Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
On 10/27/2011 7:24 PM, Scout wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message ... 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. Wrong. It's would be up to those being sued to prove it was true and thus wasn't slander. Yes, you already seen what I have to say ... 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 |