SOPA: Google Censored the Internet On the Same Day it Protested Congress' Attempt to Censor the Internet

googleblackout.jpg
This is what Google's homepage looked like on Wednesday as it "protested" Congress' attempt to censor the Internet.
Remember when on Wednesday the Internet search engine Google protested Congress' attempt to "censor the web" via-the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) by participating in a purely symbolic "black out" with several other big-time websites?

About that...

We've come to find out that on the same day Google was (ahem) fighting for free speech, the search engine removed a blog from the Internet, apparently because it was scared of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.   

You see, also on Wednesday, Arpaio's boys in beige crowed about their plan to serve a search warrant at Google's California headquarters in an attempt to get a blog that glorifies murdering cops removed from the Internet -- or at least get the IP address of the person authoring the website.

Guess what -- the blog that had Arpaio's pink panties in a bunch has been removed from the Internet...and the First Amendment heroes at Google are the ones who removed it (Google owns blogspot, which hosted the offensive blog).

Click here to see where the link to the blog www.targetingcops.blogspot.com takes you now.

There are two ways a Google-hosted blog can be removed from the Internet -- the owner of the blog can remove it, or Google can determine the blog violates the company's policies and remove it itself.

Google won't say why this particular blog was removed -- when asked about its removal, company spokeswoman Christine Chen tells New Times that Google "doesn't comment on individual cases."

However, MCSO spokesman Jeff Sprong confirms to New Times that the search warrant was carried out -- but Google had already removed the blog after the sheriff issued a press release announcing his plan to investigate the company.

googlecoppagecropped.jpg
This is what the website www.targetingcops.blogspot.com looks like now that Google removed it from the Internet.


The blog in question is one of the more despicable pieces of trash we've seen on the Internet -- it praises people who kill cops, and mocks fallen officers.

For example, prior to the blog's removal, it features a photo of slain MCSO Deputy William Coleman with the words "officer down, LOL!!!"

The author of the blog even hails Coleman's killer, 30-year-old "U.F.O.-ologist" Drew Ryan Maras, as a "brave warrior," a "citizen martyr."

Below is how the author describes Coleman's shooting:

"2012 is getting off to a great start! Officer William Coleman, one of Pig Joe Arpaio's gestapo deputies, got his ass smoked - GOOD! Coleman, a top sheriff in Arpaio's racist AZ police regime, was supposedly answering a "burglarly call" in the early morning on Sunday January 8th 2012, in the north Phoenix community of Anthem (It must be noted that AZ sheriff's deps. have, in the past, routinely used "burglary calls" as a false pretext for conducting night-time terrorist raids on residential homes without a warrent, regardless of alleged criminal activity or lack there of). It was reported that pig Coleman took it right in the face, too."

The blog also featured a photo of Arpaio with the words "You're Next, Joe -- watch your back, bitch!" written directly above it.

The sheriff apparently considered the message to be a credible death threat, which is why he (very publicly) threatened to serve Google with a search warrant.

It's been argued that the websites involved in Wednesday's protest are more concerned about protecting their bottom-lines than they are with protecting free speech -- if SOPA becomes law, many of the sites could be forced to shut down, or lose a ton of cash. Google's completely removing a blog from the Internet seems to lend some credibility to that theory.

Just to be clear, we don't agree with anything posted on the shameless blog, but we respect the author's right to say it.

That said, the fact remains: on the same day Google protested censoring the Internet, Google censored the Internet.


My Voice Nation Help
104 comments
D.A. (S.E.) McDonald
D.A. (S.E.) McDonald

Plain and simple, the site was TOSsed for violations of terms of service. There would be more to complain about if it was a wholly owned domain that was shut down. It's that tricky editorial element of the free speech principle. Blogger sites are shut down routinely *constantly* for TOS violations.

Mikey1969
Mikey1969

For the thick-headed out there, here is an example of why this isn't "censorship"...

These are the PNT "Terms of Use", governing what I can and can't say on these very boards:
User Conduct:

Without limitation, you agree to refrain from the following actions while using the Site:
Transmitting any information, data, text, files, links, software,
chats, communication or other materials that is unlawful, and in
particular, that is harmful to minors, physically threatening, invasive
of another's privacy, defamatory, obscene, or that contains hate speech,
as well as material of any kind or nature that encourages conduct that
could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or
otherwise violate any applicable local, state, provincial, national, or
international law or regulation,;Impersonating an employee of Phoenix New Times or falsely claiming affiliation with Phoenix New Times...
Kinda long, so here's the link:http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com...
What this is is a list of things that I CANNOT do on the PNT site if I want to post comments. If I violate these terms, my account can be yanked an my posts deleted. This isn't "censorship", it is an agreement that I entered into when I signed up to post on this site. It's really quite simple.

