"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..