| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
|
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in theopen...
New Street Lights to have Homeland INsecurity Applications.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=315033 What kind of sheet will they (''they'') think of next? Sheet, I fixed up my own valve seat removal tool so I can rebuild my old bathtub faucet thingy.I did some judicious grinding on one of my old socket extension thingys, I have so many of them anyway.It worked like a Charm. You have to Adapt!, Inprovise! ~ Clint Eastwood - Heartbreak Ridge movie. cuhulin |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open, attack on free speech ...
"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 ? Google has a transparency report where requests for removal are explained http://www.google.com/transparencyre...nmentrequests/ |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
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. |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open...
On 10/26/2011 10:36 AM, J R wrote:
New Street Lights to have Homeland INsecurity Applications. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=315033 What kind of sheet will they (''they'') think of next? Sheet, I fixed up my own valve seat removal tool so I can rebuild my old bathtub faucet thingy.I did some judicious grinding on one of my old socket extension thingys, I have so many of them anyway.It worked like a Charm. You have to Adapt!, Inprovise! ~ Clint Eastwood - Heartbreak Ridge movie. cuhulin Seen that too ... http://www.infowars.com/new-street-l...-applications/ Damn criminals ... may they rot in hell, and soon. Regards, JS |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
On 10/26/2011 11:24 AM, 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 ? Google has a transparency report where requests for removal are explained http://www.google.com/transparencyre...nmentrequests/ Yes, when they allow others and pick the ones they don't agree with for banning, I do! MOST CERTAINLY! Regards, JS |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open, attack on free speech ...
"John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/26/2011 11:24 AM, 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 ? Google has a transparency report where requests for removal are explained http://www.google.com/transparencyre...nmentrequests/ Yes, when they allow others and pick the ones they don't agree with for banning, I do! MOST CERTAINLY! Too bad Google is NOT the government The Ist Amendment does NOT apply. |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open, attack on free speech ...
"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.. |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
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. |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
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.. While you may argue the point of need, or duty, that Google offers a report claiming transparency, while being the second most deceptive and disingenuous corporation on the planet would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. If they're going to offer a 'transparency report,' they DO ideed have a need and a duty to be transparent. |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in theopen, attack on free speech ...
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. |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in theopen, attack on free speech ...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:58:31 -0500, D Peter Maus wrote:
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.. While you may argue the point of need, or duty, that Google offers a report claiming transparency, while being the second most deceptive and disingenuous corporation on the planet would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. If they're going to offer a 'transparency report,' they DO ideed have a need and a duty to be transparent. The internet is a massive tool of mind control and disinformation. Google has perfected subliminal means to steer your thoughts. Resist. |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open, attack on free speech ...
dave wrote in talk.politics.guns :
The internet is a massive tool of mind control and disinformation. Google has perfected subliminal means to steer your thoughts. Resist. http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open, attack on free speech ...
"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. |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
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 |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
On 10/27/2011 5:58 AM, D Peter Maus wrote:
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.. While you may argue the point of need, or duty, that Google offers a report claiming transparency, while being the second most deceptive and disingenuous corporation on the planet would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. If they're going to offer a 'transparency report,' they DO ideed have a need and a duty to be transparent. Well said ... Regards, JS |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
On 10/27/2011 6:12 AM, dave wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:58:31 -0500, D Peter Maus wrote: 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.. While you may argue the point of need, or duty, that Google offers a report claiming transparency, while being the second most deceptive and disingenuous corporation on the planet would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. If they're going to offer a 'transparency report,' they DO ideed have a need and a duty to be transparent. The internet is a massive tool of mind control and disinformation. Google has perfected subliminal means to steer your thoughts. Resist. I just tossed my garbage in your back yard. When that bomber joint wears off, attempt to resist that! grin Regards, JS |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
On 10/27/2011 6:18 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
wrote in talk.politics.guns : The internet is a massive tool of mind control and disinformation. Google has perfected subliminal means to steer your thoughts. Resist. http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ You should be aware that your posting can be taken as an endorsement to use the design and plans for protection. It should be noted that any energies/waves/powers/microwaves entering from the bottom of this device will only be focuses upon the brain cavity and even the brain proper which is being enclosed in the device. Indeed, it is extremely likely that this device could cause damage rather then stop or reduce it, at least in some specific situations! This could leave you open to lawsuits from those using the device and suffering permanent brain damage! Just sayin' ... and those considering the use of such a device might want to explore other designs or offerings. Regards, JS |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
On 10/27/2011 4:13 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/26/2011 11:24 AM, 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 ? Google has a transparency report where requests for removal are explained http://www.google.com/transparencyre...nmentrequests/ Yes, when they allow others and pick the ones they don't agree with for banning, I do! MOST CERTAINLY! Too bad Google is NOT the government The Ist Amendment does NOT apply. No. They are simply breaking the law by saying one thing and doing yet another ... I think deception to support profits/political-interests/etc. can be, and is in some situations, criminal. But, until it enters a court of law the finer details are simply an exercise in argument ... it remains to be seen if an when anything is done about it. Regards, JS |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
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. |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open, attack on free speech ...
