This paper explores and points out the violations of First Amendment rights posed by censorship of on-line content, and how this is a major issue no one seems to be noticing.

1. Page 1 of 18
Censorship on the Web: The Theft of Your First Amendment Rights
By Joel Drotts Esq.
So, recently in the news Congress has begun looking into the fact that certain members of the
FBI in collusion with ex-FBI agents working at the most popular social media platforms were
able to and did kill certain stories about the corruption case involving the Presidents’ son. The
issue the congress has with this is the fact that these agents have the ability and will to basically
prevent stories of important national interest from being published on social media websites.
Well…. Woohoo!!!!! Finally, someone is paying attention to the fact that censorship on-line
violates the First Amendment!
When any social media website decides who may speak and about what subjects based upon
so called offensive or even "fake" messages to the general public, you have violated the First
Amendment. You certainly violate the First Amendment when you undertake such activities at
the request or behest of the government. Censorship is not the answer, an educated public is.
However, rather than seek to educate the general public on media awareness those in power
would rather "protect" America through censorship of the internet!
Coming from the mouths of American politicians one would assume such rhetoric to be
sacrilege. However, since regaining and controlling the flow of information available to the
general public, as they used to be able to do with TV networks, radio stations, and newspapers
has always been the true goal of such propaganda which claims any need for censorship of any
independently created media on the internet, we have become subjected to the normalization of
the idea that the government or social media platforms should seek to censor what messages are
broadcast upon such allegedly free media platforms. More than merely seek to censor on-line
content, they have even sought to pass laws attempting to make such censorship the legal duty of
the social media platforms. However, this time that censorship was able to kill certain stories one
side of the political isle wanted the general public to see. So, now all of a sudden, the notion of
censoring online content is a bad thing.

2. Page 2 of 18
However, here is the shocker…. Censorship was always a bad thing! What is more, is how
could these dummy politicians who pushed the internet companies to censor online content not
see how some day that same censorship program would come to kill or censor important political
stories. It’s like duh!!!! However, now that censorship is being utilized for political reasons the
politicians are finally all like “Hey… You can’t censor on-line content. That’s a violation of the
First Amendment!” However, here is the slide on the slippery slope these politicians created
with internet censorship, once you start picking and choosing who can say what and where on-
line, it was only a matter of time before a story those same politicians believed to be important
got censored as well. However, despite the obviousness of the only outcome which could come
about from the legislature demanding internet companies censor on-line content, the legislature
still demanded the internet become censored.
And what do we as a country do? Rather than cause an up-roar about the loss of our First
Amendment rights, we (Or actually you people, because I never did.) bought into stories of
Russian election campaign manipulation. You therefore once again begged the government to
strip you of your constitutional rights in the name of protecting you from this new boogieman
that is lurking in online social platforms. These boogeymen apparently have the ability to
brainwash American citizens into voting for candidates they might not had otherwise voted for.
OOOOOOhhhh.... How scary!!!!! Even if such stories were to be believed, if nothing else we
should be grateful to the so-called brainwashing parties at finally motivating the general public to
actually get out and vote for once. Especially given the piss poor record low levels of voter
turnout which was/is generally being reported to have been occurring prior to such on mass
political brainwashing phenomenon occurring in this country.
But here is the thing… You can't blame people voting for people you don't like on
brainwashing election hacking Russians. Does this boogieman they created even make sense to
any of you? I mean when they said Russian campaign tampering or hacking, I thought they
meant Russia had somehow hacked into the vote counting machines. Cause that would actually

