"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
.. .

"John Smith" wrote in message
...



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

Shades of the Dilbert, "Mission Statement Generator".

"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message


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.

Hey, you fraudulent ****bag; I have a MS degree in Finance and Accounting,
so why don't you ty explaing it to me. I lived with this stuff for nearly
three decades.



Ah yes
The classic loser argument of those who can't support their bull****
"You're not smart enough to understand it.."
It only proves that you're the idiot.
But hey, don't let me stop you from doing that.

Well, it IS entertaining, how he never even offered up even a fragment of
substantiation for his claim. NOT ONE BIT.

What a sorry little boy!

On 10/27/2011 7:24 PM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/2011 5:10 PM, Scout wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/11 18:09 , Scout wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/11 06:14 , SaPeIsMa wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/26/11 13:24 , SaPeIsMa wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...


http://www.infowars.com/feds-order-y...ent-criticism/







Misleading title

It appears that a great many requests were for removal of
defamatory
material against individuals due to a court order
I don't consider such removal to be interference with free speech.
Do you ?

The cause listed as 'defamatory' but the content was not revealed.
The Court has long and often stated that individuals who may be
public figures are not afforded some protections from so-called
defamation, even in such case as the allegations against such
individual are untrue. Malice of Intent must be proven. Very
difficult in the case of a public figure.

Further, the specific video involving 'government criticism' was
petitioned by the government.

It is the nature of Free Speech, that a case for defamation must
be made to a legal standard, and transparency is required.

It is also the nature of Free Speech that the government may not
silence content that is critical of itself. This is guaranteed by
the First Amendment.

And, it is the nature of Free Speech that protections are afforded
to speech that is neither popular, or comforting. Speech which is
popular and comforting requires no protection.

Be VERY careful about endorsing, sanctioning, or being complicit
with any government that seeks to silence criticism. Of any kind,
but most specifically of itself. It is the very essense of Freedom
that the citizen has the right, if not the duty, to speak back to
Power.

Even if that citizen is wrong.

When speech is silenced, transparency is obscured.






Google has a transparency report where requests for removal are
explained
http://www.google.com/transparencyre...nmentrequests/


"Google" and "transparency" are mutually exclusive terms.


Google is NOT the Government
It's a BUSINESS
It has NO NEED or DUTY to be ANYTHING..


That's extraordinarily dangerous thinking.

Google is not the government. But Google IS an entity operating
within
the United States, and benefits from the freedoms enjoyed by the
citizens. When Google is petitioned by the Government to silence
criticism of that government, it has a responsibility to stand and
resist the violations of the Rights of the People expressed by the
Government's petition to silence that criticism.

Google most certainly does have a duty.

Even if that means keeping slanderous/libelous material on the site,
opening them up to legal liability and lawsuits as an accessory to
such
defamation?

Defamation, in this case, was not defined.

Sorry, but the law most certainly does define what it is.

And in the case of a public figure, is all but impossible to pursue.

On the contrary, they simply have to fail a lawsuit like anyone else.


So, until the terms of these particular defamation cases are revealed,
this is all just conversation.

As is the assertion they shouldn't remove them either.

But the reason for the removal of the material that was critical of
the government was 'government criticism.'

Yea, and from reports in a slanderous/libelous manner.

Sorry, but if the material was defamation in the legal sense or even
could reasonable be, then Goggle has a self interest to remove the
material to protect itself from legal liability as being an accessory.
The same as if you post copyrighted work and so on. If they are notified
and they fail to remove it, then they open themselves up to legal
liability by being an accessory.


That's where the duty to resist pressures from the government stands.

Sure, if it's purely a 1st Amendment issue, however slander/libel isn't
protected under the 1st and for good reason.


The government, the First Amendment, precludes the Government from
silencing, or causing to be silenced, those critical of the government.

Not if the criticism is slander or libel. Then it most certainly can
do so.

Just as the FCC can notify goggle they are hosting a copyrighted video
and so on. If they fail to cease the copyright infringement then that
would open Goggle up to legal action against them.