Another example is backpage.com, here are THOSE terms.
http://phoenix.backpage.com/gy...

See, I picked something a little closer to home. I can guarantee you that I can go to every single Village Voice Media website, and they will ALL have terms that go beyond just the 'Can't post illegal stuff like prostitution' gimmes.

Enforcing your TOS is not "internet censorship", regardless of what day it occurs. Don't believe me? Talk to your own legal department, maybe even another journalist there. I can tell you that anyone who knows what they're talking about will disagree with you on this point.

Usually I like your articles, but I have to call them as I see them, and you are so far off-base here, that you're sitting in the middle of a hockey rink dribbling a basketball, while the censorship discussion has actually been delayed by rain in the 7th inning.

Albert 7 hours ago in reply to Mikey1969

"They have to have TOS to cover their ass... Because of Libel, Defamation of Character, and other things the government has restricted speech-wise. Even though they have EXPLICIT instruction by The Constitution NOT TO MAKE ANY LAW Restricting Free Speech."

Oh my God, are you REALLY this stupid? Libel and defamation of character aren't illegal because they are some kind of infringement of your free speech rights, they are illegal because they are harmful to others, yet untrue. You can say anthything you want about a person or company, IF IT'S TRUE. If it's false, they have EVERY right to sue you because you are causing unfair damage to them. Jesus Christ, it's really very simple, are all of you people this uneducated due to the state of public education lately, or is it because you just listen to too much talk radio? Seriously, there's so much derp floating around here, I could swim laps.

Albert
Albert

They have to have TOS to cover their ass...  Because of Libel, Defamation of Character, and other things the government has restricted speech-wise. Even though they have EXPLICIT instruction by The Constitution NOT TO MAKE ANY LAW Restricting Free Speech.  At the end of the day... its still censorship....  But if I or anyone else wants to post here, we have to agree to their terms....

Albert
Albert

I know.. that much, but they are private companies that host programs and whether it's broadcast through airwaves, or cables.... or an actual "live" acting... what ever it may be... The Constitution still bans any law being past or made... So what your saying.. is that the people own the broadcast system through the govt. But it still comes down to the govt still censoring almost all media.... Even though the Constitution prohibits really ANY censorship. There is no exclusion nor, example of authority given to the government or the courts for this... I know I'm being the PEST... but it just pisses me off that... they have the most explicit instruction with relation to speech..... and they still violate the Constitution.

Albert
Albert

 Okay... here's another thing... Why is the federal government ALLOWED to censor private business's with television, and radio censorship?????  It's private property???  Ahh.. according to the Constitution... Congress is prohibited from making any law with regards to speech. I'm just trying to point out a FACT...

Arizona Eagletarian
Arizona Eagletarian

The airwaves upon which BROADCAST television is BROADCAST are not private business. Those airwaves belong to the people. That's why.

WilliamJohnston
WilliamJohnston

I believe that this article is a bit bias  And sounds like a bunch of radicals that want Sheriff Joe  out of office Mocking police officers that have be killed or injured on the job is pretty low life on these people part ,Do they not think of the families that lost one of their members. Removing objectionable content of users is not censorship but is in the interest of other users who probably feel the same as I  on this type of article 

GetACluePeople
GetACluePeople

This story is just a weak attempt to get in the spotlight.  Sadly it has worked (as I found this story from Digg).

Google owns Blogspot.  They have a TOS that the users must agree to in order to use the service.  That blog was clearly against the TOS policies.  Should Google ignore enforcing their policies just because they happen to be opposing SOPA/PIPA?  Can anybody with a brain really believe that?

There is nothing hypocritical here.  Sure it's a little interesting (and it's easy to draw parallels) but they did what their policies said they would do if you violated their TOS.  I bet if you did a little research before posting an inflammatory (and inaccurate) article you'd find out that the blog mentioned was just one of many that were removed on that day.

Steve Smith
Steve Smith

Only the government can censor people. Private companies can not, your article is built on a false statement.