3. Page 3 of 18
be an issue. But NO! That's not what they mean. What they literally have tried to sell us is the
idea that Russia was able to get people to vote for Trump, when the Democrats believed they
should had gotten those votes. Then based upon that lemon of an idea, told us we we're all in
danger of I'm not sure what occurring. However, they are/were all sure the only remedy for that
danger, whatever it is, is for us to go ahead and surrender our First Amendment rights and
introduce unprecedented levels of censorship online! Way to go dummies!!!!! I hope you all feel
safer now! Idiots!!!!!! I personally was always a bit insulted by this fake boogie-man created to
scare the general public into surrendering their First Amendment rights, because it’s basically
based upon the premise that American’s can’t think for ourselves, and that we are so mentally
feeble that we could not handle a little or even a lot of propaganda created in Russia, see it for
what it is, and would somehow all do what these Russians wanted us to do.
No, you’re right Uncle Sam, you should be allowed to read every text, e-mail, or post that I
create in order to check to make sure I’m not becoming radicalized by Russian propaganda.
Please… Just protect me. I can’t handle it!!!! For those of you not picking up on the extreme
sarcasm here, you may very well actually be as dumb as the government wants to call you in
order to create the need to protect you from dangerous on-line content. But for the rest of us with
IQ’s above three…. If we’re not dumb enough to fall for the bullshit propaganda our government
has been force feeding in order to try to convince us that the government reading all our e-mails
and texts, and censoring our on-line content is somehow a good thing and keeping us “Free,”
then what makes you think we’re dumb enough to fall for Russian propaganda which may or
may not had tried to get us to vote for Trump?
However, when it’s not Trum and MAGA that we need protection from, then it’s these
alleged hordes of on-line Nazis. As recent as yesterday I read an article in the Washington Post
which essentially was complaining that more companies in particular one company called
Discord had the unmitigated gall to respect and protect the privacy of its users. This article went
on about how racist groups were meeting and talking to each other in private invite only groups

4. Page 4 of 18
on Discord, and then tried desperately to put such little racist Gameboy dorks on an even level of
dangerousness as Al Cade
Now, while meeting up with a bunch of dudes at some on-line sausage party, where you
can apparently type racial slurs to each other sounds like a pretty lame way to spend one’s time
to the sane among us, even the racist ones. Apparently, there are those in the population who
weirdly find this sort of thing entertaining. Apparently, because these little nerds probably get
beat up if they actually went yelling racial slurs at black people in public, so instead these
dooshbags huddle together in backroom chats on-line and instead type racial slurs to each other
inside their self-created invite only racist echo-chambers. However, these little groups of pussies
aren’t really what is so upsetting.
What I found most disturbing and worrisome is just how much credit and levels of
dangerousness the authors at the Washington Post and apparently so called “racist expert thinks
tanks” ascribe to these little dipshits. What is even more, is the suggested remedy suggested by
these think tanks and authors at the Washington Post which worries me, which is to strip every
one of any on-line privacy in order to make sure groups of pussies like I’ve described no longer
have the racist echo chamber in which they may “shout” racial slurs at each other.
The Washington Post authors droned on for several paragraphs about the horror of these
doosh-bags getting together on-line, in invite only group chats, and wasting their time like this.
All I could think was, “What do I care? What do you care?” If you don’t want to read or hear the
racist bullshit these particular losers are talking about in and amongst themselves then simply
don’t join the group. However, such basic logic seemed to escape the Washington Post authors,
who were literally trying to put such losers on an even par with Bid Laden himself. Then trying
to utilize the so-called threat created by such moronic losers as an example of why there must not
be any privacy on-line and why there needs to be mandatory censorship. However, if you are
again SANE, the leap from a bunch of racist gamer-boys being the sort of threat that requires the
FBI to have the authority to spy on all Americans at simply cannot rationally be made.

