You are here

Google-YouTube's "neutral-extremism" in stiff-arming Senate Homeland Security Chairman on terrorism

When I blogged yesterday wondering how long it would take Google to fully respond to Senate Homeland Security Chairman Lieberman's request for YouTube to pull down "Internet video content produced by terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda", even I didn't think Google-YouTube would respond so immediately and uncooperatively to Chairman Lieberman.    

Google-YouTube's response is remarkable because the United State's final arbiter of what is constituionally-protected free speech, The United States Supreme Court, just handed down a new ruling on free speech on Monday that further limited harmful free speech in its United States v. Williams decision. That decision concerned free speech limitations involving the pandering and soliciting of child pornography.

  • In this 7-2 Williams decision, on page 2, the U.S. Supreme Court was crystal clear in saying: "Offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from free speech protection." [bold added]
    • Since Al Queda is a self-described terrorist organization, since terrorism is obviously "illegal" and not protected free speech, and since "offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from free speech protection" -- on what basis is Google determining that posting sites and materials from Al Queda and other terrorist organizations designed to recruit support for its illegal activity -- is somehow protected free speech?
    • As I suspected in my original post, Google-YouTube rejects the United State Constitution's final arbiter of what constitutes protected free speech, the U.S. Supreme Court, and has defined more broadly that it will proactively protect terrorist organization's ability to proffer "offers to engage in illegal transactions" that the Supreme Court reiterated as recently as Monday, as "categorically excluded from free speech protection."  

This immediate and willful action by Google-YouTube to take it upon itself to define what is "Google-protected free speech" and what is not, is disturbing and highly instructive.

  • The Google-YouTube free-speech/restricted speech take-down policy is obviously not based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
  • Google-Youtube clearly have their own definition and standard of what Google-YouTube-protected free speech is.
    • Congress' judiciary oversight committees should consider exploring Google's extra-constitutional interpretation, to learn what other extra-constitutional and extra-legal interpretations Google is operating under that differ from well-established United States constitutional jurisprudence. 
      • Does Google have its own definition of property rights it is operating under?
      • Does Google have its own foreign policy that we should know about?

Google's oxymoronic "neutral-extremism" puts protecting the free speech rights of self-admited terrorists ahead of the rights of citizens to be protected from the most extreme and dangerous form of illegality -- terrorism. 

  • Is Google-YouTube really telling us that their extreme vision of "net neutrality" trumps everything else?