Jonou7
Jonou7

Arizona law enforcement can serve search warrants on out of state businesses?

Кабель HDMI
Кабель HDMI

What stupid article. People don't seem to understand that the first amendment applies to governments not private companies. Google is free to censor whatever it wants, as it should be. The scary thing is when the government wants that power.

If I offered free blog hosting to customers and one of them wrote a cop killing blog I would probably take it down to. Free speech applies to a persons right to speak it does not force every company that offers free services to endorse that speech. Author needs to go back to school.

Arthur Dent
Arthur Dent

There is a BIG difference between the U.S. government censoring the speech of others, and a private company exercising the right to control it's own private service.

When you sign up for a Google Blogger, you agree to their terms of service. In exchange, Google grants you permission to use their private service. Google, as a private company, can set any terms of service it likes (within the law). You, as a private citizen, can choose whether you want to do business with this company. If you violate the TOS, then Google can kick you off their private server. This is not censorship. If you don't agree with Blogger's terms of service, you are free to find another company with a more reasonable TOS. If you want to be free from any TOS, you can create your own website, and even host it on your own server.

I should also point out that Google has a different TOS for it's Blogger website than it does for its search listings. Google lists many things in its search results that it would not allow on it's Blogger site. This is because Google hosts the content on Blogger, while it merely links to content on Google search. Hosting content could make Google liable for any illegal content, which is why the targetingcops blog was removed.

SOPA/PIPA, on the other hand, would allow the government to censor content anywhere on the Internet. Not only would sites hosting infringing content be affected, but anyone linking to these sites would be held liable. Google would be required to remove sites from its listing, and private DNS servers would be required to de-list them. Any website even mentioning a method to access forbidden material would be taken offline. And all of this would happen pre-emptively, before the accused has the ability to defend themselves. This is censorship.

A good analogy to all of this would be someone preaching religiously in a department store. The store is well within its rights to ask the person to leave. They're not censoring them; they're merely asking them to get off their property. In contrast, SOPA/PIPA would be like the government outlawing preaching entirely, even on private property, and even preventing discussion about preaching. That is censorship, and censorship is wrong.

Florian Bösch
Florian Bösch

There's a couple of misconceptions right there.

1) Google did not censor the internet, it censored the blog from its own services. A "small" but important difference.

2) They could (and are fully in their right to do so) decide that they don't like the smell of anyone using their service, and ban them from it. It's called "their service" and runs under the prerogative that if you own a house, you can ask anyone you don't want there to leave.

3) There are requests from law enforcement that google (hosting a service like this blog) cannot refuse, mainly those coming from a judge in form of a court order. They can appeal the order, but they're still required to comply until their appeal would succeed. There's many reasons such an order may be issued, few of them having something to do with copyright or censorship. For instance it would be illegal to run a drug shop, show certain kinds of pictures, libel, violate persons privacy rights, incite violence, etc.

So please think for a second before you make up some imaginary sensationalist headline.

Tmmroy
Tmmroy

Here's a question for you all, if I come up to you and ask to borrow your loudspeaker to say something, and you say sure, just don't promote violence, I don't like violence how are you censoring me if after I start to promote violence you walk up and take back your loudspeaker? It's exactly the same and you still absolutely have the right to protect your freedom of speech including the right to use your loudspeaker. I don't have the right to your loudspeaker, it's your loudspeaker, how hard is that to understand? It's Google's site and their property, they have every right to protect that property. If this is actually the theory of the NT, then they don't have the right to fire a journalist that publishes a story that they don't agree with or doesn't meet their standards and then still defend their rights. Good Lord please give the author of this piece of foul journalism a dose of common sense and a small ability to use logic.

Anon
Anon

Rachel Maddow Highlights PCCC's SOPA/PIPA Success! - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Anon
Anon

Would like to read comments from bloggers after they watch the Rachel Maddow Highlights above.

nerys
nerys

There is one HUGE difference here.

I can get around google. I CAN NOT get around "Corporations" empowered by theUS Government.

SO even if the REASON for not wanting SOPA differ slightly the end result is whats important here. NO SOPA NO PIPA. Period.

Guest
Guest

From Blogspot's Content Policy: " 
Violence: Don't threaten other people on your blog. For example, don't post death threats against another person or group of people and don't post content encouraging your readers to take violent action against another person or group of people."

