How does a new search engine complying with existing laws impact "freedom" (a nebulous concept) in any meaningful way?

Because US propaganda has got it into peoples heads that "Free-Speech"* = "Freedom"+

Glasshouses, stones, kettles and pots are all coming to mind :P

* Where free speech, is "Free" by US law. And not anything that is critical of the US govt institution (ala Bradley Manning)

+ Where freedom is the same brand of Freedom™ that the US promotes/enjoys(?)

> And not anything that is critical of the US govt institution (ala Bradley Manning)

Pretty sure free speech does not, has not, and never has or will apply to military secrets that one takes an oath to keep when they join the military.

Let's get one thing straight. Manning is a hero in my book.. but there is no question what so ever that he broke the law (and his oath). The debate comes in to what we do with him because of what he did.

Thats my point... you have a special brand of "free speech". That has caveats on the free part.

If you don't like the bradley manning example, then just move further up the chain to Wikileaks. The point is still valid. It isn't Free Speech, is just 'mostly' free unless you impinge on a more powerful interest... oh wait, that isn't free.

It sounds like you're pointing to a definition of "free" that doesn't include exceptions for incitement, classified information, etc.

It's a nice principal, but unworkable in the real world.

You somehow expect a world without any secrets of any kind to function?

You somehow expect a world where governments lie to it's own people to function?

(Not only that, you seem to accept that governments lying is fine, but exposing those lies is a violation of free speech...???)

How does equating rationality with profit-maximization further this discussion in any meaningful way?

Because in this case, they're one in the same?