"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 ?

"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"

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.

"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?

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.

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

"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.

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

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

"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.