" If we find that a blog does violate our content policies, we take one or more of the following actions based on the severity of the violation:
Put the blog behind a 'mature content' interstitialPut the blog behind an interstitial where only the blog author can access the contentDelete the blogDisable the author's access to his/her Blogger accountDisable the author's access to his/her Google accountReport the user to law enforcement"

This isn't the controversy you're looking for. 

cpix
cpix

I find this article amusing. Google is a private company, not the US Government. Google has the right to de-list anything it deems that it wants to from its own search engine, it can remove any blog-spot accounts it wants to. They generously offer up TOS that users must follow. The TOS for blogspot was broken, brought to their attention by the Sheriff. 

Google is not censoring anything like the Government. This is the difference :

If the blog had been set up on a personally owned domain, on a personal server, on a personal network connection, the only thing Google could do, if it felt that it was against its TOS was to de-list it from its search results. 

The website would still be there, still running, you could still type in www.targetingcops.com and it would still bring up your site. You could move your site from Arizona to Australia if you wanted to, it would still be accessible. 
What SOPA was going to do was basically require all US internet providers to block the DNS Lookup forwww.targetingcops.com so NO one in the USA could visit that site. That is stopping free speech. 

Just like a private business owner can throw someone out of their establishment for 'free speech', Google can do the same on their own properties. But once you are your own property, or on public property Google can't touch you. They may remove your address from their search results, but you still exist. SOPA would basically build a wall around your property that no one could get in to. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Do you see what that says? "Congress".

I did not see Google listed there? Did you? No it says Congress. 

I would say that www.targetingcops.com is in poor taste, and a violation of the TOS on blogspot. Seems good that it is gone. You also have to look at it from the standpoint, that it appears Google did NOT cough up the IP address to the author of this site, thus actually PROTECTING the author.

Albert
Albert

I know... EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION.... and they can't even abide by that!!!!!!! And the SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to change that..... but they do it all the time. If the government doesn't like something or they want more power than what is provided by the CONSTITUTION.... then make, and pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, and then ask the people of the STATES...... It undermines the entire CONSTITUTION and for what it stands for.....    

Chris
Chris

Seems like the 1st Amendment is only for Congress.

Albert
Albert

One thing I did see on TV is that another law enforcement  agency had problems with the blogger, and already looked into shutting him down. But came to the conclusion.. that they couldn't do anything because of the FIRST AMENDMENT. And again, backed up by the 14th Amendment. I don't believe speech should be censored... because The Supreme Law of The Land (Constitution) says that congress shall make no law, and the SCOTUS doesn't have the power to make law or policy.  New Times here... ultimately has the right to limit what we say, I may not agree with it, but its their "property", and I enjoy reading and posting on their site.

Andrew12221
Andrew12221

Freedom of speech has never been about how you interact with private entities.  It's in place to protect you from the government, which controls the laws and is the ultimate legal arbiter of what is an isn't allowed.  SOPA would give the federal government the power to censor the internet at their own discretion.  Because they are the government, protesting and circumventing their censorship would likely wind you up in jail.  We don't want to give them that power because it would affect our basic rights as American citizens.  If you don't like Google's TOS, then go to a different website.  There are many other options.  

Walter Concrete
Walter Concrete

I noticed NewTimes chose to not hurt their bottom line on that day.

PTCGAZ
PTCGAZ

James, I am pretty sure that Google doesn't actually give a shit about freedom of speech. They are against SOPA because they do not want competition in their Datamining operations. For the idiots that don't think they are collecting Data, they do. They know more about you then your family does, or the government does.
(For those that don't understand, look up the "Way Back Machine" which shows you saved copies of websites from earlier times... Google data is provide for all of those. Why do you think they are doing it? IT sure isn't to show you what a website looked like in 1996...)

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

This must be embarrassing for you, James.

PTCGAZ
PTCGAZ

why would he be embarrassed?

James King
James King

I'm not. For Google to censor anything on the same day it participated in this publicity stunt about freedom of speech is hypocritical. I don't care what their policies are. They basically spent a whole day saying "censorship is wrong -- unless we're the ones doing it." Give me a friggin' break! They have every right to censor their blogs. It just seems to me that if they're gonna do it, they shouldn't try to brand themselves as First Amendment crusaders.

Martinobal
Martinobal

Albert, actually I agree with you, but I didn't even address the issue of public places, because those are not involved here. Besides, most communications nowadays either happen in privately owned places or they could easily go on there, if for some reason they became impossible in public (state-owned) places.

