On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:57:29 -0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes PlutoniumGoogle is switching to "New Google Newsgroups."
New Google Newsgroups allows bully posters to eliminate the posts of
"This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse."
Google is a private company, but in this case, it is using the posts
of Usenet which is not a private company.
Usenet is not a company at all, private or public. There
also are other ways to access almost all news groups that still
comprise Usenet than by using Google Groups.
Post by Archimedes PlutoniumFreedom of Speech is being denied in this "New Google Newsgroups" and
many authors are censored in this new format.
Private companies like but also not limited to Google
generally may prescribe conditions for the use of its products
including how they package and distribute what they publish and
republish from other sources.
National and international trade agreements, treaties, and
laws to some extent circumscribe what Google is obliged contractually
to do and is obliged to refrain from doing under potential pain of it
being sanctioned in some law relevant way.
However, insuring what you call "Freedom of Speech" is not yet
such a requirement.
It therefore is not probable that private persons who choose
to use some Google service and thereby also agree to Google's terms of
service would prevail on some sort of generalized "Denial of Freedom
of Speech" claim if they were to sue even if they then were able to
prove that Google in some way did deny them whatever you have in mind
as the components of such a freedom.
And by the way, creators, moderators, and other operators of
news groups that comprise what in the aggregate has been referred to
as Usenet frequently even if in some instances arguably not always
frequently enough cancel or delete postings they deem to be abusive.
Post by Archimedes PlutoniumCan Google be sued for this new format?
Yes.
Google also can be sued for anything else that strikes the
fancy of the plaintiff.
But this is only because almost anyone can sue almost anyone
else for almost anything.
This follows from the fact that suing is just a special subset
of asking for something, such as money or other relief ordered by a
court, and almost anyone can ask almost anything of almost anyone
else.
Post by Archimedes PlutoniumThere is a law on artists protecting artists that once a painting is
done, that others cannot go in and alter the painting into a new
painting.
You refer to so-called "Droit Morale" which is a principle
that is not recognized in all countries and, where it is, is adopted
for the most part as make weight to fill in the gaps that a party or a
judge believes exists after applying other principles of law as, for
example, copyright.
Post by Archimedes PlutoniumSo that a painting cannot be bought and altered posing as a
new painting.
Altering a painting that one has borrowed or has purchased or
has licensed without purchasing outright or has stolen?
Altering a painting in a way that violates some statute
created or treaty created right of the artist, such as copyright? And
so on.
That you necessitate asking while you do not answer these
sorts of question illustrates that your attempted analogy, if you will
forgive the expression, paints with much too broad a brush.
And a Usenet posting and a Google Groups posting generally is
not a work of art in any event.
Incidentally, except maybe for a U.S. president who arrogates
to himself the power to make war or to order the assassination by
weaponized robot controlled aircraft of persons on a list he creates
or approves, it is nonsensical for someone not directly conferred with
political power tantamount to that of such a president or other
politically empowered individual to argue in terms of what one claims
some other person cannot do.
If that other person does whatever is said that that other
cannot do, the doing of it clearly demonstrates that that other can do
whatever it is that she or he did.
Post by Archimedes PlutoniumThe New Google Newsgroups violates this law of artists,
for there is no stopping of bully posters eliminating not only fresh
new posts of an author to Usenet, but also, going backwards through
the archive kept by Google and eliminating old posts of an author.
You do not cite any particular case of the sort of censorship
or alteration you theorize about and therefore in addition to you also
not citing any principle and not coherently articulating any theory of
law underscores that you have not even remotely shown that Google
violates any law. Instead, what you say amounts to no more than that
you fear the possibility of such a violation at the same time that you
have not cited any actual principles of law that justify that fear.
And by the way, too, even if one assumes even if probably
incorrectly that this Going Backward Thing is as extensive or as
doable as you say, most postings to Usenet remain on Usenet even if
and when deleted from Google Groups.
Also at least so far as it so far appears also to be likely
for the reasonably foreseeable future, Google Groups probably will
remain not being the only means through and by which Usenet postings
may be made and accessed.
Post by Archimedes PlutoniumCan Google be made to always carry Old Google Newsgroups and then have
New Google Newsgroups as an option.
Probably, not, but, possibly, yes, at least in some part.
In other words, maybe, depending on lots of presently
unknowable facts and other considerations.
For a definitive correct answer, you therefore probably will
have to consult someone with the Power to Predict The Future and not
Ordinary Mortals who use Google Groups or other means to post to
Usenet for mostly personal recreational or small business related
purposes.
Post by Archimedes PlutoniumI believe Usenet can be considered a separate entity from that of
Google Newsgroups, and thus Usenet a separate legal entity.
You still do not explain and you will be unable to explain why
you persist in characterizing Usenet as an entity. The reason is that
it is not an entity.
The word Usenet instead refers to an agglomeration of systems
that facilitate electronic forums and stored data, etc., so is a word
used in a largely metaphorical way to refer in fuzzily linguistic
terms to these realities and news groups and related facilities.
Google's role in this connection began mostly by way of it
proving a forum or, if you will, a portal for Usenet newsgroup posting
and accessing Usenet posts which evolved into Google also becoming a
principal archiver of such data after it acquired one of the prior
main such archivers, DejaNews, in the early 2000s.
It also appears that Google via its Google Groups function is
trying to find ways at least de facto to privatize or at least in the
Parlance of The Day to monetize for its benefit the use of Google
Groups if it continues to convince Google Groups users to believe it
is also to their benefit if Google does this.
Post by Archimedes PlutoniumI believe the changes of New Google Newsgroups infringes on the
Freedom of Speech of Usenet and all the posts that preceded these
sweeping changes by Google.
You are entitled to believe whatever you want although it is
not necessary for you to repeat what you already said about this
subject.
Repeating this does not make your report of your state of
mind, of what you believe, any more or less true than when you first
said this and does not make the other contents of this statement such
as there are any in addition to your report of your state of mind any
more factually correct or incorrect than it was when you first said
this.
Post by Archimedes PlutoniumCan a law firm force Google to always keep "Old Google Newsgroups and
then have as **optional** any changes in format.
You also asked this already. In more than one way.
Repeating this therefore also does not make a yes or a no or
a possibly/maybe answer any more likely than when you first posed this
query. The on balance present most likely answer therefore probably
remains: no.
Of course nothing said above is to suggest that Google is not
a very large, very rich, and very politically powerful company or that
Google always abides by and in the future will adhere to its Do No
Evil slogan. Nor is anything said above to deny that there already
are any number of dangers that flow from its size, financial status,
and power.
But these facts are relevant to your question whether a law
firm can sue Google if you can find and retain one that would be
willing to do so if you would answer for yourself this question:
If you or some other private person was to be able to find and
to retain a lawyer willing to assist in a lawsuit against Google along
the lines you so far only fantasize and if Google was then to decide
that it is in Google's self interest as Google itself defines that
interest to be to defend, has it escaped your attention that Google
has the financial and other means to marshal teams of skillful lawyers
and related professionals to defend vigorously and in the process
almost certainly to overwhelm a not comparably financially endowed
person and that person's lawyer?