Google: Surge in pressure from governments to ERASE CHUNKS of the web

"Judges have asked us to remove information that’s critical of them, police departments want us to take down videos or blogs that shine a light on their conduct, and local institutions like town councils don’t want people to be able to find information about their decision-making processes."--Google

I have found that school district and teacher union officials also don't want people to be able to find information about their decision-making processes, or have a light shone on their conduct.  They don't want to see information on the Internet that is critical of them.

Google has been asked to shut down this blog, and Yahoo has been asked to shut down my related website.


Chula Vista Elementary School District
board members Pam Smith and Larry Cunningham
have given school tax funds to support
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm's
quest to silence this blog.

Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz are lawyers for many Southern California school districts. Stutz law firm demanded that Google shut down this blog, and Google complied temporarily. Yahoo also complied temporarily by depublishing my related website.

But both Google and Yahoo relented after I argued that they should let the justice system decide how to deal with complaints about free speech.

The Court of Appeal has already thrown out one injunction from Judge Judith Hayes in Stutz' defamation suit against me.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Judith Hayes threw out all my evidence and granted Stutz summary adjudication based on a technicality. Judge Hayes denied all of my many requests that I be allowed a jury trial for damages. Judge Hayes' decisions are under appeal.

Thank you, Google and Yahoo, for keeping speech free.

Google: Surge in pressure from govts to ERASE CHUNKS of the web
Libelous book about MP among stuff pulled offline
By Shaun Nichols
The Register
19th December 2013

Governments, judges, cops and politicians are continuing to lobby Google to tear down online material critical of their operations, we're told.

Today, the advertising giant said that, in the first six months of 2013, it received 3,846 demands from public officials to remove 24,737 personal blog posts, YouTube videos and other pieces of content it hosts. That's up 68 per cent on the second half of 2012.

And according to the web giant, which has just published its latest transparency report, 93 requests focused on content that was critical of people in public office. Defamation and copyright infringement were often cited, but less than one third of the highlighted material was removed in the first half of 2013.

"Over the past four years, one worrying trend has remained consistent: governments continue to ask us to remove political content," wrote Google legal director Susan Infantino, who called out Turkey and Russia for ramping up the number of complaints.

"Judges have asked us to remove information that’s critical of them, police departments want us to take down videos or blogs that shine a light on their conduct, and local institutions like town councils don’t want people to be able to find information about their decision-making processes," she added.

In the US, Google said that it saw requests for content removal up 70 per cent over last year. Notable cases include the removal of 76 apps from the Google Play store over alleged infringements of government copyrights and the denied takedown request from a local official who sought to remove pages outlining his record as a police officer.

In the UK, Google said it shot down a request from a local government council to take down a critical website, and upheld a request to pull a preview from a book that alleged illegal activity by an unnamed member of Parliament.

The report is the latest in a transparency program that Google is soon hoping to expand. The company has petitioned the US government to allow it to post information and notifications relating to FISA takedown requests. Thus far the requests have not been granted.

Verizon is also preparing to launch its own transparency report on law enforcement data requests, a particularly interesting development given the mobile carrier's recent interactions with the NSA and the revelations of federal officials collecting mass archives of user activity.

"All companies are required to provide information to government agencies in certain circumstances, however, and this new report is intended to provide more transparency about law enforcement requests," said Verizon general counsel and executive vice president of public policy Randall Milch.

"Although we have a legal obligation to provide customer information to law enforcement in response to lawful demands, we take seriously our duty to provide such information only when authorized by law." ®

Tri-City loses effort to block use of documents

Two stories about the publicly-owned Tri-City Hospital's efforts to avoid transparency.

U-T says Tri-City lawsuit attempts to abridge free speech
Ricky Young
SDUT
Sept. 26, 2011

links:
U-T anti-SLAPP motion against Tri-City, Sept. 26
Tri-City lawsuit against the U-T, Sept. 15

The San Diego Union-Tribune filed an anti-SLAPP motion today against the Tri-City Healthcare District, alleging that the agency's Sept. 15 lawsuit against the newspaper should be stricken as an attempt to abridge free speech rights.

The public hospital district says it mistakenly sent the U-T attorney-client privileged information in response to a public-records request for executive expense records. The newspaper returned the documents in question as a courtesy, but the agency is suing to block any use of the information.

The newspaper's motion claims the healthcare district's action is a "strategic lawsuit against public participation," not allowed under California law. The motion calls the agency's lawsuit "a brazen affront to the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press."

The U-T Watchdog team, which filed the public-records request, has asked the district for its response to the anti-SLAPP motion and will add it to this post when it's received. The next hearing on the dispute is Oct. 21 before Superior Court Judge Joel Pressman.




Tri-City loses effort to block use of documents
The healthcare district says release to the U-T was a mistake
Aaron Burgin
Sept. 20, 2011

The San Diego Union-Tribune prevailed Tuesday in opposing the issuance of a temporary restraining order in connection with a lawsuit filed against the newspaper by Tri-City Healthcare District.

The district sought to block any use whatsoever of documents that the district sent to the U-T by regular mail and email, along with its initial response to a reporter’s request under the California Public Records Act for executive expense reports and receipts.

Inclusion of of the attached documents was a mistake, the district says, and the newspaper is not entitled to them because of attorney-client privilege.

The U-T reviewed the documents, decided they were not newsworthy at this time and returned them on Monday. Even though the U-T destroyed all copies, the healthcare district proceeded with its application for a restraining order enjoining the U-T’s use or publication of, or reliance on, the communications.

Superior Court Judge Joel Pressman denied Tri-City’s application for a temporary order Tuesday morning, and declined to prevent publication of the underlying information.

The two parties will meet again in Pressman’s courtroom Oct. 21, when the court will hear arguments on whether the district’s request for a preliminary injunction should be granted. In the meantime, the newspaper agreed to give the district reasonable notice before publishing any story that discloses the information the district claims is privileged.

The Oceanside-based district said any use of the privileged documents would put it at a competitive disadvantage.

“Additionally, publication will reveal the district’s litigation tactics and strategy,” the lawsuit states.

Jean-Paul Jassy, a Los Angeles-based attorney representing the U-T, said the restraining order sought by the district would be a prior restraint, which is when the government takes action to block communications before they occur. The U.S. Supreme Court, according to the U-T’s response to the district’s lawsuit, has repeatedly ruled that prior restraints are unconstitutional.

NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS FREE SPEECH RIGHTS FOR ONLINE NEWS SITES

NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS FREE SPEECH RIGHTS FOR ONLINE NEWS SITES
Ruling Mirrors Arguments Made in Brief by the Citizen Media Law Project, Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic, and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
May 6th, 2010
by CMLP Staff

May 6, 2010 – The New Hampshire Supreme Court today issued an important decision upholding the First Amendment rights of online publishers. Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic submitted an amicus curiae brief last June on behalf of the Citizen Media Law Project and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in the case, The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc. The reasoning of today’s ruling mirrored arguments in the amicus brief, as the Court concluded that a lower court’s injunction preventing a website from posting a leaked document was an unlawful prior restraint on speech.

In 2008, the mortgage industry website, The Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter, published an article detailing administrative actions taken by the New Hampshire Banking Department against mortgage lender The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. The article included a link to a financial document that The Mortgage Specialists allegedly submitted to the state banking authorities, which the Implode-O-Meter website had obtained from an anonymous source. Mortgage Specialists sued the website, demanding that the document be removed from the internet and that the anonymous source be identified. A Rockingham County Superior Court judge granted these requests.

The Supreme Court reversed the injunction preventing publication of the leaked document...