"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.. While you may argue the point of need, or duty, that Google offers a report claiming transparency, while being the second most deceptive and disingenuous corporation on the planet would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. ANd who declared Google to be "second most deceptive and disingenuous corporation on the planet " And by what standard was this defintion made ?? If they're going to offer a 'transparency report,' they DO ideed have a need and a duty to be transparent. You seem to have a real issue with putting the cart before the horse. Why is that ? |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open, attack on free speech ...
"John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/27/2011 4:13 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/26/2011 11:24 AM, 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 ? Google has a transparency report where requests for removal are explained http://www.google.com/transparencyre...nmentrequests/ Yes, when they allow others and pick the ones they don't agree with for banning, I do! MOST CERTAINLY! Too bad Google is NOT the government The Ist Amendment does NOT apply. No. They are simply breaking the law by saying one thing and doing yet another ... Go ahead and cite the law that they are breaking ? I think.. That's where your problem is YOu confuse "believing" with "thinking" |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
On 10/27/11 15:55 , SaPeIsMa wrote:
"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.. While you may argue the point of need, or duty, that Google offers a report claiming transparency, while being the second most deceptive and disingenuous corporation on the planet would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. ANd who declared Google to be "second most deceptive and disingenuous corporation on the planet " And by what standard was this defintion made ?? By observation, experience, incomparison to other companies operating in the US. That declaration was made by a number of privacy advocate, and corporate watchdogs. Google's track record in matters of integrity and transparency is only marginally better than that of the Ethyl Corporation. Read the TOS for Google. The privacy policies for Google. Then read the privacy policy for one of their products like GMail. The contradictions and obfuscations are quite striking. And while many users read the TOS associated with a product, few bother to delve into the policies of Google, itself. It takes some pretty determined digging, to find the real intent of the policies and product TOS for Google. The mantra "Don't be evil," is laughable on its face. If they're going to offer a 'transparency report,' they DO ideed have a need and a duty to be transparent. You seem to have a real issue with putting the cart before the horse. Why is that ? And requiring actual transparency of a company issuing a transparency report is putting the cart before the horse? You must have been a dream student in your debate class. |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open, attack on free speech ...
"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? |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
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. |
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 |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open, attack on free speech ...
"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. |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
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 |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
On 10/27/2011 1:57 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/27/2011 4:13 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/26/2011 11:24 AM, 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 ? Google has a transparency report where requests for removal are explained http://www.google.com/transparencyre...nmentrequests/ Yes, when they allow others and pick the ones they don't agree with for banning, I do! MOST CERTAINLY! Too bad Google is NOT the government The Ist Amendment does NOT apply. No. They are simply breaking the law by saying one thing and doing yet another ... Go ahead and cite the law that they are breaking ? I think.. That's where your problem is YOu confuse "believing" with "thinking" You mean like the practice of fraudulent deception in claimed business practices, mission statements, and implied foundations of the contracts you are agreeing to, and for the purpose of gaining or increasing profits? Really? That needs explaining? If so, I don't believe any possible will be acceptable to you! Regards, JS |
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. |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
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. |
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 |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open, attack on free speech ...
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ... On 10/27/11 15:55 , SaPeIsMa wrote: "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.. While you may argue the point of need, or duty, that Google offers a report claiming transparency, while being the second most deceptive and disingenuous corporation on the planet would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. ANd who declared Google to be "second most deceptive and disingenuous corporation on the planet " And by what standard was this defintion made ?? By observation, experience, incomparison to other companies operating in the US. That declaration was made by a number of privacy advocate, and corporate watchdogs. Google's track record in matters of integrity and transparency is only marginally better than that of the Ethyl Corporation. Read the TOS for Google. The privacy policies for Google. Then read the privacy policy for one of their products like GMail. The contradictions and obfuscations are quite striking. And while many users read the TOS associated with a product, few bother to delve into the policies of Google, itself. It takes some pretty determined digging, to find the real intent of the policies and product TOS for Google. The mantra "Don't be evil," is laughable on its face. If they're going to offer a 'transparency report,' they DO ideed have a need and a duty to be transparent. You seem to have a real issue with putting the cart before the horse. Why is that ? And requiring actual transparency of a company issuing a transparency report is putting the cart before the horse? 1) They don't have to put one out They CHOOSE to do so 2) Who would "require it of them" anyway ? You must have been a dream student in your debate class. Yeah ! I usually rolled over wooly thinkers like you.... |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open, attack on free speech ...
"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. |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open, attack on free speech ...
