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

Regards,
JS

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

"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/

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.

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

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

"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.

"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..

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.

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.