Re: [ga] google agrees to censorship

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ah sweet censorship,
   
  There are three types of censorship and myriad reasons why.
  We all recognize regulatory censorship. But many fail to be cognizant of self imposed censorship, usually just a sign of good breeding and raising but often a fear factor. In legal circles they like to refer to this as prior restraint. The chilling effect when a governing body causes one to fear that if they say "boo" they will suffer rath. This is why laws restricting speech must be written with clarity and narrow in focus - "no guessing what i can and cannot do". The next censorship is criticism. Kind of a survival of the fittest concept. If you say it and are severely verbally beaten up, or worse, then you probably, and others like you, will not say it again. There is actually a fourth type that i call mixed company. In other words you pick and choose your venue for speech.
   
  The point being is that anyone who does not like any kind of censorship at all needs to build a nice log cabin a hundred miles from nowhere and live there. Certainly do not speak; in Temple, in front of my children, wife or mother, in court, senate, on radio or TV, school, a restaurant, library, bus, casino.
   
  Life, especially global is filled with standards and cultural limits on speech and activity. Respect of the differences builds respect for oneself both inside and outside. Ask our forward military in Iraq how much censorship they impose upon themselves simply to build respect. It works.
   
  e

Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Dr. Dierker and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

I and dismayed and disappointed in your nicely put and politically toned
response.
Perhaps you should become a chinese citizen and migrate to china
permanently.
In this way you may gain a more direct and intense perspective.

Censorship in any of its forms is wrong. It should never be accepted
for
any reason. To do so only encourages its practitioners to continue such

ugly and debilitating practices and everyone that is touched by it is
lessened or diminished as a result of same.

Censorship has been historically bad for trade, and human relations for
more than two melenia now. Why would our evolving world, from
any sector, choose to deter human discourse and cooperation as
a result of the ugliness of Censorship.

Instead as an american company especially, google should promote
by standing tall in defiance of such ugly practices...

Hugh Dierker wrote:

> Let us take this in a best light concept.
>
> First of all Google is not refusing to turn over records. They are
> using a due process objection to ensure that it is done in accordance
> with the law. (this is wise on two counts; 1st it protects them from
> liability should it be a wrongful disclosure and, 2nd it looks really
> good in the media - like they are sticking up for their clients and
> stockholders) The immediate turning over of inside information
> regarding the activity of their search discrimination process, must
> have some real strict perameters attached. I would say a month of
> twenty lawyers.
>
> Next is China. When these two concepts are thrown up against the
> wall - cooperate with the commies vs. obstruct the Americans it looks
> bad. But the USgov has long had a policy of appeasement toward the
> restrictions in doing business with asian communists. We have long
> held the belief that it is better to get a toe hold rather than no
> hold at all. It is quite important to keep in mind that we are talking
> education and knowledge here. If you give a student a book and say he
> must read chptr. 4,5,6,7 and leave it at that, that is what he will
> do. If you then add, "and you may not read 10,9,2,1". I garaundamtee
> you he will read 10,9,2,1.
> (Here is food for thought; assume that a great deal of free
> enterprise in China is blackmarket, assume further that much of the
> blackmarket is controlled by generals and politicians in China. Now if
> the only way to obtain that which Google censors there is in the black
> market, who profits by the censorship?) So if we look at the
> censorship having nothing to do with thought protection but simply
> socio-economics it makes perfect sense.
>
> e
>
> kidsearch wrote:
> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/24/D8FBCF686.html
>
> Google doesn't turn over records to the us gov, but bows to chinese
> censorship.
>
>
> Chris McElroy
> http://www.mostwantednewspaper.com
>
>
>
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827


  


			
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars.