28 ms·

How is this not a violation of the first amendment? They aren't US government buildings (which still exist on the map, just some things are occasionally blurred

by tibbon 15y ago

How is this not a violation of the first amendment? They aren't US government buildings (which still exist on the map, just some things are occasionally blurred). Why as an American company can't I take pictures of anything I want from the sky and post them online? Furthermore, its just silly in an international market. Thinking that this will make images of Israel go away to protect them is just silly. Useless legislation is useless and a waste of taxpayer time and money. We don't do this for any other country/ally. As a non-religious American, I quite honestly don't understand why we have such a relationship with Israel as it yields us zero benefit and many losses.

VB6_Foreverr 15y ago
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Who has the money to pay the piper in the USA?
dimitar 15y ago
The US treats Israel like an intelligence/military base in the Middle East. Why wouldn't you support your soldiers? A bonus is that Israel is still a sovereign nation and if it for example bombs Syrian nuclear reactors, the United States has zero responsibility. Which can leave the US to pursue détente with any country it likes, regardless the Israel protest. A nations power is measured not only in its military capabilities but in its allies. The US has many, many allies but not that many loyal ones especially in the Middle East. The benefits are way too many, but very few of them are international-PR-related. Except of course domestically, which is much, much more important to any politician.
- ComputerGuru 15y ago
  But that's exactly what the parent was asking — how are you defining "loyal?" His question was, what are we getting out of it that would cost us more if we didn't do it ourselves.
  - dimitar 15y ago
    Well, does it have unwavering strategic, political, cultural, ideological interest to continue the relationship, whatever the government? In contrast the surrounding allies always warn that the relationship or balance of power may change if the current government goes out of power. The state department may lose some hours of sleep when there is a change in power in Egypt or in Yemen, but does it have to when the same happens in Israel?
    - ComputerGuru 15y ago
      Honestly? I think so. Look at how much tension there is between Obama and Bibi. Bibi point-blank says he couldn't give a damn less what Obama's ideas are for peace, there will be no halt of construction in occupied lands and there will be no negotiation for Jerusalem. That's quite a stretch from what his predecessors once said.
- cstavish 15y ago
  In theory, you are correct about the US having "zero responsibility" for actions of Israel. In reality, however, the US gets a ton of flak for supporting Israel, despite some of their questionable practices. Most of Israel's antagonists effectively equate Israel to the US. Is such a sentiment unfounded? Not entirely, considering that our politicians bend over backwards for Israel. I respect Israel, and I see the value in a healthy relationship with it. However, the US should be looking out for the best interests of Israel, which are _not_ the continued oppression of the Palestinian people. Many Israelis understand that a two-state solution is the only sustainable solution...unfortunately, Netanyahu does not realize that. The US needs to push Israel in the right direction, for the sake of our shared relationship (and Israel itself).
  - maratd 15y ago
    Exactly what is stopping the Palestinians from having a functional state? They have been left to their own devices for quite a while now ... and what have they come up with? A militant party sworn to the destruction of their neighbor and another party so weak, it has no choice but to support the militant one. Yup! There's a recipe for peace! There is nothing Israel/US/UN/Europe/etc. can do to make the Palestinians create a decent government. Only the Palestinians can do that.
    - jbm 15y ago
      While I won't bother bringing this topic onto the forum, you should be intelligent enough to know that this is an exaggeration and slanted view of the more complex reality.
      - maratd 15y ago
        I'm intelligent enough to know that if it there was a "more complex reality", you would have astutely pointed it out. The truth is that the situation is very simple and that those who try to veil reality in complex sophistry are simply parasites who wish to benefit through the misery of others. Shame on you!
tkahn6 15y ago
> How is this not a violation of the first amendment? Google is a private company. > I quite honestly don't understand why we have such a relationship with Israel as it yields us zero benefit and many losses. If you don't understand something, a good bet is that your premises are wrong.
- rdtsc 15y ago
  > If you don't understand something, a good bet is that your premises are wrong. But another bet is that "that something" doesn't actually make sense.
  - tkahn6 15y ago
    Yes but in this case America does benefit from a healthy relationship with Israel and, more importantly, from Israel's existence.
    - startupstella 15y ago
      Are people forgetting that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East? The US enjoys a very healthy military relationship with Israel because of its advanced technology and its strategic location....all religion aside.
      - scott_s 15y ago
        While Israel does have strategic importance to the US, I think that's Israel's status in US foreign policy is disproportionate to that strategic need. I don't think it's controversial to say that many people - and politicians - feel a moral imperative to help Israel. I think it's inaccurate to characterize the relationship between the two countries without considering that perceived imperative.