I said that you can say anything you want as long as you are using only your private property, but I didn't say that that's the only situation where you are entitled to do so. My main point was what freedom of speech does NOT cover, which is to demand that other people let you speak in their property.

 Also, I was speaking of freedom of speech as a human right in general, in any society where private property is respected, not specifically as covered in the US constitution.

nerys
nerys

but they do and us sheeple (as a whole) do nothing about it.

nerys
nerys

No they spent the day saying giving the power without warrant or evidence to allow a media company (MPAA RIAA) the ability to break the internet is wrong.

not really about censorship.

Albert
Albert

I think that's complete BS.....  From your own property only mentality???Thats like the SCOTUS saying previously that your gun rights only exist on your property???? If you're out in public.. you have the right to speech, and what ever.  The thing is that I get the no free speech on someone else's property, but the 14th Amendment prohibits government, states, and even local governments from passing and ENFORCING laws on the books that limit or infringe on a persons Constitutional Rights.

 There are no restrictions/exemptions/exclusions..... given to any part of the government on restricting speech. The Constitution is CLEAR..... CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW, and the Supreme Court doesn't have any authority by the Constitution to make any exceptions. 

Martinobal
Martinobal

More generally, congressmen just legislate for the country, they don't actually own it. They can't do whatever they want with it.

People don't have to go to your house or use your services if they don't like your rules. But you can't tell American citizens to just leave the country if they don't like the rules. That kind of reasoning would justify every kind of atrocious legislation, short of forbidding emigration (as Communist countries did).

Of course, most sites have a largely "free speech" policy because that's what the market favors, pure and simple.

Martinobal
Martinobal

Freedom of speach means that you can say anything you want at home (or more generally, using only your own property) or at someone else's, as long as they agree to it, without anyone else (usually the government) using force to prevent you from doing it.

It doesn't mean that you must invite anyone to your house, no matter how rude or repugnant, and patiently listen to what they have to say.

For instance, if you don't like my comment, you can delete it, and it wouldn't violate freedom of speech. But it would be poor site policy, of course.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows

This is an "apples and oranges" story.  Blogspot is the domain/website, and it's owned by google, I believe..

Google as "acceptable use policy" (Terms of Service), which, when it comes down to it, allows them to delete a blog on their site.  1st amedment pervents the government for stopping free speach, but it doesn't prohibit a company from removing items for their servers that violates the TOS.  It's exactly the same as if the New Times removed a post they found offensive on their blogs, and I've see posts vanish from here!

PTCGAZ
PTCGAZ

so as stated above, if Google decides that they like one politician should they be allowed to remove all the posts that don't favor their one guy? After all TOS agreements are vague and give more rights to Google then they do to the little guys...

Arthur Dent
Arthur Dent

Yes, Google is withing their rights to do this. FYI, TOS agreements don't "give rights" to anyone. Rights are legal protections, and cannot be suspended by a TOS. A TOS agreement is a private agreement between people or organizations to exchange goods or services according to certain agreed upon rules. Most TOS agreements have a clause that states that if you violate the rules, the service is suspended, and the relationship between the two parties is terminated. This doesn't violate your rights though, as you agreed to the TOS in the first place.

None
None

Sorry - You really don't get it...

WhoKnows
WhoKnows

Actually Yes, as there are right wings blocgs and websites that do just that.

James King
James King

So what you're saying is censorship's OK as long as it's not the government doing it?

Alchemical
Alchemical

It's not censorship if it's not your property, duh. 
Your version of 'censorship' means google would have to allow people to post child pornography, nazi sites, or even people organizing gang rapes to do so on Google's Property! That's crazy! 

WhoKnows
WhoKnows

Mr King.  If I had a website, and someone kept posting things I dissagreed with, or maybe just 100% off topic, do I have a right to remove those posts or block the poster?

Jason
Jason

Well said.

While I criticize the MCSO shurf for his many epic failures (the 432 uninvestigated sex crimes against children, the $104 million misspent tax dollars, or his retaliation arrest of Don Stapley on 9/21/09), there are times when the Old Fool can be correct. This evil blog is one example of how the Flaccid Failure is right.

The MCSO did NOT need to put out a press release. I had suggested taking Google to court and asking a judge to dismantle the offensive website. Calling Google and telling them about it may have helped, as well. We'll never know because Joe Arpaio is a media whore.

