner.

Sorry, but if the material was defamation in the legal sense or even
could reasonable be, then Goggle has a self interest to remove the
material to protect itself from legal liability as being an accessory.
The same as if you post copyrighted work and so on. If they are notified
and they fail to remove it, then they open themselves up to legal
liability by being an accessory.


That's where the duty to resist pressures from the government stands.

Sure, if it's purely a 1st Amendment issue, however slander/libel isn't
protected under the 1st and for good reason.


The government, the First Amendment, precludes the Government from
silencing, or causing to be silenced, those critical of the government.

Not if the criticism is slander or libel. Then it most certainly can do so.

Just as the FCC can notify goggle they are hosting a copyrighted video
and so on. If they fail to cease the copyright infringement then that
would open Goggle up to legal action against them.




It would only be slander if it was proven to NOT be true ... obviously,
with the current state of politics and criminal public servants, most
any despicable, criminal, or perverted act you can imagine them doing is
most likely true ... sad, so very, very sad ... in very short order the
respect which respectable citizens once had for their government is gone.

Regards,
JS