Another Court Makes Righthaven Pay Up For Its Trolling Ways

Google Reveals 70% Increase In Requests For Content Removal; Including Law Enforcement Wanting To Hide Police Brutality

from the censorship-by-any-other-name dept

Thu, Oct 27th 2011 4:42am — Mike Masnick

Google has released its latest "transparency report" which seeks to reveal aggregate data on requests for user information and content takedowns from around the world. Much of the press coverage focuses on the fact that requests on user info was up 29% from January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2011, compared to the previous segment of data (July 1 through December 31, 2010). But even more interesting is the fact that the number of "content removal requests" jumped up by 70%. It appears lots of folks would like to censor Google. And, some of those attempts seem really questionable:

We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove YouTube videos of police brutality, which we did not remove. Separately, we received requests from a different local law enforcement agency for removal of videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. We did not comply with those requests, which we have categorized in this Report as defamation requests.

It's good to see that Google did not roll over for such requests, though it really feels like when law enforcement seeks to censor content that is embarrassing to them, that kind of info should be made public explicitly. Otherwise, there's no incentive for law enforcement officials to stop asking.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: censorship, data, info requests, law enforcement, takedowns
Companies: google

67 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:01am

Google can go fuck themselves and all die in a fire.

Here is exactly how Google makes money from piracy:

http://digitalmusicnews.com/stories/102411adwords#6YxitLX4zUEaSBW-o_NwXw

Do no evil?

Yeah, hide your real behavior behind a meme that Goebbels would be proud of.

Who has some matches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris, 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:14am
  
  Re:
  What does that have to do with anything mentioned in the article?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    What does an article here about Google have to do with Google being slimy, shady disingenuous profiteers?
    
    On this blog? Everything.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Don't you yell at us for blindly following what TechDirt says? Try looking at some of the sites that you claim are pirate sites.
      
      Here, I'll make it easy. None of the sites on that list are illegal (OK maybe ISOhunt.us and BGtorrents.net for being click scams). Most aren't even tools can can be used for illegal actions.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Heh... I didn't even bother clicking on that link originally, assuming it was idiocy. So, I took a quick scan:
        
        Looks to be a collection of legal sites and programs with some vague relation to the idea that they *could* be used to pirate, although several of them only supply information on how to use P2P programs and don't host any files themselves.
        
        At least 2 of the links don't work despite the article having been posted less than 72 hours ago. At least 2 are collating information about other sites, while another (p2p.com) spends more time discussing p2p lending than anything remotely pirate related (though admittedly it does look like an ad farm).
        
        Two links are file lockers that states explicitly in their T&Cs that they shouldn't be used to share copyrighted files. One site (uploadmusic.org) looks to be an ad wrapped skin for Google itself (i.e. all it does is search Google). One is a beginner's guide on how to torrent that states explicitly to be careful about copyrights.
        
        So, yeah, the usual idiocy. This is really the best they've got?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:15am
  
  Re:
  1. Way to rant off topic.
  2. It's "Don't be evil", not "do no evil"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:18am
  
  Re:
  Yep, I'm sure the RIAA is absolutely livid that Google sells addwords to FileHippo.
  
  Go look at some of those sites, you'll be surprised what you don't find.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - freak (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    Apparently, google is evil for selling/buying adspace, through their automated system, from grooveshark and wikihow.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:21am
  
  Re:
  It has become more than obvious to even the casual observer that the campaign against piracy is about censorship and not about saving the artists or even your precious content industry. So give it up already. The sickening diatribe does you a disservice.
  
  The mindset which attempts censorship is quite amazing. For some reason these people think it is ok to abuse the general public if only no one were to find out about it. They must have some idea that what they do is wrong, otherwise why try to cover it up? This is an area ripe for psychoanalytical research. Also, what are they afraid of? They can just have the police beat the crap out of anyone who objects.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    hahahaha. Nice try, Freetardo.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Kindergarten's out for the day again, I see.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Thank you - thank you ... I'll be here all week.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - out_of_the_blue, 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:00am
    
    Re: Re: @"abc gum": "The mindset which attempts censorship is quite amazing."
    Yes, it is, often hiding behind a facade of doing good -- or at least "don't be evil".
    
    Here's a take on "Google muzzles political dissidents with YouTube ID tweaks":
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/14/google_profiles_youtube_verification_id/
    
    Of course, we've ONLY Google's statements for how often these requests occur, or how deeply they're involved in state surveillance. I hope you're not such a sap as to just simply trust Google based on the image it fosters, when its capability to harm free society is so large. -- Suspect cahootery everywhere these days, and you'll seldom be wrong.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re: @"abc gum": "The mindset which attempts censorship is quite amazing."
      "Suspect cahootery everywhere these days, and you'll seldom be wrong."
      