5. Page 5 of 18
Moreover, utilizing scare tactics like those utilized on the almost guaranteed planted story in
the Washington Post, does not prove the point. In fact, whenever anyone claims that so called
“racist experts” from whatever research group state a group of people to be modern day Nazis I
personally see it as a red flag. The use of such tactics have become so common place or the
crying wolf occurs so often that whenever anyone claims that their argument must be believed
because if not then these so called Nazis will “win,” I almost know for a fact the ones making
such arguments are the ones with questionable motives or arguments. A good example is see
Putin and his current quest to rid Ukraine of all those modern neo-Nazis. At any rate, what is
more is these so called racist experts have little to no actual working knowledge of the true
mentality of racist individuals., These so called experts, if they truly exist always have an
outsiders perspective of such groups, and rarely if ever can actually gauge to true levels of threat
such groups actually pose. Moreover, it seems to me the hyping up of the true threat levels posed
by a couple isolated losers in invite only racist chatrooms in the far flung corners of the internet
serve more the political agendas of those who are desperately seeking reasons why we as
American citizens should somehow welcome constant government surveillance of all our on-line
activity 24/7. You can go ahead and drink that cool aid if you like, but I’m going to go ahead and
keep demanding I have a right to privacy and the First Amendment. It just sucks that so many
people out there who already have their cups out waiting to get a pore of that cool aid!
Don’t believe me? Have you seen Googles insane censorship rules? It is a clear violation of the
First Amendment, and as clear a signal as any that the Government has complete decided to
wage all-out war of inhalation of the United State Constitution. As evidence I have posted below
Googles posted rules about what they may do to your e-mail. I have to ask when did we as
consumers just decide that shit like this is OK? If you read Googles insane rules, they claim not
only a right to read your private e-mails sent to other private parties, but to then censor those e-
mails for politically objectionable material, unpopular or theoretical points of view (called
conspiracy theories). They state this as follows:

6. Page 6 of 18
Misleading content related to civic and democratic processes: content that is demonstrably false and
could significantly undermine participation or trust in civic or democratic processes. This includes
information about public voting procedures, political candidate eligibility based on age / birthplace,
election results, or census participation that contradicts official government records. It also includes
incorrect claims that a political figure or government official has died, been involved in an accident,
or is suffering from a sudden serious illness.
Misleading content related to harmful conspiracy theories: content that promotes or lends credibility
to beliefs that individuals or groups are systematically committing acts that cause widespread harm.
This content is contradicted by substantial evidence and has resulted in or incites violence.
Misleading content related to harmful health practices: misleading health or medical content that
promotes or encourages others to engage in practices that may lead to serious physical or emotional
harm to individuals, or serious public health harm.
Manipulated media: media that has been technically manipulated or doctored in a way that misleads
users and may pose a serious risk of egregious harm.
My question is “Is when did we as consumers simply throw our hands up in the air, and
accept such intrusive bullshit from companies like Google because ‘That’s just the way it is?’” I
mean really, why should Google have any right whatsoever to be reading our e-mails, let alone
fucking censoring them? Do we allow AT&T to listen in to our phone calls and phone messages?
Do we let the post office read our mail? Of course, we do not! So why the fuck, are these internet
companies so special? What gives them the right to read our e-mails? What… Because they can?
That’s no fucking excuse! I’m sure if the phone companies wanted to listen in and record our
phone conversations, they could easily get that done, but we don’t fucking allow that shit to
happen! So, why have we as a country and consumers all but stopped demanding a right to
utilize unmonitored communication platforms and products?
Are we to believe that somehow because it’s not the government listening in or reading the
e-mails that then such behavior should for some reason be tolerated. If I watch your wife taking a
shower, are you going to feel any less violated if I tell you “Look man, don’t trip… It’s OK,
because I don’t work for the government!” What kind of fucked up, nonsensical, shit for brained
excuse is that? We as consumers are just supposed to be all, “Well, as long as you’re not the
government you may read and censor my personal private communications at will?” Fuck
no!!!!!! Get off my shit! Stop looking over my shoulder and reading the emails I send and get
sent, let alone begin to censor them! And don’t even try to give me that bullshit ass line that goes

7. Page 7 of 18
“Well, if you weren’t doing anything wrong or illegal then you shouldn’t mind having your e-
mails read.” Really… That’s what you are going with. That you are so utterly stupid and
unimaginative that you honestly believe the only reason I or anyone else may want privacy from
third parties reading the content of private messages they or I may create or receive is because
they are trying to hide crimes?
To people that dare try to raise that argument all I have to say is, please do the following
thought experiment. So, what if I wanted to send your dad e-mails about fucking your mom at
his request. You know the old man is kind of pervy. Anyway, so what if I wanted to share the
story about how I was fucking your mother last night, and the fact that her pussy smelled like a
dead camel was some information I only wanted to share with your pervy father who insists on
receiving written descriptions of how good your mother was or actually wasn’t in bed? Now, do
you think I want Google to be made aware of any of those facts, or any other third party for that
matter? The answer is, “NO!”
Is fucking your mother illegal? Probably not, provided she is still alive. But is fucking your
mother a private piece of information I’d like as little people to know about for my own dignity?
The answer is, “Yes.” So, as you can clearly imagine and see there are plenty of other perfectly
legal reasons why I or any other sane member of the general public may just not want third
parties to read their personal e-mails. Especially, if they’re going to then censor those e-mails for
objectionable material, cause fucking your mom is pretty much as objectionable as it comes.
However, your dad just loves receiving the e-mails, so are you really going to deny dear old dad
his pervy emails? Don’t you think that should be up to him, and not the fucking AI algorithm
they got reading every one fucking email whether he receives those emails or not? I know I do,
but then again…. I am sane!
However, it is more important to understand that the notion of privacy and what one is
comfortable sharing about themselves to stranger third parties is as intimate and personal as
privacy itself. Some people just aren’t comfortable sharing the nature of their religious practices,
political beliefs, and a whole host of other subjects. Accordingly, the mere threat and knowledge
that one is being monitored in of itself acts as a huge hinderance of the full and free expression

8. Page 8 of 18
of one’s ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. No one is the same person or free when they believe they
are monitored. Don’t believe me? Try this thought experiment.
For one hour imagine people could hear the thoughts in your head, then go out in public.
You will quickly come to realize just how utterly stifling just the mere threat of being monitored
is to free thought and expression. When you believe you are monitored you truly cannot freely
express yourself as you like. In fact, so damaging is the idea of being monitored that to be
monitored is a form of arrest and detention in this country. You know it as house arrest, whereby
one basically surrenders to the state their rights not to be monitored by the state. Speaking of
which, you know what happens to prisoners in jail, their mail gets read and censored, and yet we
as consumers apparently are willing to allow Google to treat us just like prisoners merely
because we utilize their products and services? Does Google really have any legitimate reasons
for reading your email?
The answer is “No!” And here is the real rub or kicker to counter Googles or other
companies claims to have a need to read your e-mails to bring you better products and services
or to make their system better, how much do software engineers get paid? Do you believe if
someone at one of these billion-dollar internet companies found something in your emails or the
way you utilize their product in an extraordinary way aids that company in designing new or
better software that they will pay you for the rights to your invention? Do you believe that maybe
the least you deserve is a nice fat check (Lord knows they can afford it) and a little blurb at the
beginning or end of the software program or software fix you helped create (Even if
unknowingly) that gives you credit as a contributing party? Do you believe that such companies
will do either, or more likely than not completely steal your content, idea, business plan,
solution, or whatever else they want and have access to because they can see and read all you
produce on -line or off, pay you nothing for your effort or time, and take for themselves the
entirety of all credit without so much as acknowledging your existence?
That final one, that’s a big old “YES!” How is that fair? They get to take your ideas and
utilize them based merely upon the fact they have resources that far outstrip your own, and the

