Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
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 ... Regards, JS |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open, attack on free speech ...
"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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Government Claims Power to Ban Books and Speech | Shortwave | |||
President Bush Preparing Speech to Announce Attack on Iran | Shortwave | |||
President Bush Preparing Speech to Announce Attack on Iran | Shortwave | |||
President Bush Preparing Speech to Announce Attack on Iran | Shortwave | |||
Free speech | Policy |