      Unless it's Universal, or the RIAA, or the MPAA, or the newspaper guild, or some patent troll, or some other IP maximists. Then their efforts ought to be defended, right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: @"abc gum": "The mindset which attempts censorship is quite amazing."
        (and they ought to be given the benefit of the doubt whenever possible).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re: @"abc gum": "The mindset which attempts censorship is quite amazing."
      OH no a company being evil...
      ...
      ...
      The point is being upset with our government being evil. Companies are expected to be evil.
      Governments are expected to protect us and do their best to let culture and quality of life to flourish.
      
      We have an example above of Google showing how they fight back in some small way to protect us... SOMETHING THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DOING. Not a benevolent corporation that cares more about bottom lines and profits!
      
      Mike gives us a story of man bites dog,
      you all give us dog bites man.
      
      In case you were somehow so mentally deficient to not understand why everyone on here thinks you people are idiots!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hmm (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 12:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah but what is TRULY amazing is sometimes they even sucker those who should be interested in KEEPING censorship at bay into supporting it......
    
    It's fascinating how some people will suck up to "those in power" wherever they can. I wonder if they expect favors in return or something?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:21am
  
  Re:
  In addition to what others already said, I'd like to add: 'nice' Goodwin moment. And in the first post too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Isn't it a Godwin Moment? Sure seems like an attempt to derail the conversation. Must be a brutal cop.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AJ (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:36am
  
  Re:
  We all know your an idiot. There really is no need for you to confirm this on EVERY single story.
  
  Just because Google does business with someone, doesn't mean they support that someones position.
  
  Using your logic....
  
  Google sells ad-words that include the term Nazi, therefor, Google makes money from the persecution of Jews!
  
  /sarc
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    GM sells cars to bank robbers...I guess GM are money pirates. (So many examples)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - hmm (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 12:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      RIAA enjoys beating people to death with rolled up lawyer briefs that doesn't mean that they support...oh wait nm...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:01am
  
  Re:
  Ohh... shill troll is shilling!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:49am
  
  Re:
  Oh, it's you again. Hi there. Apparently, Digital Music News only cares when it's the RIAA-style music industry that may get hit. I would argue that DMN is about as truthful and balanced as Fox news and about half as sensitive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:18am

Little known fact.
The most effective way to stop videos of police brutality getting online is for the police to not brutalize people.

They should try that first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:02am
  
  Re: Little known fact.
  They'd rather arrest the people talking the videos for wiretapping. It helps the police meet their quotas.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - freak (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:45am
    
    Re: Re: Little known fact.
    Didn't you hear? Following the outbreak of these 'occupy' protests, the quota was removed.
    
    Now the police can arrest as many innocent people as they like!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:23am
    
    Re: Re: Little known fact.
    Cop: Well what do we have here? Seems you're wiretapping me with your phone.
    "Citizen": No I'm not! You just took my phone and you're taking videos of yourself!
    Cop: That's resisting arrest!
    "Cititen": *starts hitting self with police baton (accord to police report)*
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re: Little known fact.
  Actually the most effective way to stop videos of police brutality going on line is for the police to brutalize EVERYONE with a camera (or a website) (or a blog) (or a brain with greater than a 60second recall).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hmm (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 12:56pm
    
    Re: Re: Little known fact.
    You said most effective...not the easiest / most sensible btw..
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 4:47pm
    
    Re: Re: Little known fact.
    That couldn't be 100% effective. Joe is correct, not brutalizing people is most effective.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paddy Duke (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:27am

I predict a Streisand
Just wait. One of those local law enforcement agencies will be dumb enough to sue Google over this, outing themselves in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:02am
  
  Re: I predict a Streisand
  Naw, they'll get a gag order.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:28am

Reminds me of the takedown notices against all Justin Bieber content a while back. They aren't that careful when it comes to copyright but at least they aren't removing the police misconduct thing heh.

I think I should send more takedown notices again't Bieber stuff *mumbles*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:44am

If it's legal to do so....
...then Google should publish the names of the police departments that requested the removal of videos.

Or maybe they could have a special channel on video of video that police departments don't want anyone to see.