It would only be slander if it was proven to NOT be true ...
obviously, with the current state of politics and criminal public
servants, most any despicable, criminal, or perverted act you can
imagine them doing is most likely true ... sad, so very, very sad ...
in very short order the respect which respectable citizens once had
for their government is gone.

Wrong. It's would be up to those being sued to prove it was true and
thus wasn't slander.




Yes, you already seen what I have to say ...

Regards,
JS

On 10/27/2011 7:40 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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 ... :-)


Where am I attempting to "end dialog" ??
There you go demonstrating that you can't read for comprehension..



Your right, you only work to end sensible dialog and do support insane
chatter ... I stand corrected, carry on ...

Regards,
JS

On 10/27/2011 7:44 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/11 20:35 , SaPeIsMa wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/11 19:10 , Scout wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/11 18:09 , Scout wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/11 06:14 , SaPeIsMa wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/26/11 13:24 , SaPeIsMa wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...


http://www.infowars.com/feds-order-y...ent-criticism/








Misleading title

It appears that a great many requests were for removal of
defamatory
material against individuals due to a court order
I don't consider such removal to be interference with free
speech.
Do you ?

The cause listed as 'defamatory' but the content was not
revealed.
The Court has long and often stated that individuals who may be
public figures are not afforded some protections from so-called
defamation, even in such case as the allegations against such
individual are untrue. Malice of Intent must be proven. Very
difficult in the case of a public figure.

Further, the specific video involving 'government criticism' was
petitioned by the government.

It is the nature of Free Speech, that a case for defamation must
be made to a legal standard, and transparency is required.

It is also the nature of Free Speech that the government may not
silence content that is critical of itself. This is guaranteed by
the First Amendment.

And, it is the nature of Free Speech that protections are
afforded
to speech that is neither popular, or comforting. Speech which is
popular and comforting requires no protection.

Be VERY careful about endorsing, sanctioning, or being complicit
with any government that seeks to silence criticism. Of any kind,
but most specifically of itself. It is the very essense of
Freedom
that the citizen has the right, if not the duty, to speak back to
Power.

Even if that citizen is wrong.

When speech is silenced, transparency is obscured.






Google has a transparency report where requests for removal are
explained
http://www.google.com/transparencyre...nmentrequests/


"Google" and "transparency" are mutually exclusive terms.


Google is NOT the Government
It's a BUSINESS
It has NO NEED or DUTY to be ANYTHING..


That's extraordinarily dangerous thinking.

Google is not the government. But Google IS an entity operating
within
the United States, and benefits from the freedoms enjoyed by the
citizens. When Google is petitioned by the Government to silence
criticism of that government, it has a responsibility to stand and
resist the violations of the Rights of the People expressed by the
Government's petition to silence that criticism.

Google most certainly does have a duty.

Even if that means keeping slanderous/libelous material on the site,
opening them up to legal liability and lawsuits as an accessory to
such
defamation?

Defamation, in this case, was not defined.

Sorry, but the law most certainly does define what it is.


LOL. Nice try. The law does. But the instance under discusssion...The
specifics were not revealed.



You can always write them a letter and ask nicely for the details
Don't let us stop you..
And it would be far more productive than you whining here about it.




LOL!


Nice Dodge, Mrs Iaccoca.


Now what did I dodge ?
Are you slightly confused as to whom you're responding to ?
Check the headers, sonny



Hard to tell, you would have to stand still first so we could see what
is striking you as, at this point it looks like everything!

Regards,
JS

On 10/27/2011 8:58 PM, Scout wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/11 21:25 , Scout 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.

Fine, why do you think they have to be, much less why shouldn't we
assume legitimate reasons by goggle?




Before we can dismiss Google's actions as legitimate in the interests
of anti-defamation, we need to know that the instance was, indeed,
defamation.

Ok, once you can do so without making a bunch of assumptions let me know.




Yeah, good idea, stand by, we will get back to you ... roflol

Regards,
JS