Google Complies with Law, Excludes 'controversial' Sites

YDdraig writes "To conform with some French and German laws, Google has removed listings for over 100 sites which it believes to be anti-abortion, pro-Nazi, white supremacist or anti-semitic. They're not keen to talk about it either, saying merely: 'As a matter of company policy we do not provide specific details about why or when we removed any one particular site from our index.'" Noted from Declan's articles: This is Google.de and Google.fr, and is done to be in compliance with those countries laws. Because, of course, not being able to talk about something makes it less attractive right? And drugs being illegal makes it less attractive for kids too, right? *sigh* Update: 10/24 13:55 GMT by H : Thanks to Declan for providing the linkage to his News.com original story which has more links then the ZDNet UK one.

Comments

only 100 sites

[mirko]

OK, there'd be a lot to say about the reason a site should be considered as controversial but their light quantity just sounds like to me they actually visited these to ensure they would not blacklist a legitimate site...

Re:only 100 sites

[NetRanger]

Uhhh...

So, what number of sites does it have to be before it becomes wrong?

Frankly I find it rather interesting that Germany is censoring and banning pro-Nazi sites and literature that it doesn't agree with. Gee, sounds rather familiar to a Germany of the past...

Re:only 100 sites

[Rhubarb Crumble]

Frankly I find it rather interesting that Germany is censoring and banning pro-Nazi sites and literature that it doesn't agree with. Gee, sounds rather familiar to a Germany of the past...

Very true. The problem that Germany has, though, is that whenever some neo-nazi skinheads or right-wing politicians make headlines in Germany, the entire world points the finger and goes "nasty germans"! Whereas e.g. in the USA the whole "white power" crowd goes pretty much unmolested, and nationalist rhetoric is considered standard rather than offensive.

Because of its past, Germany does live under the microscope in that sense and it sometimes makes Germans a bit hyper-sensitive, and excesses (such as the (IMHO extremely stupid and counter-productive) law that denying the holocaust happened is an offense) do happen.

Re:only 100 sites

[jasonditz]

Of course its wrong...

Not the point though

Germany et al are forcing google into this. The fact that google is only censoring a minimal number of sites is a good sign that they aren't doing so willingly.

Re:only 100 sites

[Sancho]

"Of course it's wrong"....

How self-centered.

Mod me as a flame or a troll if you want, but here's the standard reply to an American saying something is "wrong" based on their culture or laws.
The world is not American.
Different countries have different laws, and I applaud Google for respecting the laws of other countries, and doing so in a way that doesn't affect web searching in countries without these restrictions.

Re:only 100 sites

[G-funk]

Frankly I find it rather interesting that Germany is censoring and banning pro-Nazi sites and literature that it doesn't agree with.

I'm fairly sure it was part of the terms of surrender that pro-nazi speech would be (forever?) illegal in germany, you can go to jail for saying the holocaust didn't happen for example.

Re:only 100 sites

[JWW]

Free Speech is free speech and censorship is censorship. It doesn't matter where you are.

Personaly, you may or may not agree with what America does, but examples like this show just how important the Founding Fathers concept of free speech is/was and how slippery a slope limiting that speech is. It is an essential element of personal freedom anywhere on the globe.

Re:only 100 sites

[RevDobbs]

. . .but here's the standard reply to an American saying something is "wrong" based on their culture or laws.
The world is not American.

No, the world is not American, but what is the UN's position on censorship, especially of historical facts?

The resctrictions on (neo-)Nazi material is especially puzzeling: don't you want to know what the "enemy" is up to, what misinformation they may be spreading? I understand how both France and Germany can be embarassed by their past, but not talking about doesn't make it not happen, and forcing it underground makes it that much harder to keep track of what's going on.

Re:only 100 sites

[mseeger]

Frankly I find it rather interesting that Germany is censoring and banning pro-Nazi sites and literature that it doesn't agree with. Gee, sounds rather familiar to a Germany of the past..

The laws currently are quite old and go back to the military goverment by the U.S. and allies. The theory behind it is, that allowing the publication of it would offer new insults to the victims.

The laws are quite useless in the internet age. But nobody asks them removed because it would look like as the person asking would be in favour of such information.

Yours, Martin

Re:only 100 sites

[plumby]

Google is doing the sensible thing, in obeying the national laws. However, you don't have to be self-centred or American to believe that it is wrong for a country/government to force censorship of material that it doesn't agree with. It doesn't take much, if any, imagination to see where this leads.

As we speak, the UK government is attempting to take out a gagging order (on the grounds of "National Security") to surpress the reporting of a trial where evidence that claims to prove that the UK government paid Al Qaeda to attempt to assassinate Gaddafi for them in 1986 will be discussed. Of course you can find some of the details on the internet, but if the goverment could enforce the banning of access to web pages, then I suspect I would not be able to read about it anywhere.

Re:only 100 sites

[dvdeug]

here's the standard reply to an American saying something is "wrong" based on their culture or laws.
The world is not American.

So perhaps we should have stayed home during WWII, eh? The world's not American; maybe it's alright to murder Jews in Germany.

Re:only 100 sites

[msuzio]

Sorry, bud, but our Declaration of Independence (which I hope still has some meaning even under the rule of Bush and Ashcroft), says "*All men*" (and duh, women too, OK... ) are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. We consider the rights we profess to be applicable to everyone, not just Americans. So yeah, I think we as Americans should be pissed at censorship and revocation of basic rights *everywhere*. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's one of the few facets of American imperialism I actually *like*.

(Now, of course, it would be nice if we actually *followed through* on this belief through our policy. I'm very sad that we as a government don't do that).

Re:only 100 sites

[MonsterChicharo]

Well, there is the moral wrong, as in something you dislike and think of as harmful to you and your lifestyle, and there is the ethical wrong, which is not a matter of mere taste, and is rooted on concepts which are considered universal, and sometimes absoulte.

An american saying that a german is wrong for eating, let us say, mayonnaise and fries, is only talking about a matter of personal choice. However an american saying that a nazi is wrong for killing innocent gypsies is is not speaking of a personal preference, but of a universal truth: it is ethically wrong to kill.

Re:only 100 sites

[Mandi Walls]

hehe.

as if the US went into WWII to free the Jews.

Why'd it take an attack on the US by Japan, if the US was really just in the war to free the people (Jews, gypsies, homosexuals) being persecuted by the Nazis? Hilter's reich started long before the bombing of perl harbor.

I'd be willing to bet you could incite Pat Robertson or Billy Graham into saying the US should have stayed out of the European Theatre until all those social subversive types were eradicated....

-1 Flamebait.

--mandi

Re:only 100 sites

[Sj0]

riiiiiight. Because banning pages that say "I want to kill three million jews!" will cause the murder of jews...

Re:only 100 sites

[FatRatBastard]

Its actually much worse in the UK. Another of the laws being put forward (slipped in among the "nation security" legislation) is so broadly worded it could define critisizing a religion as a "hate crime." Nasty stuff.

Re:only 100 sites

[dvdeug]

Because banning pages that say "I want to kill three million jews!" will cause the murder of jews...

If you accept that one thing is universally immoral, then arguments that something else is universally immoral can't be answered soley by saying that cultures differ.

Re:only 100 sites

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

Did you know it is illegal to sell "Return to Castle Wolfenstein" in Germany? That law seems just a tad overboard, doesn't it?

Germany being forbidden to discuss Nazism is like Christians being forbidden from discussing the Crusades.

Re:only 100 sites

[mseeger]

No, they are not.

I think it doesn't make sense to continue "Yes, they are". Give me an email address and some time and i'll give you the pointers.

About our history, i know more than it is good for a sound sleep ;-). I don't think the "censorship" rules make sense today, but i at least understand the reasoning behind it. And some of them made sense in their time (pre-internet, post-war). Some of the censorship rules result directly from the lessons learned. History teaches you a lot, but it is not unambigous.