9. Page 9 of 18
ability to read over your shoulder and snake any good ideas you have before you could even get
it into pre-incubatory stage of life cycle and claim them to be their own. Do you know what it’s
called when you do all the work, and someone with far greater power and resources utilize those
resources and abilities to further profit or benefit themselves. It’s called slavery. And without
data privacy we are all basically little more than digital surfs of whatever IT provider we stupidly
chose to be our digital overlord and keeper.
However, it’s not just copyright, patents, and ideas which such monitoring greatly threaten.
The threat of being monitored also can hinder the freedom to assemble and commune with
likeminded individuals if it comes to pass the ideas one means to share are some days dubbed
objectionable. For example, there have been several pro-European groups which espouse a
preference for European culture and people, which have nonetheless been deemed to be hate
groups. These groups are not anti-minority so much as they are pro-majority, but in today’s
culture of hyper Political Correctness where it is ok to attack and demonize straight white males,
any groups which exclusively represent or have a membership that is strictly straight white males
is called a hate group. This is true regardless of those groups policies towards those of other
races. They are labeled a hate group merely for who and what they are. A fact that in of itself
seems very hateful, as why is being pro-white equal with hating minorities? There is a clear
difference and Asian, black, or Latino groups which have strictly those racial groups as members
dedicated towards the advancement of strictly the benefit of those particular racial groups are not
labeled as racist or hate groups. This is despite the fact those groups having the same exact
purposes and missions of certain pro-white groups. One doesn’t even need to imagine a scenario
of when such policies could harm non-white groups, for example Arabic groups being labeled as
terrorist wrongfully.
All of which is really not the point, the point is who believes they have the right to decide
the difference between such groups and then censor the groups determined to be “hate groups?”
Well Google for one. Now do you agree that merely because you utilize Google products and
services that you should have to open yourself up to being judged by whatever privately
determined notions of what or what is not objectionable is determined by Google? I know I
don’t. I just wanted to send e-mail to friends, but now that email can be checked for
objectionable material. Why?

10. Page 10 of 18
What is truly objectionable is Googles definitions of what may be censored. Read or
interpreted in the right way it seems as if legitimate campaigning or political debate may be
censored if Google believes it is harmful. Hell, this article which rails against the utter unfairness
and danger to democracy found in Googles monitoring and censorship programs could be
deemed “harmful to Googles policies,” and theoretically censored. Which goes to show just how
utterly unamerican and power hungry the policies of Google truly are. All of which is a relatively
new development by the way. For years Google practiced a strict rule of not reading and not
censoring emails and communications, but recently and at the request of the Government (How
is that for First Amendment rights) Google and other internet companies have gotten into the
censorship game. When done at the request of the government, you become the government
agent or an arm of the government. Therefore, Google can and does violate the First Amendment
rights of its users, because a badge is not the determining factor. What matters is are you acting
on behalf or for the benefit of the government. I mean check out these policies straight from
Googles T.O.S.:
Abuse Program Policies and Enforcement
The program policies below apply to Drive, Docs, Sheets, Slides, Forms, and new Sites.
These policies play an important role to maintain a positive experience for everyone that
uses Google products. We need to curb abuses that threaten our ability to provide these
services, and we ask that everyone abide by the policies below to help us achieve this
goal. We may review content for violations of these policies and take action. This review
includes access restriction of content, removal of content, and limitation or termination
of a user’s access to Google products
.
When these policies apply, Google may make exceptions based on artistic, educational,
documentary, or scientific considerations, or where there are other substantial benefits
to the public to not take action on the content. Google may take action on accounts that
go above storage quota limits. For example, we may reject new uploads, compress
content that exists, or delete content if you exceed your storage quota or fail to obtain
sufficient additional storage.
If you believe that someone is violating the policies found below, report abuse.
To report copyright infringement or other legal issues, please use this tool, which will
guide you through the process of reporting content that you believe warrants removal
from Google's services based on applicable laws.
Program Policies

11. Page 11 of 18
Account Hijacking
Do not access another user’s account without their permission. We may take
appropriate action if we are notified of account hijacking, which may include removing
access to some of our products or disabling your Google Account.
Account Inactivity
Use the product to remain active. Activity includes accessing the product’s content or
storing new content on the product at least once every 2 years. We may take action on
inactive accounts, which may include deleting your content from the product. Learn
more here.
Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation
Circumvention
Do not engage in actions intended to bypass our policies, subvert restrictions placed on
your account, or distribute content removed in other Google products.
This includes but is not limited to:
 Creating or using multiple accounts or other methods intended to engage in a
behavior that was previously prohibited.
 Publicly sharing apps suspended by Google Play Developer Policies.
 Publicly sharing videos that do not comply with the YouTube Community
Guidelines.
We may take appropriate action if we are notified of circumvention, which may include
restricting the sharing of files, removing access to some of our products or disabling
your Google Account.
Dangerous and Illegal Activities
Do not use this product to engage in illegal activities or to promote activities, goods,
services, or information that cause serious and immediate harm to people or animals.
While we permit general information for educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic
purposes about this content, we draw the line when the content directly facilitates harm
or encourages illegal activity. We will take appropriate action if we are notified of
unlawful activities, which may include reporting you to the relevant authorities, removing
access to some of our products, or disabling your Google Account.
Harassment, Bullying, and Threats
Do not harass, bully, or threaten others. We also don’t allow this product to be used to
engage or incite others in these activities. This includes singling someone out for
malicious abuse, threatening someone with serious harm, sexualizing someone in an