I'm sure it's probably not legal but it would be fitting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:29am
  
  Re: If it's legal to do so....
  What a great idea for a uTorrent App ... the DMCAtakeDownChannel app ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:51am

Google still removed a lot it seems
I'm looking at the content removal requests spreadsheet and for the US in the six months ending June 2011 there were 92 requests. Google fully or partially complied with 66% of those requests. That seems like a very high percentage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:08am
  
  Re: Google still removed a lot it seems
  Also if you take a look at the data, the number of requests were higher for the periods ending December 2009 (123) and June 2010 (128) and then went down for the period ending December 2010 (54). So in some ways Mike should be reporting how the number of requests are going down.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:19am
    
    Re: Re: Google still removed a lot it seems
    A direct quote from Google's site:
    
    "The number of content removal requests we received increased by 70% compared to the previous reporting period."
    
    So, there was a dip, then it went up again.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Google still removed a lot it seems
      But still for a rolling 12 month period the number of requests are down. It's all in how you look at it. Do you care about 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, etc. God damn stats!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:00am

Critical reading skills required to avoid falling into a trap here.

Removal requests are up 70%.

They received " a request from a local law enforcement agency" - suggests a single request.

"we received requests from a different local law enforcement agency " - this suggests multiple requests from a single law enforcement agency.

other than that, it seems that all the other requests were reasonable. It seems a bit misleading to focus on a couple of very isolated cases, and ignore the reality that copyright holders (and others) are speaking up.

It should also be noted that Google improved their online tools to request removals, making it easier to file such a request. It would probably be much more interesting to look at the volume of requests received by source, to see if this is the reason there is a sudden spike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AJ (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:07am
  
  Re:
  "It should also be noted that Google improved their online tools to request removals, making it easier to file such a request. It would probably be much more interesting to look at the volume of requests received by source, to see if this is the reason there is a sudden spike."
  
  It would also be interesting to watch the rate of abuse in conjunction with making it easier to file a removal request.
  
  One would imagine, you would see more of this....
  
  http://www.justinbieberzone.com/2011/08/all-justin-bieber-music-videos-removed-and-delet ed-from-youtube/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:16am
  
  Re:
  Oh, it only happened once.
  Well, that's ok then.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    It isn't a question of okay or not okay, it is just applying context. Mike is playing the game of "requests are up 70%" and putting it right next to a couple of exceptional cases, hoping that people get outraged thinking the increase is specifically in these cases.
    
    It is misleading, don't you think?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So, what's the reason in your opinion then? Or, are you just playing the game of "pretend Mike is trying to mislead everyone while not providing any evidence to support my own theory"?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - abc gum, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Possibly it is the "I found an inconsistency therefore the entire post is irrelevant" claim.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What "theory"? I am only pointing out that Mike headlined a 70% increase, and then using small exceptional cases as the examples. It would seem that the two are not directly related, and rather the examples are put out there to create the impression that there has been a 70% increase caused by police requests for takedowns, which is just not true.
        
        I don't have a "theory", I am only commenting on the post.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "and rather the examples are put out there to create the impression that there has been a 70% increase caused by police requests for takedowns"
        
        That's not how I read it. If you read it that way, that's your own reading comprehension failure.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Stop pretending that you're somehow doing us a favor by telling us how to do something that we already know. We already know how to read. You're not adding anything meaningful, new, or insightful to this discussion, so don't think you are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 10:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        wow. you're a dick!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 10:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Only because the commenter I'm responding to is being a jerk by falsely accusing Mike of
        
        "playing the game of "requests are up 70%" and putting it right next to a couple of exceptional cases, hoping that people get outraged thinking the increase is specifically in these cases. "
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You missed the word "Including" in the title. Which means that the cases fo law enforcement trying to hide seeming police brutality is within the content takedown requests.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris Rhodes (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Err, I didn't assume that the bulk of the 70% increase was law enforcement agencies because that's not what the article said. Did you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coughing Monkey (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:55am

"What we have here is failure to communicate"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o&feature=colike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:10am

Where's evidence that Google is telling the truth?
Just this week, wasn't it, Mike had a piece that gov't is going to LIE on FOIA requests. Show me ANY bit of pressure (as in laws that might result in a punishment) on Google that would even tend to force it to be honest. If there's no such pressure, then it's at best random as to what Google sees as in its interest to put out.

You're all falling for the TRICK of assuming that "Google did not roll over for such requests", when you've NO evidence this isn't just PR. There's NO independent audit of Google that justifies your faith in them.

