Charles,
You are as foolish as Mikel but that seems to be
because you are Mikel - you write jsut like him, caps and all. You say
freedom of speech is not protected on this site because the government
doesn't own it!!! You seem to be saying only government sites protect
freedom of speech, which is garbage. Google do indeed seem to have
infringed Charles' right to free speech and stole his intellectual
property. They did not only remove the allegedly offensive posts, they
removed everything Charles created, including many informative and
public interest stories. For other very offensive bloggers Google
removes only the complained of posts but they treated Charles
differently and stole over 20,000 posts, of which only a very small
number were possible offensive.
By the way, sorry to disappoint you but I have never been convicted of
anything and have witness many people suffer incredibly at the hands of
our very corrupt establishment. 10:25 - you really sound like Mikel with
a hangover.
I'm not sure whether I should be offended or complimented by that. What do you think Charles? Given the number of times I've disagreed with Charles that would make him pretty schizophrenic!
ReplyDeleteGoogle is a private company, they can do what they want, just like if you post a comment Charles doesn't want to post, then Charles doesn't have to post it. If he posts it and then later decides to eliminate all the posts of some commenter-even people who disagree with him, he is free to do so.
Just like you can't sue Irving for not printing your letters to the editors, you can't argue that Google is infringing your right to free speech. They don't own the internet, nobody pointed a gun to Charles head and forced him to put his blog on their website and then be dumb enough to not even keep a backup copy (sorry Charles, but its true, or I guess if we're the same person then I don't have to be offended by that eh?!)
That isn't even an argument, thats like saying you are infringing my freedom of speech by not letting me into your house and lecture you all night long. More to the point is what I wrote a long time ago, which is that if you read their 'terms of service' then without a judge coming to the conclusion that he committed libel, then the city's argument that he made libelous statements is as groundless as the guy who says that the city committed criminal fraud just because he says so.
However, because its a private company you can't do squat and you can't argue they 'infringed' your rights. Charles can put his website on his own computer and say what he wants, or put it on a server in some third world country like peer to peer servers do.
No doubt they simply used the fact that they had shut down his blog before and then read even a couple of his headlines and then figured it simply wasn't worth the trouble. There weren't just a few offensive blogs, there were a fair number, and Google didn't get rich by acting as the editor for all the blogs on their servers.
I agree that its certainly too bad because Charles is one of the few places with lots of community stuff. Mind you, nobody is stopping anybody else from setting up community blogs. And its pretty much up to individual's to 'back up their work'.
More nonsense from Mikel. Google does not "own" the posts Charles created and they entered into a contract with him, in which they agreed to publish his material. There is an agreement not to infringe certain rules but, as we have all seen, read and heard, Google allow the most outrageous material to be published and only remove individual posts that might be offensive. They treated Charles differently and that is discrimination, under international, federal and provincial Human Rights Acts - no organisation, whether government or private, can discriminate against the persons it provides services or products to. Mikel, I beg you to actually research before your random-word-generator brain kicks into gear and kicks Charles' ass when it is you who got it wrong.
ReplyDeleteGood job you are not a lawyer - or maybe you are, just trying to mislead the public. I agree with whoever said you are a moron.