"John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/27/2011 1:57 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/27/2011 4:13 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/26/2011 11:24 AM, 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 ? Google has a transparency report where requests for removal are explained http://www.google.com/transparencyre...nmentrequests/ Yes, when they allow others and pick the ones they don't agree with for banning, I do! MOST CERTAINLY! Too bad Google is NOT the government The Ist Amendment does NOT apply. No. They are simply breaking the law by saying one thing and doing yet another ... Go ahead and cite the law that they are breaking ? I think.. That's where your problem is YOu confuse "believing" with "thinking" You mean like the practice of fraudulent deception in claimed business practices, mission statements, and implied foundations of the contracts you are agreeing to, and for the purpose of gaining or increasing profits? Really? That needs explaining? If so, I don't believe any possible will be acceptable to you! Well, then feel free to explain away.. I'm sure it will be both amusing and entertaining |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
On 10/27/2011 6:35 PM, 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. I'd much rather he just ask you to stop attempts at ending dialog here. If you don't like it, remove this newsgroup from your computer, feel free to do that with any which are offending you, also ... :-) Regards, JS |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
On 10/27/2011 6:33 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ... On 10/27/11 15:55 , SaPeIsMa wrote: "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.. While you may argue the point of need, or duty, that Google offers a report claiming transparency, while being the second most deceptive and disingenuous corporation on the planet would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. ANd who declared Google to be "second most deceptive and disingenuous corporation on the planet " And by what standard was this defintion made ?? By observation, experience, incomparison to other companies operating in the US. That declaration was made by a number of privacy advocate, and corporate watchdogs. Google's track record in matters of integrity and transparency is only marginally better than that of the Ethyl Corporation. Read the TOS for Google. The privacy policies for Google. Then read the privacy policy for one of their products like GMail. The contradictions and obfuscations are quite striking. And while many users read the TOS associated with a product, few bother to delve into the policies of Google, itself. It takes some pretty determined digging, to find the real intent of the policies and product TOS for Google. The mantra "Don't be evil," is laughable on its face. If they're going to offer a 'transparency report,' they DO ideed have a need and a duty to be transparent. You seem to have a real issue with putting the cart before the horse. Why is that ? And requiring actual transparency of a company issuing a transparency report is putting the cart before the horse? 1) They don't have to put one out They CHOOSE to do so 2) Who would "require it of them" anyway ? You must have been a dream student in your debate class. Yeah ! I usually rolled over wooly thinkers like you.... You think you do, anyway! Indeed, I am quite left with the impression that you are a legend in your own mind, unless there is someone else here who sees you the same ... Regards, JS |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
On 10/27/2011 6:37 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/27/2011 1:57 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/27/2011 4:13 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/26/2011 11:24 AM, 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 ? Google has a transparency report where requests for removal are explained http://www.google.com/transparencyre...nmentrequests/ Yes, when they allow others and pick the ones they don't agree with for banning, I do! MOST CERTAINLY! Too bad Google is NOT the government The Ist Amendment does NOT apply. No. They are simply breaking the law by saying one thing and doing yet another ... Go ahead and cite the law that they are breaking ? I think.. That's where your problem is YOu confuse "believing" with "thinking" You mean like the practice of fraudulent deception in claimed business practices, mission statements, and implied foundations of the contracts you are agreeing to, and for the purpose of gaining or increasing profits? Really? That needs explaining? If so, I don't believe any possible will be acceptable to you! Well, then feel free to explain away.. I'm sure it will be both amusing and entertaining Well, to be blunt, and restate, so you don't miss the point, this time .... it would be an excise in hopeless to explain most anything to a moron, such as yourself. I find it only angers the moron -- you, and wastes the time of the one explaining -- me. Regards, JS |
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in theopen...
|
Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...
On 10/27/11 20:33 , SaPeIsMa wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ... On 10/27/11 15:55 , SaPeIsMa wrote: "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.. While you may argue the point of need, or duty, that Google offers a report claiming transparency, while being the second most deceptive and disingenuous corporation on the planet would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. ANd who declared Google to be "second most deceptive and disingenuous corporation on the planet " And by what standard was this defintion made ?? By observation, experience, incomparison to other companies operating in the US. That declaration was made by a number of privacy advocate, and corporate watchdogs. Google's track record in matters of integrity and transparency is only marginally better than that of the Ethyl Corporation. Read the TOS for Google. The privacy policies for Google. Then read the privacy policy for one of their products like GMail. The contradictions and obfuscations are quite striking. And while many users read the TOS associated with a product, few bother to delve into the policies of Google, itself. It takes some pretty determined digging, to find the real intent of the policies and product TOS for Google. The mantra "Don't be evil," is laughable on its face. If they're going to offer a 'transparency report,' they DO ideed have a need and a duty to be transparent. You seem to have a real issue with putting the cart before the horse. Why is that ? And requiring actual transparency of a company issuing a transparency report is putting the cart before the horse? 1) They don't have to put one out They CHOOSE to do so 2) Who would "require it of them" anyway ? Read more closely. You missed the actual requirement. You must have been a dream student in your debate class. Yeah ! I usually rolled over wooly thinkers like you.... Yes. I'm sure you did. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:37 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com