Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
On 10/27/2011 7:44 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ... On 10/27/11 20:35 , 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. LOL! Nice Dodge, Mrs Iaccoca. Now what did I dodge ? Are you slightly confused as to whom you're responding to ? Check the headers, sonny Hard to tell, you would have to stand still first so we could see what is striking you as, at this point it looks like everything! Regards, JS |
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 |