12. Page 12 of 18
unwanted way, exposing private information of someone else that could be used to
carry out threats, disparaging or belittling targets of violence or tragedy, inciting others
to carry out these activities, or harassing someone in other ways. Keep in mind that
online harassment is illegal in many places and can have serious offline consequences
for both the harasser and the target. We may take appropriate action if we are notified
of threats of harm or other dangerous situations, which may include reporting you to the
relevant authorities, removing access to some of our products, or disabling your Google
Account.
Hate Speech
Do not engage in hate speech. Hate speech is content that promotes or condones
violence against or has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against an individual or
group on the basis of their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality,
veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or any other characteristic
that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization.
Impersonation and Misrepresentation
Do not impersonate a person or organization or misrepresent yourself. This includes
impersonating any person or organizations you don’t represent; or providing misleading
information about a user/site’s identity, qualifications, ownership, purpose, products,
services, or business.
This also includes content or accounts misrepresenting or concealing their ownership or
primary purpose such as misrepresenting or intentionally concealing your country of
origin or other material details about yourself when directing content about politics,
social issues, or matters of public concern to users in a country other than your own.
We do allow parody, satire, and the use of pseudonyms or pen names -- just avoid
content that is likely to mislead your audience about your true identity.
Malware and Similar Malicious Content
Do not transmit malware or any content that harms or interferes with the operation of
the networks, servers, end user devices, or other infrastructure. This includes the direct
hosting, embedding, or transmission of malware, viruses, destructive code, or other
harmful or unwanted software or similar content. This also includes content that
transmits viruses, causes pop-ups, attempts to install software without the user’s
consent, or otherwise impacts users with malicious code.
See our Safe Browsing Policies for more information.
Misleading Content
Do not distribute content that deceives, misleads, or confuses users. This includes:

13. Page 13 of 18
Misleading content related to civic and democratic processes: content that is
demonstrably false and could significantly undermine participation or trust in civic or
democratic processes. This includes information about public voting procedures,
political candidate eligibility based on age / birthplace, election results, or census
participation that contradicts official government records. It also includes incorrect
claims that a political figure or government official has died, been involved in an
accident, or is suffering from a sudden serious illness.
Misleading content related to harmful conspiracy theories: content that promotes or
lends credibility to beliefs that individuals or groups are systematically committing acts
that cause widespread harm. This content is contradicted by substantial evidence and
has resulted in or incites violence.
Misleading content related to harmful health practices: misleading health or medical
content that promotes or encourages others to engage in practices that may lead to
serious physical or emotional harm to individuals, or serious public health harm.
Manipulated media: media that has been technically manipulated or doctored in a way
that misleads users and may pose a serious risk of egregious harm.
Non-Consensual Explicit Imagery (NCEI)
Do not store or distribute private nude, sexually explicit, or non-explicit intimate and
sexual images or videos without the subject’s consent. If someone has sent a private
nude, sexually explicit, or non-explicit intimate and sexual image or video of you, please
report it to us here.
Personal and Confidential Information
Do not store or distribute other people’s personal or confidential information without
authorization. This includes the use of sensitive information, such as U.S. Social
Security numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, images of signatures,
and personal health documents. In most cases where this information is broadly
available elsewhere on the internet or in public records, like national ID numbers listed
on a government website, we generally don’t process enforcement actions.
Phishing
Regulated Goods and Services
Do not sell, advertise, or facilitate the sale of regulated goods and services. Regulated
goods and services include alcohol, gambling, pharmaceuticals, unapproved
supplements, tobacco, fireworks, weapons, or health/medical devices.
Sexually Explicit Material

