does the UN not belive in the first ammendment?

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

Capt. Orygun

Win the Day
Last edited:
"Disappearing from Google" and "delisted from Google News" are two entirely different things.

But aside from the ZOMG headline, it's actually Google's discretion whether or not to keep you up there or nix you. It's called an EULA. You can stomp and scream, sure. But, as the conservatives like to say, "This isn't a free speech issue".
 
so then you agree it's agreeable that they list news articles from Iran's st controlled media but refuse to list articles which are critical of the UN?

Sab, are you a terrorist?
 
First off, yes. the UN has no ties nor pledges to the US Constitution because it's not a US sanctioned body. Most of the member countries do hide their media, control its content and filter news.

The second part: Google, YouTube and MySpace - all of those companies - are treated as intellectual property, and it's owners can do whatever they want with them. results and videos are COMMONLY taken off of google / youtube / whoever.
 
so then you agree it's agreeable that they list news articles from Iran's st controlled media but refuse to list articles which are critical of the UN?

Sab, are you a terrorist?

No more agreeable than it was for Bush's cronies to force the shutdown of gwbush.com

Or was that forgotten?
 
First off, yes. the UN has no ties nor pledges to the US Constitution because it's not a US sanctioned body. Most of the member countries do hide their media, control its content and filter news.

The second part: Google, YouTube and MySpace - all of those companies - are treated as intellectual property, and it's owners can do whatever they want with them. results and videos are COMMONLY taken off of google / youtube / whoever.

I know all of that, my point was never that they should be held legally because of this. This was more of an ethics and coercion beef.

and no I don't like any attempt to shut down legal websites, I didn't know about the Bush site but if that happened and the site was legal then it's just as much BS as this.

Expounding
As we become more and more of a global community, invariably the UN will become more and more important in settling nation to nation issues. As such it cannot be stressed enough that such a body be transparent and support freedom and liberty. They've already come under fire for multiple corruption schemes, and now they're silencing the natural checks and balances provided by the freedom of press? The UN is begining to look less like a world congress and more like a Global Dictator, what's the saying, if it walks like a duck, etc...
 
Last edited:
I know all of that, my point was never that they should be held legally because of this. This was more of an ethics and coercion beef.

and no I don't like any attempt to shut down legal websites, I didn't know about the Bush site but if that happened and the site was legal then it's just as much BS as this.

You... seriously don't remember? This is the issue that brought about the most famous line ever uttered by W.

"There ought to be limits to freedom."

Yet no flap was raised...
 
You... seriously don't remember? This is the issue that brought about the most famous line ever uttered by W.

"There ought to be limits to freedom."

Yet no flap was raised...

I honestly never caught that one, Bush and Chaney are in office to make money for Oil Companies and Government contractor's, not to govern. Isn't it amazing that even in this recession those industries are making a killing, AND, that happens to be what they did before they took office?

Yet you give them what they want, you spend all your time concentrating on the popular "gullible president" theory, while they're laughing all the way to the bank.

That aside, it doesn't make what the UN is about any more palletable.
 
I honestly never caught that one, Bush and Chaney are in office to make money for Oil Companies and Government contractor's, not to govern. Isn't it amazing that even in this recession those industries are making a killing, AND, that happens to be what they did before they took office?

Yet you give them what they want, you spend all your time concentrating on the popular "gullible president" theory, while they're laughing all the way to the bank.

That aside, it doesn't make what the UN is about any more palletable.

No, it does not. However the UN is its own governing body (no matter how slanted) which is not under our jurisdiction, and Google is a company which can choose what it does and does not display.

Bad taste? Yes. Illegal or terrorist-related? Clearly not.
 
Americans seem to think that our Constitution applies to the entire world. It doesn't. In fact, it doesn't apply to anything outside of our boarders and barely applies within them.
:concur: x(afuckinglot)
 
Back
Top