But hey, I ran across this site that's at least skeptical:
http://insidegoogle.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:28am
  
  Re: Where's evidence that Google is telling the truth?
  So the question is, who do you think is more trustworthy: Google or the US government?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:55am
  
  Re: Where's evidence that Google is telling the truth?
  "Show me ANY bit of pressure (as in laws that might result in a punishment) on Google that would even tend to force it to be honest."
  
  We already have anti-fraud laws that corporations must follow, so what are you crying about? Google must follow the same laws that just about every other company needs to follow. If you have a problem with those laws, then that problem isn't with Google, it's with the laws that apply to everyone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:04am
  
  Re: Where's evidence that Google is telling the truth?
  "You're all falling for the TRICK of assuming that "Google did not roll over for such requests""
  
  It's very possible that Google may have secretly rolled over for some requests. But that misses some important points.
  
  A: They ought to be commended to the extent that they didn't roll over to requests. Google does have footage of law enforcement brutality, so at least that is consistent with (though perhaps doesn't absolutely prove) the idea that they did not roll over to (all) requests.
  
  B: Law enforcement (at least allegedly) did make requests and they should be criticized for that, and Google did not roll over to all of their requests. Thought it might be nice if Google would disclose exactly who made these requests and what videos were requests to be removed, but our broken legal system could potentially get them in trouble. Unfortunately, the DOJ and the FBI and all of the other federal agencies won't be trying to subpoena this information from Google in order to investigate these police departments, they're too busy doing more important things, like going after those blasted content pirates.
  
  C: If Google did take down such videos, chances are they will shortly be found on some other website and the poster will proclaim that Goolge removed the video. It would then likely make it on Techdirt and on every other blog that Google is censoring such videos at the request of law enforcement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:06am
    
    Re: Re: Where's evidence that Google is telling the truth?
    were requested to be removed *
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:07am
  
  Re: Where's evidence that Google is telling the truth?
  and why do you have such a vendetta against Google. Why can you never give them the benefit of the doubt, despite the fact that they have a history of being honest, yet you almost always give IP maximists the benefit of the doubt, despite their insanely dishonest and selfish history?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:08am
    
    Re: Re: Where's evidence that Google is telling the truth?
    (now I'm not saying Google is perfect, but their history is far better than very many corporations).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 7:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Where's evidence that Google is telling the truth?
    To be fair, I don't think blue has ever said much of anything positive about the IP industries, or tended toward giving them the benefit of the doubt. He seems to lump them, Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. all in as big corporations that always lie and are out to get us all. Which characterization has some element of truth to it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:47am

That's not good enough. Law enforcement should be legally penalized for making these requests. They have no right to request such things on behalf of the paying public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 10:02am

A bet
I'm sure the numbers will go up in a few months as the Occupy Wall Street protest footage is put up.

Oakland, New York... The places that have a high number of police incidents might just decide to begin arresting the public based off the footage they collect. I wonder what will happen as the judicial branch begins to hear all of these cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 12:57pm

What SHOULD be done
Everytime someone posts a takedown for content that google DOESN'T take down, google should post a direct link to it on the far right of every single search page.

That way if you try to cover up even a relatively minor offense you draw the eyes of hundreds of millions of people straight to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:15pm

Interesting way..
for cops to hid police brutality - take down the content. The feeling seems to be that they can avoid another Rodney King incident by simply arresting anyone videotaping them.

It's funny that cops say "if you don't have anything to hide you shouldn't worry", but when it is the other way around...

Wouldn't it be more to the point of responsible policing to make sure the police don't use excessive force? Even on "Cops" we see people being taken down with way excessive force.

Americans are in far more danger from the police here than they are in danger from all the terrorists in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Skeptical Cynic, 27 Oct 2011 @ 5:28pm

Requests for content removal AND MORE
@Thomas:

"...Americans are in far more danger from the police here than they are in danger from all the terrorists in the world..."

How right you are! I can't imagine any parent telling her/his offspring,
"The policeman is your friend."
As a child(long,long ago)I was warned,
"If you misbehave, the boogieman is gonna getcha."

Today's parents warn their offspring,
"You be careful out there, if you misbehave the cops are going to beat your head, legs,and torso
making you look look one mega ecchimosis, blind you with pepper spray,
and "taze" you into incoherency and incontinencey."
That's if you're white!
If you're a Black or Brown parent, its
"Just be careful out there, some mo'fo cop gona cap yo' ass, an' that just be fo' nuthin.
Be doin' somethin' he doan like an' 5 to 10 cops gonna fill yo'all so full o'lead, you could sink through iron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]