14. Page 14 of 18
Do not distribute content that contains sexually explicit material, such as nudity, graphic
sex acts, and pornographic material. This includes driving traffic to commercial
pornography sites. We allow nudity for educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic
purposes.
Spam
Do not spam. This may include unwanted promotional or commercial content, unwanted
content that is created by an automated program, unwanted repetitive content,
nonsensical content, or anything that appears to be a mass solicitation.
System Interference and Abuse
Do not abuse this product and do not harm, degrade, or negatively affect the operation
of networks, devices, or other infrastructure of Google or others. This includes
degrading, disabling, or negatively interfering with any aspect of the product or its
services. We may take appropriate action if we are notified of system interference and
abuse, which may include removing access to some of our products or disabling your
Google Account.
Unauthorized Images of Minors
Violence and Gore
Do not store or distribute violent or gory content involving real-life people or animals
that’s primarily intended to be shocking, sensational, or gratuitous. This includes ultra-
graphic violence, such as dismemberment or close-up footage of mutilated corpses.
Graphic material, such as content containing significant amounts of blood, may be
allowed in an educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context, but please be
mindful to provide enough information to help people understand the context. In some
cases, content may be so violent or shocking that no amount of context will allow that
content to remain on our platforms. Lastly, don't encourage others to commit specific
acts of violence.
Violent Organizations and Movements
Known violent non-state organizations and movements are not permitted to use this
product for any purpose. Do not distribute content that facilitates or promotes the
activities of these groups, such as recruiting, coordinating online or offline activities,
sharing manuals or other materials that could facilitate harm, promoting ideologies of
violent non-state organizations, promoting terrorist acts, inciting violence, or celebrating
attacks by violent non-state organizations. Depending upon the content, we may also
take action against the user. Content related to violent non-state organizations may be

15. Page 15 of 18
allowed in an educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context, but please be
mindful to provide enough information to help people understand the context.
Additional Policies
Content Use and Submission
Policies for the template gallery
Google Docs may contain galleries that may present third party content ("Content
Galleries"). Content Galleries include without limitation the Templates Gallery and any
gallery that Google chooses at its discretion to make available to you.
The content and information in the Content Galleries ("Gallery Content"), such as
templates, was created by Google or by third parties. As between you and the creators
of Gallery Content, any intellectual property or proprietary rights remain with the
creators.
The Gallery Content: (a) is meant to serve as a suggestion only; and (b) is not a
substitute for professional advice or specific, authoritative knowledge or direction.
Google does not promise that the Gallery Content will work for your purposes, or that it
is free from viruses, bugs, or other defects. The Gallery Content is provided "as is" and
without warranty of any kind. You alone bear the risk of using Gallery Content. Google
and its suppliers provide no express warranties, guarantees and conditions with regard
to the Gallery Content. To the extent permitted under applicable law, Google excludes
the implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose,
workmanlike effort, title and non-infringement.
If you choose to submit Content to become part of the Content Galleries, you direct and
authorize Google and its affiliates to host, link to, and otherwise incorporate your Gallery
Submission into Google Docs, and you grant Google and its end users a worldwide,
royalty-free, non-exclusive license to exercise the rights in the Gallery Submission, as
stated below:
 to reproduce the Gallery Submission;
 to create and reproduce derivative works of the Gallery Submission;
 to display publicly and distribute copies of the Gallery Submission;
 to display publicly and distribute copies of derivative works of the Gallery
Submission.
You agree that your license to Google end users will be perpetual. Furthermore, for the
avoidance of doubt, Google reserves, and you grant Google, the right to syndicate the
Gallery Submission submitted by you through Google Docs and use that Gallery
Submission in connection with any of the Services offered by Google. You retain the
right to stop distributing the Gallery Submission through the Google Docs Content
Galleries at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to
withdraw the licenses granted to Google end users under these Terms of Service. In