About "fighting in wars": I neither did nor intend to do. There are issues i would be willing to fight for, but i still hope it can be avoided. But i think we're still very aware of the war in the results. The city i live in was a submarine harbour and the post-war photos look like Hiroshima and Nagasaki (100% destruction in the city center, 70% in the city including suburbs). We still have evacuations or road blocks about once a month for bomb defusing (and those were dumb ones, they had only to explode) and if you have an eye for it, you see a lot of (fixed) bomb damages.

Yours, Martin

Re:only 100 sites

[br0ck]

You laugh, but it's a good thing that the Scientologists haven't found your link to Operation Clambake yet. ;)

OT, you may find this article interesting about a new book backed by the Vatican called _the Eleven Commandments_ that "is dedicated to exposing the "equivocations and lies" contained in the Bible and traditional Christian teaching."

Re:only 100 sites

[mseeger]

Germany being forbidden to discuss Nazism is like Christians being forbidden from discussing the Crusades.

Please distinguish: It is not forbidden to discuss it, it is even encouraged to discuss it. It is forbidden to use the symbol of "criminal organisations" (SS, NSDAP, Swastika) without appropiate context. I discussed Nazism in my oral exam (a theme i selected) in my final high school year and it scored the best mark in oral exams that year ;-).

Examples:

• Illustrate your term paper with photos of 1936 which show the swastika flags over the city: no problem
• Design a computer game where all enemies show SS badges: problem
• Use a Swastika as background image for your home page: problem
• Write a web page over the usage of Swastikas in history even showing examples of recent german history: no problem

There is even a logic behind it, even if i do not agree with it. The main reasoning is: the constituion does not protect action which aim at the abolition of the constitution. As the Nazism was the breakdown of constitutionalism, the uncritical showup their symbols is considered as action against the consitutuion.

Yours, Martin

Re:only 100 sites

[Sancho]

It is an essential element of personal freedom anywhere on the globe.

This shows just how entrenched in the American idea you are. It's an American idea that free speech is an essential element of personal freedom, yet you state it as fact.
Censorship is censorship. You are right there. It's just that some countries allow it, and some don't. And then there are those who allow it but claim not to. Those are the ones to watch out for.

Re:only 100 sites

[Sancho]

That's fine. Criticize the country, not Google for obeying their laws.

Re:only 100 sites

[Yokaze]

There is no global absolute ethics. Ethics is a set of moral rules.
There are only some agreed upon moral rules. But mostly it is always weighting one rule against other.

Speaking of grave matters like life:
In Germany, there is no death penalty. In the US, there is.
In Germany and the US, a woman can abort. In Ireland, not.

To get back to the topic.
Would it be right to let those people state their opinions, even risking a 4th Reich?
As hypothetical as this situation is, to my eyes, this is more likely than expecting that this restriction on free speech is leading to a regime in Germany.

Is free speech one of the prime ethical requirement?
Why should it then be restricted by slander, death threats, or child protection?

You think it is different? Ask a german Jew what he thinks about people saying that either the Holocaust didn't happened and or even saying it was just and how he compares this to slander or even death threat.

It is easy to make this decision, when it is a theoretical matter. But confronted with a real threat, one might decide another way.

It is always weighting the rights of one person against another.

And on these matters, I've to admit, the Nazis don't have my sympathy.
It is not like the right of free speech is irrecovably revoked from those persons. It is just that they aren't allowed to voice their opinion on this certain matter publicly.
I am well aware, that the same argumentation can be applied by the Chinese. But one should also be aware that the Germans can choose the form of the form of their society, the Chinese not.

Re:only 100 sites

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

There was some info in your (very well written) post that I was unaware of. I don't see how any discussion can be valid if you don't have access to material from both sides of the debate. I don't like the Nazi ideas, but I certainly couldn't say that with any accuracy if I didn't know what they were.

However, I'm a "stupid American" (LOL), and things truly are a lot different over here. AFAIK, you can talk about overthrowing our Constitution freely. You just can't threaten to kill the president. I could be wrong.

If the system you have works, great. I always worry when ANY information is suppressed, because it's hard to debate the boogeyman. ;-)

I was really shocked when I found out about Wolfenstein. And your version of Half-Life slightly altered as well, from a similar law IIRC?

Re:only 100 sites

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

The original Anti-Nazi laws were imposed by the Allies after the war. They were part of the furniture when both German states (as in nations) were founded and the one remaining state sees no reason to antagonise it's neighbours and dump something that has widespread acceptance.

Re:only 100 sites

[overunderunderdone]

as if the US went into WWII to free the Jews.

Granted we didn't go to war to protect the jews.

Why'd it take an attack on the US by Japan, if the US was really just in the war to free the people... being persecuted by the Nazis?

I would say that with the lend/lease program & flying tigers and our embargo on oil to Japan we were pretty well involved well before Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor happend for a *reason* you know.

I'd be willing to bet you could incite Pat Robertson or Billy Graham into saying the US should have stayed out of the European Theatre until all those social subversive types were eradicated....

What would make you think this? It is fine to oppose the political agenda of the religious right but don't be so blinded by your hatred of them that you become utterly ignorant of history and what they actually believe. Most American evangelicals look to people like Corrie Ten Boom, Deitrich Boenhoffer and Martin Neimoler as their hero's. "The Hiding Place", "The Cost of Discipleship" and "Letters and Papers from Prison" are bestsellers and classics among the religious right. It is not insignificant that the "religious right" in Germany, the biblical literalists - the groups & individuals most closely identified with their American evangelical co-religionists were the ONLY significant *German* opposition to Hitler.

"At this liberal seminary the students sneer at the fundamentalists in America, when all the while the fundamentalists know far more of the truth and grace, mercy and judgement of God."
-Deitrich Boenhoffer

Re:only 100 sites

[dvdeug]

It's an American idea that free speech is an essential element of personal freedom, yet you state it as fact.

What makes up the essential elements of personal freedom can't be facts; it's not something that has a factual answer. There can only be opinions here.

Re:only 100 sites

[mseeger]

And your version of Half-Life slightly altered as well, from a similar law IIRC?

Half-Life was edited too, but for other reasons. Computer games are rated for youth compatability and they omitted some blood to avoid an "R" rating. But there are patches to fix this ("blood patches" are available nearly for every shooter sold here).

Counterstrike has been a huge issue. There has been a school shooting (worse than Littleton) recently. At the same time, there was the rating of Counterstrike. As it turned out, the "killer" (16 years old) has a copy of Counterstrike (some newspaper wrote, that he "trained with it"). When the comission turned down the motion to rate counterstrike "R", the politicians were in an uproar and were talking about stricter laws.

All this discussions are very complex, most topics are highly political and the decision makers are free of clues. I love it :-(.

Yours, Martin

P.S. I'm lobbying against internet censorship for years, but as shareholder of an (small) ISP i may be biased ;-).

Re:only 100 sites

[dvdeug]

Would it be right to let those people state their opinions, even risking a 4th Reich?

I don't believe you're increasing the risk of a 4th Reich. By forcing it underground, you let it build and grow in ways that it can't in the light. Enough people can change any government, no matter what the rules are - e.g. the Russian revolution.

Re:only 100 sites

[plumby]

Would it be right to let those people state their opinions, even risking a 4th Reich?

The problem is that banning hate sites etc allows these people a nice convenient possition of "the government is scared of the truth, so they try to ban it", and as non-supporters are not allowed to read the articles either, they are not able to disprove whatever the claims, as they don't know what they are.

Re:only 100 sites

[BrianH]

There is a large difference between the two. The Nazi flag represents one thing...the Nazi government and the atrocities it perpetrated during and before WWII. The CSA battle flag is different in that it represents MANY different things to many different people. To blacks and anti-racists, the flag represents the evils of slavery. But it is important to remember that not every southerner fought for slavery. Many were fighting against what they saw as "northern domination". Because of that, many white (and yes, even some black) southerners are proud of the CSA and the war because their ancestors fought and died in the name of state freedom. And then, of course, you've got the redneck racists who hold the flag up as a white power symbol.