      - eru 15y ago
        > Are people forgetting that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East? What happened to Turkey?
vbtemp 15y ago
"As a non-religious American, I quite honestly don't understand why..." As a non-religious American, I quite honestly don't understand why so many non-religious Americans try to paint this partnership in grandiose, apocalyptic religious way (heh, ironically just like many religious people). Just as the arab-israeli conflict is not inherently a religious conflict, the US partnership with israel is not a "religious" bond - it's a political partnership like all others.
- radagaisus 15y ago
  For example, Israel was more closely tied to Russia than to the US until around 1967-1973.
  - vbtemp 15y ago
    Why do you say that?
    - maayank 15y ago
      while not exactly true, it is true that the American-Israeli bond only took its more familiar form after 1967. Up to that time the closest Israeli ally were the French [1]: "France was Israel's main weapons supplier until its withdrawal from Algeria in 1966 removed most common interest from the relationship, and France became increasingly critical of Israel". Regarding American-Israeli relations[2]: "During Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency, U.S. policy shifted to a whole-hearted, but not unquestioning, support for Israel. Prior to the Six-Day War of 1967, U.S. administrations had taken considerable care to avoid giving the appearance of favoritism." Regarding Russia, at the very beginning they were pro-zionists, wanting to undermine the British influence in the Middle East. But quickly the USSR became a menace, whether threatening directly or by proxies[3] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%E2%80%93Israel_relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%E2%80%93Israel_relations [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations#Kennedy_and_Johnson_administrations_.281961.E2.80.931969.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_United_States_... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Russia_relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Russia_relations
creativeone 15y ago
Assisting in protecting the Jewish people from annihilation is not a religiously based relationship, it might be based on guilt at worse. Helping the defenseless Jews in WW2 was much more costly than helping israel now.
- scott_s 15y ago
  There are about as many Jews in the US as there are in Israel.
  - tkahn6 15y ago
    And?
    - scott_s 15y ago
      Israel is not "the Jewish people."
      - tkahn6 15y ago
        That's correct, although it does possess the only armed force in the world interested in protecting the Jewish people. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe for why this is important.
        scott_s 15y ago
        According to the Wikipedia page, they were separate by nationality - which happened to separate them by Jews and non-Jews. So I think that's an instance of Israel protecting their own citizens. For the record, I am Jewish by heritage, and I have zero expectation of being protected by Israel - there's even a good chance I would not be officially recognized as Jewish.
        tkahn6 15y ago
        > they were separate by nationality - which happened to separate them by Jews and non-Jews I'm not sure where you see this. There were French and American Jews who were among the hostages. In fact, the Israeli forces accidentally killed a French Jew. > there's even a good chance I would not be officially recognized as Jewish. If one of your grandparents is Jewish, by Israeli law, you are entitled to citizenship as a Jew.
jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
Because the First Amendment protects a class of political speech that has been defined by statute and judicial opinion. It does not give everyone the right to broadcast and discover whatever information they want. This is a common misconception about the First Amendment.
- hcurtiss 15y ago
  It is certainly true that the First Amendment is not as broad as popularly conceived. Be that as it may, I don't think it would take a great stretch to characterize high resolution images of Israel as political speech. I'm not a First Amendment lawyer, but this strikes me as unconstitutional. I'm sure there are other lawyers on here with a better recollection of Con Law I. Thoughts? I suspect the reason it hasn't been challenged is that Google doesn't want the fight and others would have standing issues. Just for the record, the First Amendment covers more than simply political speech. See long line of cases distinguishing pornography from obscenity.
  - chopsueyar 15y ago
    Political speech? A company pays to have a satellite built and then put into orbit, and then sells licenses of the images the satellite takes. That is commerce, not political speech. If you started a non-profit that built and placed into orbit satellites, and then freely distributed those images, I would agree with your argument.
  - jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
    The Supreme Court has the power to rule on matters pertaining to pornography and obscenity because that's not protected speech either. Their resolution to the obscenity cases was to implement a non-ban ban on such material, relegating decisions pertaining to what's obscene to "community standards". Characterizing satellite photography as protected political speech sounds like a stretch to me. I'd be surprised if it passed judicial muster. If it's political speech, what's the political position? That Israel or the Palestinians are bad? That their borders as drawn are right or wrong?

