GOOGLE CENSORSHIP

I tend to think that one of the main problems here is the a major difference between the the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1 of the California Constitution. The First Amendment allows free speech and expression almost without limits; while Article 1 of the California Constitution is a contradictory two-faced law that alternately allows and disallows free speech at the same time.

Whoever drafted: "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press..." is and/or was either really stupid and/or really stupid. One or the other.

Why? Because "being responsible for the abuse of this right" and "a law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press" are two segments of the exact same article that are obviously in direct contradiction with each other; creating a "bait and switch" quandary of sorts.

The California Constitution Article 1 opinion stating: "You can speak freely ~ but you can't speak freely" doesn't hold water. It's essentially a sinking ship that always needs the S.O.S. of federal court assistance to make things right. We can all either speak freely or we cannot ~ therefore we all can speak freely. 

And Google is probably leaning more towards the California view rather than the federal view of free speech at this point in time. But that is a bad precedent to set for a company in charge of regulating the free speech of the entire world through You Tube and/or Google blogger etc.

That's why many free speech matters coming before the courts refer to federal law over state law. Unless the speech in question has denied or threatened to deny an individual and/or individuals of their basic constitutional requirements (life; liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- and/or perhaps breach of peace and/or threatening cruel and unusual punishment) it's anything goes when it comes to free speech. 

And most can agree that California privacy laws are obviously a great thing for all people; while Californias' arbitrarily applied thought censorship laws are generally a bad thing for all people. Why?

Because all people think differently with their individual expression so there is no obvious and/or established 'right' or 'wrong'. (all thoughts that stray from the 'liberal' bastion are not necessarily 'conservative' or 'wrong') And the First Amendment is not without limits. For example; making criminal threats is obviously and rightfully against the law.

And for all intents and purposes; while most judges enjoy a certain amount of freedom that all of us mere mortals do not enjoy; they are also bound by the high expectations of others -- making them generally unable to speak freely unless they are making a judgement in court. But judges are rarely terminated for their faulty judgements and/or opinions. These sometimes questionable judgements are for appellate courts to sort out.

The bottom line: the First Amendment was argued for roughly 14 years before final ratification on December 15th, 1791; so it's a done deal. It is written in stone. You can keep your mouth shut for self-protection due to the heinous thoughts you think; but we are all free to speak and express ourselves. We are all free to continue arguing. The Founding Fathers probably went around and around in circles until they realized that everyone is offensive to someone; eventually likely coming to the uncomfortable conclusion that it's ok to be offended. 

Note: "I'm deeply offended that you're deeply offended": It's ok to be deeply offended because someone else is deeply offended. Everyone is right because everyone is wrong. I'm ok -- you're ok.

And speaking of that; John met a female Google employee a few months ago at a karaoke bar; and she was one of the most verbally abusive; malicious; foul mouthed; abusive bitches John has met in a long time -- making sexual comments about genitals etc. While it did not necessarily bother John; it shows there is likely a very toxic "boys against girls and/or girls against boys" culture (Hillary) existent at Google. 

(By the way; the female in question is a South African Caucasian with a British accent who is in charge of music videos at Google)

Leading me directly to: Google firing one of it's employees for exercising his rights to free speech and expression.

"In ideology-driven authoritarian regimes, locking someone out of the labor market because you don't like their ideas is a common approach. Behind the Iron Curtain, for instance, if you weren't sufficiently Marxist, it didn't necessarily mean a trip to the gulag. You would just find that you were out of a job. Of course, the blowback against this Google employee is not top-down authoritarianism or orthodoxy enforced by the state. No, in America when you violate the PC code of conduct, a small cadre of people will dust off the outrage machine -- and millions of people will fuel it...

The result of such a lynch-mob mentality fueled by intolerance for different points of view is twofold. First, it winnows out those who might disagree, making the cone of tolerance and ideological pluralism ever-more narrow. Second, it drives holders of minority viewpoints or people with differing ideas underground, and causes them to seek out and communicate only those who agree with them -- which can push them to radicalization..." -- Mark Randazza 

GO TO: http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/07/opinions/google-employee-manifesto-against-diversity-opinion-randazza/index.html 

Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992) AMENDMENT I: 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.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION / ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS / SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

NOTE: You Tube (in other words; Google) recently deleted important evidence related to a potential court case spanning roughly a decade of abuse; saying it "violated community standards". Question: Why the hell didn't it violate neighborhood community standards when it occurred in reality as opposed to the virtual reality of You Tube? 

Adding to this: there is likely very good reason why the First Amendment came before the Second Amendment; because we can say whatever (the fuck) we want and not get shot for saying it. You can have a gun and others can speak their minds and no one can shoot anyone for talking. Adding to this; if you can kill an animal with a gun -- I can say whatever I damn well please and you can't shoot me for saying it.
 

This opinion is more liberal than most liberal opinions. It is somewhat of a "progressive liberal" stance that breaks through the log jam of liberal censorship and takes into consideration the needs of all people.

"I keep thinking the order of the first and second amendment was done this way for good reason; because "first off: I can say whatever the fuck I want; and second: you can't shoot me for saying it"...why? probably because in the old days when someone mouthed off they often got shot (at saloons etc) for "spewin' them fightin' werds!"...but nowadays we simply resort to softer tactics like blocking people on Facebook and/or firing Google employees etc...it's the same basic feeling that manifests as different modern action: "you are saying something that i don't like; therefore you have to be officially punished somehow" etc...but it always gets back to the First Amendment being argued for roughly 14 years before final ratification; and the inevitable conclusion that we are all free to continue arguing...which makes perfect sense...everyone can say something seen as being abhorrent to another person; so we all just need to keep talking...but since the rise of free speech on the internet roughly 20 years ago; 200+ years later Americans are still struggling with the same exact question: are we free to express ourselves or not? the argument is done; we're all free to continue arguing..."

GO TO: YOUTUBE.COM: PRIVATE BUSINESS OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION + THE SUNNYVALE POLICE ATTEMPT TO CHANGE A REPORTERS' STORY? @ http://addendumblog2.blogspot.com/2016/07/youtubecom-private-business-of-public.html 

SEE ALSO: Censorship by Google @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google + googlecensorship @ https://www.reddit.com/r/googlecensorship/ + Google Censors Block Access to CounterPunch and Other Progressive Sites @ https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/09/google-censors-block-access-to-counterpunch-and-other-progressive-sites/ + Anti-Corporate Voices On Both Right And Left Claim Google Censorship @ http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/31/anti-corporate-voices-on-both-right-and-left-claim-google-censorship/ + The New Cencorship @ https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated + How Google Censors The New American (and Other Conservatives) @ https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/26021-how-google-censors-the-new-american-and-other-conservatives + How Apple and Google are censoring the mobile Web @ http://nypost.com/2017/08/21/how-apple-and-google-are-censoring-the-mobile-web/ + Why is YouTube being accused of censoring vloggers? @ https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/1/12753108/youtube-is-over-party-advertising-monetization-censorship + NSA/CIA/FBI ETC SURVEILLANCE ABUSE? @ http://addendumblog2.blogspot.com/2017/03/nsaciafbi-etc-surveillance-abuse.html + NSA/CIA/FBI ETC SURVEILLANCE ABUSE? @ http://addendumblog2.blogspot.com/2017/03/nsaciafbi-etc-surveillance-abuse.html 

SEE ALSO: Activists worry YouTube erasing proof of Syria atrocities
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/youtube-videos-syria-war-activists-human-rights-violations-war-crimes/ > Note: It's not only ISIS who is interested in destroying history -- it is Google and Facebook etc as well.