So, what do you do with a symbol that means different things to different people? Ban it? That just angers the people who see no evil in it...and in the south, that's a sizeable voting bloc. Not ban it? That just angers the people who view the flag as a representation of the repression of their ancestors...and in the south, that's ANOTHER sizeable voting bloc. So who wins?

Personally, I DON'T think that the CSA battle flag should fly on modern state flags, simply because there is little point in it anymore. The CSA is long dead, and it's presence is simply a nostalgic reminder of once was (kinda like the golden bear on the California flag). Some southerners get highly defensive when groups like the NAACP try to take it down, however, because the NAACP tries to paint all southerners with the broad "racist slave owners" brush, and insulting peoples ancestors like that just pisses people off. As a rule, angry people aren't reasonable.

Re:only 100 sites

[BrianH]

The American Civil War was fought over state sovereignty, not emancipation.

Actually, you've hit on one of the biggest problems with modern discussions about the U.S. Civil War. Everybody today likes to argue about why the war was fought, and wants to pick ou the ONE reason. The problem with that is there is NO ONE reason that the war was fought. To some extent, everyone is right, and everyone is wrong.

1) Slavery- Yes, large plantation owners with many slaves were afraid of losing them. Some of these people were evil racist bigots, and others were good people who inherited a mess and were desperately trying to keep their businesses operating. These people, as large wealthy business owners, had a lot of influence and loudly supported secession.
2) States rights- Most of the people who fought for the south didn't care much about slavery one way or the other. There was a strong feeling both in the south AND the north, that the states should be "independent", with only a figurehead federal government. These people didn't see themselves as Americans or Confederates, they thought of themselves as Kentuckians, or Georgians, or Alabamans. They had long complained about the northern states domination of the economy, and there was a general feeling that the northerners controlled the federal government.
3)Taxes- Yep, that's right, taxes. The northerners were really big on taxes and tarrifs, which really hurt the import/export dependent south. In fact, 80% of the tarriffs that the north insisted on, were paid by southern states. This fact angered southern industrialists greatly, and was widely viewed as an attempt to stifle business.
4) Immigration- Largely forgotten today, immigration was also a big issue in the 1850's. The northerners, for the most part, were really big on unbridled immigration to "populate the continent". Many southerners didn't care for the idea of allowing immigrants to populate the whole country (and especially the southern states), and wanted more control over who came and went.
5) Indian treaties- Here's a fact that has been almost erased from modern textbooks about the Civil War because it doesn't fit peoples preconceived notions of what the CSA was all about: Many politicians in the southern states were growing tired of the wars with Native Americans, and wanted to begin honoring treaties and make peace with the native Americans, while the northern states insisted on militarily removing them from their lands, irregardless of treaties (yes, I am aware that not all southerners agreed on this point). The Cherokee Nation itself willingly joined the CSA, and blasted the north for ignoring the very freedoms of self determination that it claimed to represent.

I'm sure that there were hundreds of other localized issues that I'm overlooking here that got other communities and regions involved in secession, but I think the point is made. There was no one reason for the Civil War, and no one brush that all secessionists can be painted with. They were not all good people, nor were they all evil. People who try to label all southerners with one label simply display a fundamental lack of understanding on the issue.

Re:only 100 sites

[JudgeFurious]

It's kind of easy to point out how completely insane something is if you can actually have access to it. Showing things from the Nazi era and making them subjects of discussion instead of banishing them from existence sounds like the way to go on this to me. You can really see just how idiotic and dangerous those people were if you have access to all the material.

On a side note you ever notice that you never see people with a mind like Einstein and a body like Arnold Schwarzenegger running around advocating White Supremecy? It's always possibly the least "supreme" white people you can imagine representing that view. They are themselves the best argument against their beliefs. Why censor them at all.

Re:only 100 sites

[mvdwege]

If the U.S. had stayed at home, perhaps Germany might not have had a prohibition on Nazi propaganda.

That prohibition was entered into German criminal law at the behest of the Allied Powers, and in practice that meant the U.S.

Mart

Re:only 100 sites

[Yokaze]

>Out understanding of those concepts is different
That is certainly a point we can agree upon.

> That is something they have to decide for themselves. So far they have chosen not to.

Is it? I'm not quite sure I understand you correctly.
It is their right to choose to become a suppressive state, actively torturing and killing people and is it not their right to choose to restrict the freedom of speech of a certain group aiming for that goal?

> I believe so. Article 19 [...]
> It is about ethics, not morals.

I agree, with you that there are some ethical principles which are globally agreed upon.
But the problem is to what extent those principles apply and which principles have priority is not agreed upon. This is my major point.

As you can see by the numbering and hopefully according to your moral codex, too, freedom of opinion and expression does not take precedence over "the right to life, liberty [and security]". (My brackets, the security part is not my idea. It is just there to complete the cite.)

You might not see those fundamental rights threatened by the free expression of the Nazis, but this to decide is up to the people concerned.

To a young, white U.S.-american with a good education (the guesstimated average slashdot user), the threat of another Nazi regime in Germany is quite meager and not worth the effort.

To a surviver of the holocaust, living in Germany, this is surely a different matter.

Whether this legislation has actually the desired effect is a different matter and not a question of ethics.
Neither you nor them can claim to have the definit answer to that question, so it is their right to make the possible mistake.

Re:only 100 sites

[BrianH]

A quick Google search turn up these. The "Declaration of Causes" is a VERY interesting read, as it provides a unique third party view into the comparative conditions present during the Civil War, and absolutely blasts the Union for the way they handled the secession.

Oh, and the Cherokee weren't the only Native American CSA supporters. The Chickasaws, the Seminole, the Creek, the Choctaw, and many other smaller tribes also signed onto the CSA. They understood that the federal government of the U.S. planned to eliminate their soveregnity and destroy them with incoming settlers, while settlers in the southern states had long recognized the Cherokee and other tribes as seperate nations with their own land. When the Union won the war, the Native Americans fate was sealed.

Re:only 100 sites

[Kwikymart]

About shouting "fire" in a crowded room, the term free speech is a little misleading. Sometimes "speech" is the act of talking, or making a point, or whatever. However, the speech they talk about in "free speech" is about making a point... it is not how you say it (in a different language, or with an accent for example), but what you say that should be free. Shouting "fire" isn't a form of speech, despite the vocal sounds, because it doesn't communicate anything worthwhile. The fact that you are using it to cause mayhem supersedes any protection of it because there is nothing to protect.

About hate speech... I am not sure that is so common sense to limit it at all. Of course, it is speech unlike shouting "fire" in a crowd. However, when does hate speech begin and political criticism of race/sexual orientation/religion end? Say, for instance, if I were to write a harsh editorial in my local paper criticizing Israelis / Palestinians for their actions, even if I didn't use slurs in it it would no doubt be labeled as hate motivated by the group I was criticizing and therefore hate speech. I would surely disagree. But the point is, hate speech laws can get a little flaky when one side of an issue considers it a good point and the other side considers it to be hate speech.

I really don't like the idea of hate speech laws, and here in Canada we do have them. I think they can be abused to limit legitimate speech. This type of speech should be considered unacceptable by our culture, but not limited by our laws.

Re:only 100 sites

[overunderunderdone]

The KPD was the only significant German opposition to Hitler; the number of Christians who opposed the Nazis was tiny in comparison.

Good point, perhaps I should clarify. The Confessing Church was the ONLY German opposition to Hitler that wasn't being victimized by Hitler. Jewish and Gay Germans as well as Communists opposed Hitler but for the obvious reason that they were his victims. The Confessing Church CHOSE to oppose Hitler when they were NOT his victims. Martin Niemollers famous poem wasn't really true about him (though he did regret that he didn't speak up sooner). He spoke up long before they "came for him" and the reason the "came for him" was because he (and Boenhoffer, and Barth & the tiny hardcore of uncompromising evangelicals) DID speak up.