16. Page 16 of 18
order to stop distributing the Gallery Submission through the Google Docs Content
Galleries, you must utilize the removal functions provided within the Service, in which
case the Gallery Submission removal will be effective within a reasonable amount of
time.
You represent and warrant that (a) you own or have obtained the necessary legal rights
to provide all Gallery Submissions you submit through Google Docs, and will maintain
these rights for as long as the Gallery Submission is available to Google end users; and
(b) all of the Gallery Submissions you submit through Google Docs abide by the posted
Program Policies.
Google claims no ownership over any Gallery Submission you submit through Google
Docs. You retain copyright and any other rights, including all intellectual property rights,
you already hold in the Gallery Submission. You agree that you are responsible for
protecting and enforcing those rights and that Google has no obligation to do so on your
behalf.
You agree that you are solely responsible for (and that Google has no responsibility to
you or to any third party for) any Gallery Submission that you submit. Google is not in
any way responsible for the subsequent use or misuse by Google end users who
access your Gallery Submission.
Google reserves the right to remove any or all Gallery Submissions at its sole
discretion.
How Google can use your template submissions
If you choose to submit Content to become part of the Content Galleries, you direct and
authorize Google and its affiliates to host, link to, and otherwise incorporate your Gallery
Submission into Google Docs, and you grant Google and its end users a worldwide,
royalty-free, non-exclusive license to exercise the rights in the Gallery Submission, as
stated below:
 to reproduce the Gallery Submission;
 to create and reproduce derivative works of the Gallery Submission;
 to display publicly and distribute copies of the Gallery Submission;
 to display publicly and distribute copies of derivative works of the Gallery
Submission.
You agree that your license to Google end users will be perpetual. Furthermore, for the
avoidance of doubt, Google reserves, and you grant Google, the right to syndicate the
Gallery Submission submitted by you through Google Docs and use that Gallery
Submission in connection with any of the Services offered by Google. You retain the
right to stop distributing the Gallery Submission through the Google Docs Content
Galleries at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to
withdraw the licenses granted to Google end users under these Terms of Service. In

17. Page 17 of 18
order to stop distributing the Gallery Submission through the Google Docs Content
Galleries, you must utilize the removal functions provided within the Service, in which
case the Gallery Submission removal will be effective within a reasonable amount of
time.
You represent and warrant that (a) you own or have obtained the necessary legal rights
to provide all Gallery Submissions you submit through Google Docs, and will maintain
these rights for as long as the Gallery Submission is available to Google end users; and
(b) all of the Gallery Submissions you submit through Google Docs abide by the posted
Program Policies.
Google claims no ownership over any Gallery Submission you submit through Google
Docs. You retain copyright and any other rights, including all intellectual property rights,
you already hold in the Gallery Submission. You agree that you are responsible for
protecting and enforcing those rights and that Google has no obligation to do so on your
behalf.
You agree that you are solely responsible for (and that Google has no responsibility to
you or to any third party for) any Gallery Submission that you submit. Google is not in
any way responsible for the subsequent use or misuse by Google end users who
access your Gallery Submission.
Google reserves the right to remove any or all Gallery Submissions at its sole
discretion.
Read the complete Google Terms of Service.
Copyright Infringement
Respect copyright laws. Do not share copyrighted content without authorization or
provide links to sites where people can obtain unauthorized downloads of copyrighted
content. It is our policy to respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement.
Repeated infringement of intellectual property rights, including copyright, will result in
account termination. If you see a violation of Google's copyright policies, report
copyright infringement.
Content Distribution
Google Drive allows you to store, share, and stream video content, but should not be
used as a replacement for a content distribution network. For large-scale public
streaming, YouTube is a better fit. Google Drive will restrict usage when it appears that
it's being used for large-scale public streaming. Repeated violations may result in
additional action, including terminating your account or ability to use Google Drive.

18. Page 18 of 18
Translations of our policies are provided for your convenience. If there is a conflict
between the text of this policy and the text of the English language version of the policy,
the text of the English language version of the policy will take precedence.