I am hoping that SOPA and PIPA do not pass. I thought they were designed to protect against copyright infringement on the part of music recording artists. I was wrong.

Eleanor Holguin
Eleanor Holguin

YPS, regarding Mr. King's proposal that you go meet him I would suggest you take him up on it. 

I met Mr. King through a friend of mine, Bill Richardson.  Do you know who he is? Have you ever read anything that he writes?

They are both good guys that I trust and have a great deal of respect for. 

If you email me I will share with you other things that I won't share publicly regarding trusting either of these journalists.

Arthur Dent
Arthur Dent

Google's Blogger TOS, and a private agreement between individuals and a private organization, has nothing to do with the First Amendment. SOPA/PIPA, as a public law enacted by the U.S. government, applicable to all electronic speech, has everything to do with the First Amendment. There is really nothing hypocritical about Google's actions here.

James King
James King

YPS: You're aware that the only reason anyone even knows this disgusting blog exists -- and about the horrible things posted about Deputy Coleman and Sheriff Arpaio -- is because Arpaio put out a press release detailing all of it, right?

I'd certainly never heard of it, nor would I have ever seen it, if I didn't get an email from the MCSO telling me about it. Rather than just calling Google and telling them about it, the sheriff had to go in guns blazin' -- with the media in tote.

You seem to liken me to the asshole responsible for this despicable blog. I've never made light of the death of a law enforcement officer, and I never would. My brother's a police officer -- I recognize and respect the hard, dangerous, and often thankless job you guys do. My criticism of Arpaio has to do with his politics and management style. I seldom criticize his deputies (or detention officers) -- unless they taser a jail inmate for no apparent reason, star in a reality show, or get their toe shot off by a guy they already have in custody.

Ask your pals in the MCSO's PR department about the first email I sent them when I heard about Deputy Coleman -- before I'd even considered asking for any information about his murder.

This post has little to do with Arpaio, though. I don't blame him for wanting this blog removed -- and I don't blame him for its removal. I blame Google.

This post is about Google preaching all day about freedom of speech and then, on the very same day, stifling speech it finds offensive -- which it has the right to do. But when it does it on the same day its protest of censorship is the number one news story in the entire country, Google's got some explaining to do, if you ask me.

Is the Internet a better place without this blog? Sure is. But I subscribe to the idea that if you don't like something, don't read it. Nobody forces you to read my blog, yet you're here everyday -- and I appreciate it; I can take the heat and I see value in your take on things.

Bottom line: the media never needed to know about this website. The only reason it ever saw the light of day is because your boss alerted every media outlet in town. Send me an email and I'll give you an inside scoop about how his opponent in this year's election handled the outrage over the offensive photo (I'll give you a hint: he didn't put out a press release).

Hell, you're a frequent flyer around here -- come down to the office and we'll chat. "Eleanor" has been down to see me, so has "Tommy Collins," "Andrew Thom Ass," and probably a dozen other Valley Fever faithful. I consider "ST of P" a.k.a "Stephen Horton" a.k.a. "Teddy Bare!" a close friend -- and he's not shy about calling me a dipshit in the comment sections of things I write...or to my face.

Door's always open.

JK
 

Email: James.King@newtimes:twitter .com.
Phone: 602 744 6549.

Eleanor Holguin
Eleanor Holguin

I'm sorry for the loss of your friend.  I understand now how and why that upsets you. Thanks for sharing that. 

I don't agree with the website but Arpaio used the excuse of a death threat against him to execute a search warrant.  I have issue with that. 

I agree that seeing the picture of Officer Coleman would be upsetting for the family and friends.

Mr. King has his ways of bringing many things to the publics attention.  I am not defending him in anyway but he does what he needs to do to bring attention to things. 

He knows how to provoke many responses from all types of people.  He gets people talking as you do when you respond to his stories.  That is one of the many reasons I enjoy reading his stories. 

He is very good at what he does. 