Re:only 100 sites

[overunderunderdone]

Some American evangelicals think that Deitrich Bonhoeffer "was unsound not only doctrinally, but also in practice."

Half of American evangelicals think that of the other half when you get down to the fine points of theology - the more generic evangelicals think the charismatics are nuts and the fundamentalists are legalists, The fundamentalists think the charismatics are nuts and the evangelicals are libertines. The charismatics think the evangelicals are missing out on the spirit and the fundamentalists are legalist kill-joys. That is not the point. Part of this guys complaint is that conservative evangelicals of all stripes (except perhaps actual fundamentalists) revere Dietrich Boenhoffer which was MY point. If Deitrich Boenhoffer is too liberal for your tastes how about Karl Barth - he was more the intellectual center of movement anyway.

Ironically Boenhoffer would have been sympathetic to this guys complaint about his practice - That Boenhoffer should have restrained himself to civil disobedience, rescuing jews and the like rather than attempting to assasinate Hitler. Boenhoffer was a pacifist (as were most American fundamentalists of the time) and did NOT at first believe that his biblical principles allowed him to actively throw off the legitimate governmental authority even if that authority was being abused to commit atrocities. Boenhoffer's theology in this regard obviously changed - as did the theology of American fundamentalists who at the time of WWII were mostly pacifists and militantly apolitical. (one recalls the story of Jim Eliott of "Through Gates of Splendour" fame who almost failed his public speaking class because it was against his religious beliefs to talk about politics). The evolution of both Boenhoffer's and Fundamentist theology from pietist pacifism to political activism is an interesting parallel development.

Re:only 100 sites

[Mnemia]

I agree, and you should have the right to wave either one (or any other flag you want) in public. I can't understand how flag waving could possibly be considered as anything other than free speech - it's CLEARLY political speech, which should have the highest protection of all. I don't think the flying of those flags should be enshrined in state law (unless a lot of people agree that it should be), but I should be able to show my support for any flag I want. Any attempt to suppress such flags is nothing less than sacrificing the _principle_ of free speech for something as trivial as people's feelings.

Re:only 100 sites

[unitron]

"...I don't hear massive legions of young Americans calling people in foriegn countires "the great satan" or calling for their extermination."

Of course not. We've got W. to do it for us.

Re:only 100 sites

[Sj0]

What do those two sentences have in common with one another?

Don't blame google for this

[Laglorden]

My guess is that there will be many here who will moan over Google being stupid, but of course they are doing the right thing following the law of each country in this case.

If the laws are wrong both Germany and France are fairly democratic countries so advocate to change the laws instead. Make it legal to spread nazi-propaganda i Germany etc...

Re:Don't blame google for this

[BlueGecko]

Make it legal to spread nazi-propaganda i Germany etc...

Problem: even if a majority of Germans wanted greater freedom of speech, try to imagine the public outcry if a candidate campaigned on the platform:

Candidate: Und eef I am electet, I vill also leat a coalition to repeal ze anti-Nazi censorship rules in ze constitution, ja?

Even in Germany I have trouble seeing that flying with the voters or the press.

Re:Don't blame google for this

[Pius II.]

It's not as if those laws had been passed only yesterday. The respective (german) law has been in place since around fifty years. That is, if they act according to 130 StGB.
It says, basically, that whoever produces, offers or advertises "hate speech", which is defined as material "which incites to hate or violence against parts of the population or which violates their human dignity". A later addition also bans material "which denies or plays down crimes committed during the reign of national socialism".

Anti-abortionist speech is not banned at all, but it could be that it also falls under this law if it calls for acts of violence against e.g. physicians.

Re:Don't blame google for this

[CowboyMeal]

How do you campaign against this law without breaking it in the process? Even if people in Germany and France wanted to change this law, they wouldn't be able to, since all their politicains would get arrested.

Re:Don't blame google for this

[anthony_dipierro]

Eh, whatever. They should have just pulled those country sites completely in protest.

Wow

[dj28]

Those European countries sure do like to talk about their free speech. What was that about European nations scoring higher on freedom of the press, when they are asking google at the same time to censor data they deem to be 'racist'? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Re:Wow

[McCart42]

What blows me away is not the racist speech blocking, but the fact that they're blocking anti-abortion websites from google's listings--racist speech could be construed as "hate speech" and thus I can maybe see how they'd not want their children to see it, but anti-abortion (AKA pro-life, depending on whether you support it or not) speech?! How is that worthy of censorship? Oh, does it not agree with what their government believes?
Well, we get a chance to see their freedom of the press in action--let's see if any French or German newspapers cover this blatant act of censorship.

Re:Wow

[CaVi]

I haven't seen the suppressed sites, but there has been anti-abortion sites giving names of the doctors practising abortion and saying "Here are the adresses of murderers to kill".

A site which makes it easier to kill somebody by giving private information like home adress,... should be banned IMHO. Of course, some fanatics will dig the web and find that information anyway, but it is no reason to allow to publish it anyway.

If the site is hosted in a country which doesn't ban it, then it is IMHO perfectly legitimate to try to ban it from other countries, even if it is not 100% effective. Removing it from Google is not 100% effective, but it makes it a bit less accessible.

Being about anti-abortion, pro-terrorism or anything else doesn't change the fact: there are some sites which should be banned. But they should not be banned too lightly, and there should be ways to defend oneself against being banned,...

Re:Wow

[Bartmoss]

Yeah well freedom of speech ends where you step on other people's rights, like those anti-abortion sites inciting people to kill abortion doctors or Nazis who want to gas the jews.

I agree that it's a problematic issue. Note that freedom of the press is not the same as freedom of speech, by the way. You can report all you want about Nazis who want to gas jews, but as soon as you advocate it yourself, then you're in deep trouble, and in my humble opinion rightfully so.

Re:Wow

[Bartmoss]

Remember there are anti-abortion sites that advocate murder of doctors who perform abortions.

Re:Wow

[ponxx]

Have a look at the site. If that is not hate-speech, i don't know what is. Some things I read on extremist christian sites (have a look at tencommandments.org) made me feel actually sick, including suggesting the murder of all non-believers as a solution to world hunger, implicitly or explicitly condoning murder of doctors, homosexuals etc. not even speaking of generally insulting individuals and groups or religions that happen not to share their views. In my view this is hate-speech and asks people to commit crimes.

Some countries have different definitions of where the right to free speech ends, for example when it urges people to commit crimes.

In germany there would be not much controversy about censoring a magazine or group that wanted to glorify and re-instate a nazi-regime / get rid of all non-christians / foreigners / ... particularly when it includes calls to direct action.

Anyway, different countries have different standards, google.de is registered in Germany, so it has to comply with its laws, Germany is a democracy, so if people get upset, they can vote in a new government that will repeal them.

Re:Wow

[cp99]

Actually you would be surprised about how dumb fanatics can be.

I once read an interview of Peter Singer, and he pointed out that out of all of his death threats, only one was considered creditable, and the guy who was making them from his own phone, and was even surprised when the police showed up at his house.

Re:Wow

[JonTurner]

"Remember there are anti-abortion sites that advocate murder of doctors who perform abortions."

Remember there are pro-abortion sites that advocate murder of unborn babies.

If you're so damned concerned about censorship, the removal of EITHER site should trouble you. Otherwise, you're just an activist hypocrite.

Re:Wow

[cp99]

My point is that by making information such as lists of addresses of abortion doctors harder to find, you will rule out 90% of fanatics. It won't stop them all, but it does improve the odds.

Re:Wow

[Gorm the DBA]

Important difference, dude... Killing of Doctors = illegal by current laws Removing a mass of fetal matter from it's unwilling host = legal by current laws (in many places) Abortion may or may not be morally corrupt, depending on your particular moral code, but there is an unambiguous fact, it's legal.