by tibbon 15y ago

VB6_Foreverr 15y ago

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Who has the money to pay the piper in the USA?

dimitar 15y ago

The US treats Israel like an intelligence/military base in the Middle East. Why wouldn't you support your soldiers? A bonus is that Israel is still a sovereign nation and if it for example bombs Syrian nuclear reactors, the United States has zero responsibility. Which can leave the US to pursue détente with any country it likes, regardless the Israel protest. A nations power is measured not only in its military capabilities but in its allies. The US has many, many allies but not that many loyal ones especially in the Middle East. The benefits are way too many, but very few of them are international-PR-related. Except of course domestically, which is much, much more important to any politician.

ComputerGuru 15y ago
But that's exactly what the parent was asking — how are you defining "loyal?" His question was, what are we getting out of it that would cost us more if we didn't do it ourselves.
- dimitar 15y ago
  Well, does it have unwavering strategic, political, cultural, ideological interest to continue the relationship, whatever the government? In contrast the surrounding allies always warn that the relationship or balance of power may change if the current government goes out of power. The state department may lose some hours of sleep when there is a change in power in Egypt or in Yemen, but does it have to when the same happens in Israel?
  - ComputerGuru 15y ago
    Honestly? I think so. Look at how much tension there is between Obama and Bibi. Bibi point-blank says he couldn't give a damn less what Obama's ideas are for peace, there will be no halt of construction in occupied lands and there will be no negotiation for Jerusalem. That's quite a stretch from what his predecessors once said.
cstavish 15y ago
In theory, you are correct about the US having "zero responsibility" for actions of Israel. In reality, however, the US gets a ton of flak for supporting Israel, despite some of their questionable practices. Most of Israel's antagonists effectively equate Israel to the US. Is such a sentiment unfounded? Not entirely, considering that our politicians bend over backwards for Israel. I respect Israel, and I see the value in a healthy relationship with it. However, the US should be looking out for the best interests of Israel, which are _not_ the continued oppression of the Palestinian people. Many Israelis understand that a two-state solution is the only sustainable solution...unfortunately, Netanyahu does not realize that. The US needs to push Israel in the right direction, for the sake of our shared relationship (and Israel itself).
- maratd 15y ago
  Exactly what is stopping the Palestinians from having a functional state? They have been left to their own devices for quite a while now ... and what have they come up with? A militant party sworn to the destruction of their neighbor and another party so weak, it has no choice but to support the militant one. Yup! There's a recipe for peace! There is nothing Israel/US/UN/Europe/etc. can do to make the Palestinians create a decent government. Only the Palestinians can do that.
  - jbm 15y ago
    While I won't bother bringing this topic onto the forum, you should be intelligent enough to know that this is an exaggeration and slanted view of the more complex reality.
    - maratd 15y ago
      I'm intelligent enough to know that if it there was a "more complex reality", you would have astutely pointed it out. The truth is that the situation is very simple and that those who try to veil reality in complex sophistry are simply parasites who wish to benefit through the misery of others. Shame on you!

tkahn6 15y ago

> How is this not a violation of the first amendment? Google is a private company. > I quite honestly don't understand why we have such a relationship with Israel as it yields us zero benefit and many losses. If you don't understand something, a good bet is that your premises are wrong.

rdtsc 15y ago
> If you don't understand something, a good bet is that your premises are wrong. But another bet is that "that something" doesn't actually make sense.
- tkahn6 15y ago
  Yes but in this case America does benefit from a healthy relationship with Israel and, more importantly, from Israel's existence.
  - startupstella 15y ago
    Are people forgetting that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East? The US enjoys a very healthy military relationship with Israel because of its advanced technology and its strategic location....all religion aside.
    - scott_s 15y ago
      While Israel does have strategic importance to the US, I think that's Israel's status in US foreign policy is disproportionate to that strategic need. I don't think it's controversial to say that many people - and politicians - feel a moral imperative to help Israel. I think it's inaccurate to characterize the relationship between the two countries without considering that perceived imperative.
    - eru 15y ago
      > Are people forgetting that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East? What happened to Turkey?