Again, I'm sorry about your friend.  I now understand your intense anger these past few weeks.  Take care and be safe.

nerys
nerys

the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy
that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are
considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades
of grey between the extremes). For example, "It wasn't medicine that
cured Ms. X, so it must have been a miracle."

nerys
nerys

SOPA and PIPA are not about censorship

SOPA and PIPA are about giving CORPORATIONS the power and authority to LITERALLY take down "ANY" websites accessibility to US citizens literally BREAKING the infrastructure of the internet to do it and making it a FEDERAL CRIME to bypass (so me giving you the IP address to a "banned" site would be a federal crime)

with NO WARRANT no probable cause NO court order NO judge scrutiny and NO REAL RECOURSE AT ALL.

that "could become" a free speech issue but its first and foremost a much larger due process issue and a DESTRUCTIVE ONE at that.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Bill Coleman was a friend. I applaud Arpaio for sticking up for Bill's sacrifice and the family's feelings. I dislike Arpaio for a lot of reasons, but I recognize when he does the right thing and applaud it.

James believes the end justifies the means. He makes this google thing an issue because he can't stand giving any credit to arpaio, even to the point that he republished the bloggers statements and continues to post the photograph of Bill. He does it to be inflammatory and "edgy."

He does it to piss off arpaio. He doesn't care that he disrespects the entire law enforcement family in doing so.

Eleanor Holguin
Eleanor Holguin

I'm pissed off that they did for whatever reason.  Aren't you, YPS?

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Truth be told, you're pissed that Google placated Arpaio.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

It has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment James. This little piece of yellow journalism has certainly blown up in your face.

Eleanor Holguin
Eleanor Holguin

I can usually keep up with you but you lost me on this one, YPS. 

James King
James King

Tell me, did New Times participate in yesterday's "black out" -- and then immediately censor something on our website the very same day?

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Just because I choose to enforce the sign on my shop door that says, "no shirt, no shoes, no service" does not mean I forfeit my right to argue against government censorship.

You framed a perfect example of a false dichotomy James.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows

You mean like how posts have gotten deleted from New Times blogs?  ALL businesses have a right to protect their property, and users agree to a TOS with Google when they use their blog space.

James King
James King

No one's disputing Google's -- or anyone else's -- right to do what they want with what they own. The point is that if they're gonna do it, they shouldn't be lecturing others about the First Amendment.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows

If Google owns the site, google controls the content.  Same as VVM controls this site.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

I am.

PTCGAZ
PTCGAZ

of course, it gets in the way of religious nuts, republicans, and other lower forms of life that abuse the freedoms they are given. The old adage of give them an inch they go a mile?

PTCGAZ
PTCGAZ

lol you are ignorant of free speech laws aren't you?

Peter Voth
Peter Voth

This, of course, assumes the United States Constitution is inherently correct. Not everyone agrees.

Walter Concrete
Walter Concrete

You must have just arrived from Venus because you are out of touch with reality.   All you can do is be picked up for whatever reason, which won't be given, and never heard from again.   So, please...take that walk down the street and say whatever comes to your mind.

PTCGAZ
PTCGAZ

only if you look through the lens of right wing bullshit. After all I can walk down the street and say whatever comes to my mind, and you CAN'T stop me.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

We are arguing different points. I agree with most of what you say.

You stated I cannot shut you up if you are standing on my lawn yelling at me and that me doing so violates your first amendment right to free speech.

My point is- if I do, in fact shut you up, using threats, force or coercion, I can not be prosecuted for a civil rights violation. As a private citizen.

I recognize that there are laws in place that prohibit me from acting in such a manner, and to do so I open myself up to criminal prosecution and civil liability. I also recognize that these laws are predicated on what is written in te Bill of Rights and they support the Constitution.

The difference is that when government acts out in the same way they ARE exposed to being prosecuted for civil rights violations.

I understand and appreciate your "fire!" example and am not the least bit disagreeable with it.

nerys
nerys

I am not wrong at all. For google to be censoring him they would have to #1 follow him around and get all his stuff taken off line OR be "so large" as to be an effective "utility" with no real competition.

a good example is yelling fire in a theater. is it illegal?

the answer is no. and it can NEVER be illegal. 100% of such laws challenged have been thrown out.

The illegal act is "inciting a panic without cause" (or something like that) not "yelling fire" but some of these locals actually made the law "you may not yell fire" which falls afoul of the 1st amendment.

See what I mean?

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

I recognize in the scenario I present I am open to civil litigation....

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

If you stand on my lawn, yelling and cursing at me and I come out with a bat, thump you on the melon and you stop yelling and cursing due to incapacitation, I have not violated your civil rights. Yes, I have committed a crime against you in assaulting you with a dangerous instrument, but I cannot be charged for a civil rights violation even if I admit that my sole purpose for plugging your melon was to shut you up.