Re:Wow

[dvdeug]

Yeah well freedom of speech ends where you step on other people's rights, like those anti-abortion sites inciting people to kill abortion doctors or Nazis who want to gas the jews.

Your freedom of speech ends where you step on other people's rights, like those carnivore sites inciting people to kill cows.

That's one view of the world; how would you feel if you could not only not eat meat, but it was illegal to even promote the legalization of eating meat?

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

"Once the government approves something, it's no longer immoral!"

-- the Simpsons (about allowing gambling in Springfield)

If any of you actually visited the pro-life site in question, you will notice that it doesn't advocate violence against anyone, it merely states that abortion is immoral and against God's law.

Re:Wow

[LWATCDR]

Not so important difference dude. In Germany in 1944 mass killing of Jews == legal
hiding jews == illegal.
Legal does not equal right.
My personal belief is
killing doctors == wrong
Abortion == wrong
Speaking your mind on the subject == right

Re:Wow

[kmellis]

The German government's inclusion of anti-abortion sites in their ban makes sense from their point of view.

The problem with the abortion debate is that no one ever makes the effort to understand the other side's position.

In this case, I imagine that the censorship of anti-abortion sites is rationalized in the context of seeing anti-abortion activism as being fundamentally anti-woman. And here I'll ask the reader to re-read my second sentence. Many, many people who are pro-choice believe either that a fetus isn't a person and therefore the only issue here is the rights of the woman; or they believe that a fetus may be a person in some sense but that any rights it has are nevertheless subsumed by the mother. Again, from their point of view, it's only an issue of a woman's right to control her own body. From that point of view, it is a civil rights issue.

Pro-life activists are no less one-sided in their position that the only real issue is the rights of the unborn child and they do not acknowledge this as being about reproductive rights at all.

My point is that I am pretty sure that probably as much as 90% of Germans see this issue from the perspective of the pro-choice position I describe above. As such, anti-abortion is equated to anti-woman, which is on par with the other things they are censoring.

I'm not saying I agree with any of the positions I've described. But at least I am able to understand and recognize the legitimacy of an argument assuming its premises. Both the extreme pro-choice and pro-life arguments make perfect sense, and are important matters of human rights, and as such are noble and reasonable, assuming their respective premises. I wish that somehow both sides would make the effort to recognize the legitimacy of each other's arguments so that, finally, the real discussion can begin--which is about whether and how much they can agree about those premises. Maybe they can't. But right now they're talking right past each other and unfairly characterizing their opponents as specifically trying to work against the implications of their assumptions. (That is to say, pro-life people characterize their opponents as being anti-life; while pro-choice people characterize their opponents as being anti-choice. They really think that being "anti-X" is really what the other side's all about. That's why there's so much rancor involved.)

Re:Wow

[JWW]

You realize of course that you are trying to justify censonship with statistics.

Think about that, doesn't that bother 64% of you?

Re:Wow

[TamMan2000]

Removing a mass of fetal matter from it's unwilling host

There is nothing unwilling about the host! People (women AND men) should not choose to have sex if they can not risk having a pregnancy. Remember, unless they were forced to have sex, they are a willing host. And just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. I really hope that the world pulls it's head out of it's ass and realizes that legal murder is going on everywhere.

A little googling will show that there is an enormous amount of evidence that the fetus is conscious (it's own life) form fairly early in the pregnancy.

don't dismiss me as some kind of religious wacko, I am an athiest.

one last thing: I am not against womens rights, I am for fetal rights, there is an important difference.

Re:Wow

[cp99]

There are some extreme cases where I have no problem with censorship (child pornography, hitlists etc).

Life isn't black and white.

Re:Wow

[Gorm the DBA]

And you're misinterpreting the argument here.

No, I don't consider it wrong that people were against slavery, or the Holocaust, or even that they are against abortion now. Freedom of thought and political opinion and all that is absolute.

However, a site that said "Here's 35 slave owners, go get a gun and shoot them" in 1855 would have been advocating a clearly illegal act against people who were participating in a legal activity, and therefore should have been treated as "incitement to violence".

Likewise, I have no objections to a site that says "Abortion is wrong, for these 37 reasons", nor do I have any objections to a site that says "We should work to change the laws of the country to ban abortions"

However, the line is very clearly drawn at "Here's 40 Doctors who are engaging in illegal acts, you as a Christian should get a gun and KILL them!!!" (oddly enough...I've never seen a website run by a Jewish person, or a Hindu, or a NeoPagan advocating violence against abortion doctors, it's always fundamentalist Christians...)

Acting within the law to enact political change is allowable, encourageable, and even worthy. Acting OUTSIDE the law to kill those who are engaging in legal activities is not. Encouraging others to act outside the law to kill those who are engaging in legal activities is not either.

And as for the "Well, then we shouldn't have fought the Nazi's" argument...you'll notice that we didn't enter the war to save the Jews, we entered it to stop expansion...and when the Holocaust was discovered and proved, the legal system acted quite nicely in punishing most of those responsible.

Re:Wow

[TamMan2000]

Although most of what you said is indisputably true, I have to say that contraception is merely a risk reducer when it comes to risking pregnancy when you have to sex. I still believe that people who feel they are mature enough, and responsible enough to engage in sex, need to be mature enough and responsible enough to accept this reduced risk. There is one fact in this discussion, pregnancy doesn't happen to the sexually inactive.

I would like to thank you for not "going off" I am very much in the minority on this issue when it comes to my social circles, and I appreciate the rational conversation on the matter. I usually only encounter closed minded, almost violent responses to my views.

Re:Wow

[TamMan2000]

I never said just say no, I said accept the risk

Re:Wow

[mesocyclone]

Nazis who say they want to gas jews are abhorrent, but unless they openly incite violence they are *not* infringing on other peoples' rights!

I know of have heard of only one anti-abortion site that advocates killing of doctors. Most pro-lifers are just that: pro-life and abhor killing, even in their cause.

Stereotyping pro-lifers to make it seem that all are like the most extreme is like stereotyping leftists by accusing them of favoring the policies of Pol-Pot.

Re:Wow

[schlach]

I still believe that people who feel they are mature enough, and responsible enough to engage in sex, need to be mature enough and responsible enough to accept this reduced risk.

Perhaps, but I don't think the decision to have an abortion is one that is taken in the absence of maturity and responsibility. It is a very difficult decision. I don't think anyone gets a giddy little thrill from "beating the system". The decision is made when the mother cannot responsibly care for the baby. If a foolish fourteen year old gets pregnant, what kind of life has she determined for herself and the baby? She may have to drop out of school, tank dreams of college, to care for her baby. She may be thrown out of the house by her parents in her time of need. She may resent the child for ruining her life. What kind of environment might the baby grow up in at that point? If she decides to have an abortion, it may be the most responsible thing she can do at that point. It's not trivial. It can cause lifelong emotional duress. It's a decision that needs to be understood with compassion, not judgement.

No one is pro-abortion. People are pro-choice because they don't want the government, especially one controlled so heavily by the fundamentalist Religious Reich, to be able to dictate one of the most serious decisions a person or couple may ever have to make. It's one of those, "Who are you to tell me how to live my life?" kinds of jobs. But the Right is very prescriptive, the way Christian missionaries have always been. I don't know what makes them tick, but I have a hard time believing it's a sincere committment to saving souls. But that's a different topic.

Every child wanted, every child loved. Massive overpopulation isn't doing anyone any favors, either. And the less outside interference in anyone's life, whether it be from relgious governments or governmental religions, the better.

I would like to thank you for not "going off" I am very much in the minority on this issue when it comes to my social circles, and I appreciate the rational conversation on the matter. I usually only encounter closed minded, almost violent responses to my views.

