Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules Google's Search Results Qualify As Free Speech
wabrandsma writes with this news from Ars Technica: The regulation of Google's search results has come up from time to time over the past decade, and although the idea has gained some traction in Europe (most recently with "right to be forgotten" laws), courts and regulatory bodies in the U.S. have generally agreed that Google's search results are considered free speech. That consensus was upheld last Thursday, when a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Google's right to order its search results as it sees fit.
Uh, no, that's not true. Incorporation allows to move around companies independently of the people owning and/or running it. Also, they protect the individual to some degree from bad luck affecting the company. Obviously, if the company does something illegal the people behind it will be prosecuted, too. At least, that's the way laws are constructed, so for example, if you incorporate a company in the US that trades cocaine with Colombia, don't expect to be immune from prosecution when the company gets caught.
Oh, he is also opposed to libertarianism within the Republican Party and wants to kick it out of the party.
So there's one plus in his favor.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Okay, let's enlighten you, since you asked.
Some technically inclined homosexual people, who were tired of Santorum using them as both a legal and verbal punching bag, got together and decided that they'd name something kinda gross after him. Then they used their technical prowess to make that the new definition for "Santorum" the top google result for that search.
The OP thinks that this kind of political protest is a reason why the governments wouldn't view google search results as free speech, but it's quite clear that the opposite is true.
Tell that to any of *MANY* organzations which have incorporated such as Debian (Software in the Public Interest, Inc.), the FSF (Free Software Foundation, Inc.), the American Cancer Society (American Cancer Society, Inc.), the ACLU (ACLU is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation and the ACLU Foundation is a 501(c)(4) corporation), not to mention many news organizations. Banging on the "corporations aren't people" theme is a mark of frustration; keeping it up is pretty much an exercise in petulance. If you want to complain about the strength of the voices of groups of people, find other ways to do it.
Our courts have it right. There are lots flaws in the U.S. system, but I am damn proud in our preference for the right to free speech. Threats to abrogate free speech are dangerous.
Individuals can work in groups, and yet individuals working in groups someone lose their rights just because they're not working as individuals? How authoritarian of you.
You can still exercise your rights outside of the collective.
Where does the US constitution say you lose your free speech rights if you work in a group?
Funny I think a world in which you did face liability limited to your ownership would make for a lot nicer America. So you have 25 shares of XYZ corp, if XYZ if fined, has unpaid debts etc, incurs a civil liability etc, you should be proportionally responsible for that after XYZs assets have been exhausted. If the remaining debt is 5 Billion and you own .000002% of the shares out standing than you should be on the hook for 10K.
My guess is if the owners could be held accountable, we would have boards of directors and shareholder votes targeting very very different qualities where selection of top management is concerned.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Libertarians are disliked because they're selfish arrested-development cases, not because they're somehow better than civilized people. If you're over 25, and are still a dumbass Libertarian, you fail at life.