vbtemp 15y ago

"As a non-religious American, I quite honestly don't understand why..." As a non-religious American, I quite honestly don't understand why so many non-religious Americans try to paint this partnership in grandiose, apocalyptic religious way (heh, ironically just like many religious people). Just as the arab-israeli conflict is not inherently a religious conflict, the US partnership with israel is not a "religious" bond - it's a political partnership like all others.

radagaisus 15y ago
For example, Israel was more closely tied to Russia than to the US until around 1967-1973.
- vbtemp 15y ago
  Why do you say that?
  - maayank 15y ago
    while not exactly true, it is true that the American-Israeli bond only took its more familiar form after 1967. Up to that time the closest Israeli ally were the French [1]: "France was Israel's main weapons supplier until its withdrawal from Algeria in 1966 removed most common interest from the relationship, and France became increasingly critical of Israel". Regarding American-Israeli relations[2]: "During Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency, U.S. policy shifted to a whole-hearted, but not unquestioning, support for Israel. Prior to the Six-Day War of 1967, U.S. administrations had taken considerable care to avoid giving the appearance of favoritism." Regarding Russia, at the very beginning they were pro-zionists, wanting to undermine the British influence in the Middle East. But quickly the USSR became a menace, whether threatening directly or by proxies[3] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%E2%80%93Israel_relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%E2%80%93Israel_relations [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations#Kennedy_and_Johnson_administrations_.281961.E2.80.931969.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_United_States_... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Russia_relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Russia_relations

creativeone 15y ago

Assisting in protecting the Jewish people from annihilation is not a religiously based relationship, it might be based on guilt at worse. Helping the defenseless Jews in WW2 was much more costly than helping israel now.

scott_s 15y ago
There are about as many Jews in the US as there are in Israel.
- tkahn6 15y ago
  And?
  - scott_s 15y ago
    Israel is not "the Jewish people."
    - tkahn6 15y ago
      That's correct, although it does possess the only armed force in the world interested in protecting the Jewish people. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe for why this is important.
      - scott_s 15y ago
        According to the Wikipedia page, they were separate by nationality - which happened to separate them by Jews and non-Jews. So I think that's an instance of Israel protecting their own citizens. For the record, I am Jewish by heritage, and I have zero expectation of being protected by Israel - there's even a good chance I would not be officially recognized as Jewish.
        tkahn6 15y ago
        > they were separate by nationality - which happened to separate them by Jews and non-Jews I'm not sure where you see this. There were French and American Jews who were among the hostages. In fact, the Israeli forces accidentally killed a French Jew. > there's even a good chance I would not be officially recognized as Jewish. If one of your grandparents is Jewish, by Israeli law, you are entitled to citizenship as a Jew.

jeffreymcmanus 15y ago

Because the First Amendment protects a class of political speech that has been defined by statute and judicial opinion. It does not give everyone the right to broadcast and discover whatever information they want. This is a common misconception about the First Amendment.

hcurtiss 15y ago
It is certainly true that the First Amendment is not as broad as popularly conceived. Be that as it may, I don't think it would take a great stretch to characterize high resolution images of Israel as political speech. I'm not a First Amendment lawyer, but this strikes me as unconstitutional. I'm sure there are other lawyers on here with a better recollection of Con Law I. Thoughts? I suspect the reason it hasn't been challenged is that Google doesn't want the fight and others would have standing issues. Just for the record, the First Amendment covers more than simply political speech. See long line of cases distinguishing pornography from obscenity.
- chopsueyar 15y ago
  Political speech? A company pays to have a satellite built and then put into orbit, and then sells licenses of the images the satellite takes. That is commerce, not political speech. If you started a non-profit that built and placed into orbit satellites, and then freely distributed those images, I would agree with your argument.
- jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
  The Supreme Court has the power to rule on matters pertaining to pornography and obscenity because that's not protected speech either. Their resolution to the obscenity cases was to implement a non-ban ban on such material, relegating decisions pertaining to what's obscene to "community standards". Characterizing satellite photography as protected political speech sounds like a stretch to me. I'd be surprised if it passed judicial muster. If it's political speech, what's the political position? That Israel or the Palestinians are bad? That their borders as drawn are right or wrong?