You and me both, my friend. I've never had this argument with anyone who wasn't in it from a fundamentalist (where the hell did that word come from, anyway?) Christian background. And usually their responses are pretty frothing-at-the-mouth, too. I favor a self-deterministic view of government and religion (I hestitate to say "libertarian"). The idea that people weren't made to be subordinate. It's only the meek or unlucky that get subordinated. But that doesn't mean there isn't room for that whole Christ (if not Christian) ethic of "do unto others", "turn the other cheek", "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", etc. So anyone advocating that I be subordinate to their laws/relgious views/whatever doesn't go over real well with me. They better ask real nice.. =)

Re:Wow

[pottymouth]

How do you go from listing doctors that perform a procedure many people consider murder, to killing doctors?? I would not pay for the services of someone that I knew committed despicable acts (say a NAMBLA member or a wife beater). If I knew my doctor was a NAMBLE member I never use his services again. However I would not kill him or condone killing him. I just would stop supporting him and his practice (get it?) with my money. No violence, just simple, peaceful passive resistance.

Preventing Google from allowing easy access to those web sites that present the pro-life point of view is an attack on free speech and should be condemed

Re:Wow

[Christianfreak]

one last thing: I am not against womens rights, I am for fetal rights, there is an important difference.

That's the first time I've heard someone state that. Thank you. Interestingly enough it seems (to me) that a woman's right to an abortion in this country gives more rights to men to take advantage of women without fear of consequences.

Re:Wow

[f97tosc]

Remember there are pro-abortion sites that advocate murder of unborn babies.

If you're so damned concerned about censorship, the removal of EITHER site should trouble you. Otherwise, you're just an activist hypocrite.

Whether the killing of an 'unborn baby' is 'murder' or not is the heart of the debate, isn't it? Well unfortunately, the debate will go nowhere, because it is just a question of semantics; how the word 'murder' is defined.

I happen to think that abortion should not be considered 'murder'. You might disagree with this opinion, you may call me immoral, but please don't call me a hypocrite. There is no self-contradiction about the position that a born and an unborn baby are entitled completely different rights.

By extension, there does not have to be any hypocricy about promoting the closure of militant pro-life sites but not of pro-abortion sites (the opposite is not true, because there is universal agreement that the intentional killing of abortion clinics is murder).

Tor

Re:Wow

[TamMan2000]

If you have sex, then you clearly did not take ALL precautions...

If you are sexually active and you think that there is not even the most remote possibility of getting an STD you are kidding yourself..

I am not trying to preach, I don't think abstinence is the right answer, I just think that sex comes with risks and people need to acknowledge them.

Re:Wow

[slipgun]

This is the best summary I have seen of the abortion debate. I am inclined to be pro-life, but I think it's important to realise that even in an issue as emotionally charged as this, the other side does have a case to make (just as with, for example, the gun debate and low tax vs high spend). Censorship of the other side's argument is (IMHO of course) absolutely and completely the wrong way to go about it... I would have a problem if my gvt started telling me I couldn't read pro-abortion material, for example.

Very nice post.

Re:Wow

[slipgun]

Go look at the "anti-abortion" site in question, http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/.

It is a hate site, including anti-Muslim hate.

It looks so stupid that it could be a pisstake.
Whether it's aimed to or not, it's managed to help give us Christians a bad name.

Re:Wow

[slipgun]

Hate to reply to my own post, but I've just noticed that all its filenames are 8.3. (eg hallowee.htm).

That's much worse.

Re:Wow

[kmellis]

"Very nice post."

Thanks; it's kind of you to say so.

I've been trying to talk to people on both sides of this issue for years. I've actually been pretty darn successful on an individual basis; but, even so, me and everybody I've influenced are but a tiny droplet in an ocean of highly-charged rhetoric and ill-will.

The point that I make in my post is why, for example, I use the terms that each side prefers for describing their own position: pro-choice and pro-life.

My own position is a little bit complicated by the fact that I do not believe in a "soul" or any other metaphysical quality of personhood. A lot of pro-lifers are "soulists"; and the assumption of a soul is, as rational assumptions go, a very strong and far-reaching one. You can just arbitrarily point to something and say, regardless of how it looks or acts, "that's a person". (It's interesting to me that many pro-lifers who are also soulists still, oddly, try to justify their belief in the personhood of a fetus on empirical grounds. I suppose that it's either a concession to our empiricist world-view, or a weakness in their faith in souls, or both.) You can also arbitrarily say that something is not a person, which is scary and has led to quite a bit of evil in the past. Anyway, for me, accepting only an empirical standard for evaluating personhood, it seems clear that the issue is both very murky and that it is highly unlikely that, ultimately, there's a "bright line" rather than a continuum. As such, I believe that a fertilized egg is not in the least a person, and a newborn baby is, and that one grows gradually into the other. And assuming that, I decide that the acceptability of abortion also gradually changes from entirely acceptable to entirely unacceptable. Since we do have to draw some arbitrary lines somewhere, I'd prefer a trimester basis which says, "Yes", "Sometimes", and "No". The problem here, of course, is that this position freaks out both extremes of the abortion debate because their assumptions don't allow for such a gradation. I think, however, that the majority of Americans would prefer such a compromise but the two minority partisan camps have complete control of the issue. The majority only makes their sentiments heard when one of the two sides gets too powerful.

Having explained my own evaluation, I want to add a bit more. Firstly, as strongly as I am committed to anti-sexism and women's rights--and I am very strongly committed to anti-sexism and women's rights--I simply can't avoid the conclusion that there's an important asymmetry involved here. Taking each extreme assumption and seeing them as a statement about an indivudal's rights, it's hard to see those two sets of rights as being, at their extremes, equal in importance. The right to live clearly trumps almost all other rights, including reproductive rights. For me, this is only a problem to the degree to which I accept that there's a person to whom the right to live is in jeopardy. Near the beginning of gestation, I don't see a person at all, and so it isn't an issue. On the other hand, because there's an asymmetry, and because it's tilted in favor of the fetus, I am not comfortable with a continuum which assumes a balance between the two, which my preferred legal framework seems to assume. For that reason, during the middle period when it's "sometimes", I would weight it towards "No", rather than "Yes" ("it" being the acceptability of abortion).

Secondly, because the pro-life assumption is an assumption of personhood, and because (assuming personhood) it is an issue of life and death, even though I personally don't think that an early-term fetus is a person, I see pro-lifers as heroic and noble, assuming they are what they claim they are. They think they are trying to save millions of lives. In a world where millions upon millions of people have been killed in the past with their murder justified on the basis of their lack of personhood, I prefer the existence of people that fight against that and be wrong in the specific than that those people not exist at all. The very history of liberalism is one that constantly expands the definition of the class of beings that possess inalienable rights. It is better to include than exclude. It is better to error in inclusion than error in exclusion. It bothers me that more pro-choice liberals don't understand this.

And, having said that, I want to make something very clear: many pro-choicers explicitly do not believe that pro-lifers are what they claim they are. As I said earlier, many pro-choicers believe that pro-lifers are specifically anti-choice. And while it is very unfair to characterize the pro-life position as being essential anti-choice in disguise; it also is the case that many pro-lifers really are essentially anti-choice. You can tell this by a correlation between pro-life views and sexist views. I steadfastly refuse to estimate how many pro-lifers are really anti-choice. I steadfastly refuse to let their existence be my model for all pro-lifers. But I also believe it is important to acknowledge their existence. As for pro-choicers being "really" anti-life; that is much more unlikely for the exact same reason that the pro-lifers have the more morally compelling position. It's far more acceptable and reasonable in our society to be sexist than an advocate of murder.

I hope this has been helpful or thought-provoking for you. Thanks again for the compliment. It's nice to know that someone's listening.

Re:Wow

[schlach]

Killing a life before it ever has a chance to live is wrong. And whether it is illegal or not is irrelevant - it doesn't make it right.

I couldn't agree with you more, which is why I assert that abstinence is the biggest killer of unborn children in America. Abstinence is prescribed by law if she's under age. Help us repeal the Age of Consent laws, and less children will be murdered by abstinence every year... ; )

Why don't I ever hear that argument coming from Jerry Fallwell...