I appreciate the point you are making. You aren't entirely wrong.

nerys
nerys

That piece of paper applies to ALL CITIZENS of the united states. Period.

if it did not it would be a WORTHLESS piece of paper.

YOU may not legislate LAWS. so it does not NEED to apply directly to you. if you place yourself in a position where you ARE authorized to legislate laws then it DOES apply to you directly.

If you goto another country and we "ignore" for a moment that countries laws and you try to SUPPRESS someone's speech. In my book you are in violation of the constitution since you are now "acting" as a legislative body.

The constitution says congress shall make no law regarding free speech. by extension all legislative bodies and enforcement bodies IN this country MUST also agree to this limitation in order to be VALID. as PER our law the constitution is the supreme law of this land. NO LAW may violate this supreme law and ALL laws are subordinate to the supreme law of this land.

once you take on the "role" of a legislative or enforcement body YOU ALSO take on the restrictions set forth in the constitution.

this is why these US prison camps abroad are ILLEGAL. the constitution does not limit itself to the shores of this nation it limits itself to the PEOPLE OF THIS NATION ANYWHERE THEY MAY BE.

Nothing in the constitution says they may not violate free speech for US CITIZENS. it simply states THEY MAY NOT VIOLATE FREE SPEECH. Period.

It does not say they may not violate free speech IN THE USA it says they may not violate free speech PERIOD.

so if a government official violates the "rights" of taliban prisoner in gitmo they are BREAKING THE LAW. Period.

You people need to remember. the 1st amendment DOES NOT GRANT YOU THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.

Rights are not granted they are ENDOWED you have them simply by existing. they are PART OF YOUR EXISTENCE.

Privileges are granted.

The 1st amendment again DOES NOT GRANT YOU FREE SPEECH. ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE RECOGNIZED AS "HAVING" free speech as an intrinsic RIGHT.

Therefore you (as government) may not violate free speech "ANYWHERE FOR ANYONE" PERIOD or you are in violation of our laws.

PERIOD

This is why "revoking" a citizens citizenship legally DOES NOT REMOVE THEIR RIGHTS OR YOUR PROHIBITIONS ON INFRINGING THEM.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Not citizens. not US citizens not only people in the USA.

all MEN (grammatically this is the same as saying all people)

nerys
nerys

actually no you don't you people are making the same mistake the government wants you to make and that it makes on purpose quite often.

If I stand on your yard and yell curses at you. You have NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY to stop me from doing that. Period. End of discussion NO argument possible the 1st amendment BARES you from doing anything about my speech.

what you MAY do however is REMOVE ME from your property. because its YOUR property.

I also may not "USE" my speech as a "weapon" or a method of harrassment.

For example I may not stand on the street point high power speakers at your house and blather my mouth off.

its not the WORDS that are forbidden. its the projecting them as harassment with speakers into your house that is illegal.

The difference seems subtle but its massive and critical.

Google did not censor his words. Google REMOVED HIM from their PROPERTY. he is welcome to utter his words somewhere else.

CENSORSHIP would be google following him around taking down any new sites he puts up even not ON google (THAT would be censorship)

You need to separate the ACTION from the SPEECH.

Eleanor Holguin
Eleanor Holguin

Thank you. I understand what you are saying even though I can barely think. 

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

As a private citizen I have the ability to censor anyone or anything I choose, for any reason or for no reason at all. As a business owner I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason or for no reason at all.

The government is restricted by the Constitution to censorship because of the 1st Amendment.

Google refusing it's services to the author of the blog in question has nothing to do with the Government's inability to censor nor does the 1st amendment apply.

As a private citizen I cannot violate someone's civil rights.

As a police officer, who acts as a representative of the Government, I am bound by the restrictions spelled out in the Bill of Rights and can be held accountable for violating said rights.

Jonpaul333
Jonpaul333

The pesky piece of paper called the constitution? That absolutely doesn't apply to all citizens. It applies to the government. The constitution is a document that defines limitations for the government. It does not define limitations for citizens. 

PTCGAZ
PTCGAZ

what about the pesky little piece of paper that you conservative assholes hate so much? Shouldn't that apply to all citizens equally, even if they are saying things you don't like?

Eleanor Holguin
Eleanor Holguin

????? Please explain your reason behind your response.  I would like to know.  I have been censored in the past and I have created a situation where censorship is the norm in Tempe. 

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...