Re:Wow

[Bartmoss]

Bovines are not people. Now, a case could be made that cows at least feel pain, so should not be killed and eaten; but then there is the problem that some people claim plants can feel pain as well. Whatcha gonna eat then?

If there are reasons to ban the eating of meat that compare the reasons why you should not kill people - the shocking revelations that cows have achieved sentience - then yeah you should treat them the same.

Sorry, but I am afraid until then you have no point.

Re:Wow

[Bartmoss]

I have not seen the sites in question; however, I assume they have to be radical enough to be grouped in with nazi sites.

On principle, I still disagree with you. Even if the site is not about killing, it can be illegal enough to ban it. Consider libel/slander: You can NOT say ANYTHING you want. If I publish an article in a paper making untrue claims about you, then I am sure you'd appreciate the article pulled at the very least.

Re:Wow

[Bartmoss]

Speaking your mind on the subject == right
Advocating murder of an individual == wrong

That is the whole point, that kind of site brings personal danger to people who do nothing wrong and who just happen to disagree with your personal code of ethics. If you do not like it, change the laws. In any democratic nation (Germany 1994 was not), laws represent the morals of the people (yes, not quite, there is at least a delay while legislation catches up, but the principle is a sound one).

The whole point behind having laws is to escape anarchy. Laws set a common standard which people ought to follow. If they don't, society eventually breaks down.

So, organize campaigns, write your congressmen, whatever works in America. But trying to get abortion doctors to stop their practices by advocating murder of them is, as tired as I am of the word, terrorism. Sorry, but you have to face that truth.

Re:Wow

[Bartmoss]

Big difference: It's a huge moral/ethical/philosphical question when an unborn baby stops being a lump of cells and starts to be a human being. In France, for example, I think that point is defined as 12 weeks, not sure about other countries.

But no-one can argue that an abortion doctor is a human being.

Re:Wow

[dvdeug]

Bovines are not people.

That's your opinion. Strict Hinduism would disagree. If you live in a society that believes that bovines are people, for whatever reason, is it right to jail you for disagreeing?

Re:Wow

[Bartmoss]

Mind you, no-one is being jailed for voicing their opinion.

Now, if this society you propose does in fact believe that bovines are people then yes they are within their right to stop people from calling to murder them. Now, if I had proof that bovines afterall are not people, then no they should not jail me but rethink their laws.

Good luck in proving that doctors are not people.

Re:Wow

[dvdeug]

Mind you, no-one is being jailed for voicing their opinion.

Yes, actually they are. Nazis in Germany are jailed for expressing their opinions.

if I had proof that bovines afterall are not people

If you have proof that bovines aren't people, I'd hope you share it with us, as the truth and falsehood of that statement is linked with the same questions about the gods and the nature of the universe that humans have been debating for at least 3,000 years. Only interested in actual hard evidence here, though.

Good luck in proving that doctors are not people.

You really don't understand philosophy, do you. It's not a matter of proof; we know what we can prove in philosophy is absurdly trivial. Now, most philosophers agree on what a person is, with some debate on the start. But even being a person is not sufficent to get you the right to live in all places; some countries still practice the death penalty.

Re:Wow

[Bartmoss]

Yes, actually they are. Nazis in Germany are jailed for expressing their opinions.

Not really. They get jailed for glorifying the third reich, or for denying the holocaust actually happened. Otherwise I wager that most of them get thrown in jail for pession of weapons or other such acts. I have no statistics at hand.

If you have proof that bovines aren't people, I'd hope you share it with us

I was following your example. As for biological proof, it should be easy enough to make. The big question is, are cows self aware, and where do we draw the line? Personally, I'd say a 6 weeks old fetus / collection of cells is much less a living being than a cow.

But even being a person is not sufficent to get you the right to live in all places; some countries still practice the death penalty.

Actually, all humans have the right to live, it's in the Human Rights that I am sure pretty much every nation has ratified (well maybe with some exceptions). Now, living up to these ideals is an entirely different thing.

Now, to draw the circle back to the abortion doctors: It could be argued that, under the law of a nation, a person revokes his "right to live" by committing some horrible deed. Murder, whatever. In a democratic nation, this is the will "of the people". Where abortion is legal, and doctors perform abortion, they do not commit anything unacceptable, but people threatening (or trying) to kill these doctors definitely do.

You see, you don't even have to bring philosophy into it. The social norm is that abortion is okay, and those who disagree can and should make their points, but once they use violence, they disqualify themselves from the discussion.

Note also that the government has the task of protecting its people, and that includes said doctors. So shutting down a threat to society - websites that condone random violence - is totally acceptable. Why should it be okay to say "this person has to be killed" but not to actually go ahead and kill him? It's not even said in the heat of the moment. If we allow such things we might just as well get rid of governments altogether and live in anarchy. I seriously doubt that this would be an improvement.

They're all ready slipping down the slippery slope

[Mantrid]

So it probably sounded like a good idea to filter out Nazis...everyone hates Nazis right? (except the Nazis) While we're at it let's censor White Supremicists, cause we all hate them too.

Yay censorship! Oh wait while we're at it, let's censor everyone who has a different point of view on abortion from the state view...well at least half the people will be happy...

What's next? Oh we don't like this site, it says unkind words about Jacques Chirac...ban it please...

Not as Bad as it sounds

[osiris]

I dont think that this is as bad as it sounds. Its not like they have removed the indexes completely from their databases. Only their .fr and .de sites. That would be complying with local laws as .de and .fr TLDs are specific to those countries unlike .com/net/org which are considered worldwide.

If these people want to search for these sites, they can still fire up google.com.

Guess it does seem a little pointless like that but they are complying with local laws for countries they are operating in which i think is fair.

And as another poster pointed out, they probably checked each site individually to insure that they were offending sites and not just done automatically.

Re:Not as Bad as it sounds

[sebi]

If these people want to search for these sites, they can still fire up google.com.

As a matter of fact they can't. Access to google.com is restricted. I am in Austria and can go to google France, Germany or Belgium. But if I try to go to google.com I am automatically sent to google.at. And this can not be circumvented by changing the Language settings of your browser.

Re:Not as Bad as it sounds

[sebi]

Yes it does. As I said - going to national google sites does work. Google.com is restricted though.

Re:Not as Bad as it sounds

[mshiltonj]

Its not like they have removed the indexes completely from their databases. Only their .fr and .de sites.

What's to stop french or german citizens from going straight to .com and not using the nation specific googles?

Re:Not as Bad as it sounds

[pg133]

I don't think its your ISP that's redirecting you to google.at.

Why don't you just click on the "Google.com English" link on the "google.at" web page, it will bring you straight to google.com!

This fixed the problem, (as describe in a previous post), for a user from German with a similar problem. I guess it just google itself, "trying to be helpful" doing the redirecting.

France should know better

[techstar25]

Maybe the French should try re-reading the works of French, postmodern writer/philosopher Michel Foucault, who wrote that repression of ideas and restriction of speech leads to discourse. France should know better. Now, Germany on the other hand . . .

Ineffective?

[A non moose cow]

What prevents French people from just using Google.com ?

Re:Ineffective?

[Glanz]

They are using a "redirect" in Frogland...., much as they do here in Quebec, Canada. I can't get to google.com. I am always redirected to google.ca no matter what I do.

Re:Ineffective?

[lovebyte]

In France, I use this:
www.google.com/en

Re:Ineffective?

[the bluebrain]

YMMV, but try this:

1) Goto Google.
2) Click on "Preferences".
3) Edit the URL in the address bar to read "[...].com[...]" (instead of "[...].ca[...]"). This should not cause a redirect.
4) Click the "Save Preferences" button. You get the "Changes Saved" JavaScript popup.

Any subsequent access to google.com should no longer cause a redirect. If you track the cookies, BTW, you should see a brand-new one created by points 1-4 above, which overrides any existing one you have.

Re:Ineffective?

[CrystalFalcon]

That none of them speak English, and that even pretending to be able to read such a third-world language such as English is a gross social offense? :-)

Re:Ineffective?

[Mike Schiraldi]

Quiet, you fool! You'll ruin everything!

Re:Ineffective?

[Glanz]

It doesn't work for me at all.......

OT: Kids and drugs

[Ted_Green]

"And drugs being illegal makes it less attractive for kids too, right? *sigh* "

Do you seriously believe that rubish?

Yes, drugs being illegal makes them more attractive to "some" but I wager it makes it that it also makes it that much less attractive for the majority.

Just because somone's a kid, isn't going to make them a rebel against all law.

Re:OT: Kids and drugs

[Scarblac]

Yes, drugs being illegal makes them more attractive to "some" but I wager it makes it that it also makes it that much less attractive for the majority.

I live in the Netherlands. Cannabis is basically legal here (well, have to be 18+ to buy it, and the "coffee shops" have to buy it in secret, but it's practically legal). The theory is that cannabis isn't very harmful by itself (less than alcohol or even tobacco), and making cannabis legal prevents users from coming into contact with dealers of heavier drugs. Plus of course, if you can't beat it, tax it - aka Dutch pragmatism :-)

According to a recent study by the EU anti-drug organization, see also this newspaper report, cannabis use in the Netherlands is average, with 20% of adults having tried it at least once (the UK and Denmark, which stricter laws, are at 30%).

Also, Britian, Luxembourg, Italy and Portugal have the most problem users, with 6 to 8 cases per 1000. Austria, Germany and the Netherlands, which all have more liberal laws, have 3 per 1000 problem cases.

So it does seem that legal cannabis does not lead to more use, but might prevent problem use (of more potent drugs, usually).

Re:OT: Kids and drugs

[jasonditz]

I guess that's why drug use is so much lower now than it was back when it was legal...

errr, waitaminute.

Well the french are offensive...

[phunhippy]

Well since the french are offensive in general.. maybe we should simply ban all references to the french on google.com :) except for the links to the "French WWII rifle, never fired, only dropped once"

Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[joel_mac]

How the heck did that get lumped together in the same group with pro-Nazi, white supremacist and anti-semitic sites?!?!?
Pro-Nazism, white supremacy and anti-Semitism are all hate-driven egocentric nationalistic racial biases. How the heck does the Pro-Life movement fit in with these groups?

joel

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[glesga_kiss]

Perhaps what they're referring to is sites that encourage violence against abortion clinics and doctors, including publishing addresses and other details?

In which case they pretty much amount to terrorist sites...

They can't possibly be terrorists. You have to be an Arab to be a terrorist. If you are white, you get called militas, militants, activists or the DC sniper.

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that a drunken driver who hits a woman walking into an abortion clinic to have an abortion, can be charged with manslaughter of her unborn featus? Yet if given just 20 minutes more the the "doctor" would cause a partial premature birth and then hack the fetus with a knife.

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[NumberSyx]

How the heck did that get lumped together in the same group with pro-Nazi, white supremacist and anti-semitic sites?!?!? Pro-Nazism, white supremacy and anti-Semitism are all hate-driven egocentric nationalistic racial biases. How the heck does the Pro-Life movement fit in with these groups?

Blowing up Womens Clinics, then planting more bombs in the dumpsters outside to kill Policemen and Firemen are acts of Terrorism. Assassinating Doctors is Terrorism. Advocating political change through violence against a civilian population is advocating Terrorism. Checkout The Nuremberg Files, this is pretty clearly a website supported by a hate group and inspite of its Christian trappings, has nothing what so ever to do with the teachings of Christ.

Mind you, I do not advocate suppressing these sites, these people, as sick as they are, have the right to say whatever they want. However, Google is a private company, they recieve no government funding and is therefore within thier rights to de-list any site it feels is objectionable. It is no more censorship than a TV broadcasting company refusing to show full frontal nudity during prime time.

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[coastwalker]

The pro life group has been associated with the murder of doctors.

Of course interestingly you would have to add the Animal Liberation Front in the UK too if censorship were similarly applied.

Some of the ALF members have such fanatical views that they try and kill people who are involved in various kinds of research involving the use of animals.

You could say that the groups involved in this ban might be deffined collectively as organisations known to be or suspected to be engaged in terroist activities.

The main reason why everything to do with them isnt banned - appart from the weak outrage that might be generated over "government thought control" amongst the general population - is that if they are in the open, then they are easy to catch.

Drive seriously antisocial people underground and you cant catch them when they step out of line and start killing people. We can all wonder what wacky group the Washington sniper either belongs to or would belong to if it was legal - and if a member of that group might give the sod away if the pile of dead children gets too high...

The ban in Germany and France on Nazi propaganda is a slightly different local issue which recognises a historical problem that many people have fond memories of the Nazi party and it is not the political policy of the majority to allow that view to be passed on to new generations. This is sadly part of modern life - it used to be called "thought control" in the time of the cold war, but we now recognise it as a necessary social evil and call it "political correctness" - reinforcing an intellectualy acceptable idea which society is moving towards but has not yet accepted universally.

Whatever, almost no one in Europe has any time for the Nazi party. After all whatever the validity of Nazi policy, in the end they were proved complete arseholes who failed and destroyed europe in the process. So we dont want them back thankyou very much. Or the websites of their misguided fans who could pick someone more politically acceptible like Alexander the Great, to hero worship - who incidentaly suceeded.

Its interesting to reflect that the Pro Life people are now being seen as very little different to Osma Bin Ladins Al Quaida. It used to be a topic of conversation that the far right were very little different to the far left though I dont hear that debate much these days.

Sounds like the major political issue of our time is not about how we are Govern'ed. Now its about what tolerance and accomodations are made for differences within societies and between societies.

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!?

[isorox]

It is no more censorship than a TV broadcasting company refusing to show full frontal nudity during prime time.

Those bastards should be stopped from that censorship!

google.pt (and others) to be affect soon too

[Cyclops]

Legislation is being prepared in the background that will force them to comply, as well, in Portugal. Freedom of Speech _does_not_ exist in Portugal either (even though the constitutios says it does), which makes laws like this very dangerous.

protesting abortion banned?

[Fuzion]

I can understand (even I don't agree with) their reasons for blocking anti-semitic, and white supremacist speech, because it's hate literature. I can find similarities between them and anti-slander laws. But why are anti-abortion sites banned? Isn't that going a little too far? There are enough people on both sides of the issue, and I can't see the justification for censoring people opposed to abortion.

Can't quite put my finger on it...

[banzai51]

I remember some Slashdot story. Something about the US being, oh what 17th in the world for free press? France and Germany ranked in the top 10 if memory serves (and I am only going by memory here). Guess I have a different opinion of what free press is than the enlightened lawmakers of France and Germany.

The Clash song Know Your Rights has never been more appropriate.

Re:Can't quite put my finger on it...

[zenyu]

But Google has removed sites from it's index in the US too. Just different ones for different reasons. The Free Press listing was from Reporters without borders which is an organization concerned with the physical intimidation, arrest and murder of reporters. Even those countries ranked 1st aren't angels either, just better.

Re:Can't quite put my finger on it...

[zenyu]

If Google took them down from it's US site, then they did so voluntarily, not by government decree. Important difference.

It is an important difference, but I believe at least links to Scientology websites were taken down due to fear of court rulings after the 2600 case in New York. Now I know the 2600 case isn't a precident for California, but courts do look for how judges have ruled in similar cases in other jurisdictions. Plus, if you look at what doesn't have 1st ammendment protection in the USA it's generally either sexual, inciting to violence/revolution or copyrighted; pretty much the same as Europe. Where the draw the fuzzy line is different, but not in any real sense.

My biggest problem with Google's policy is that they don't just remove files from their cache, but from the searchable index as well. That makes every search suspect. At the very least they should publish a list of every URL/IP/domain they block, so we can verify whether the consorship is just. Very few people think all censorship is unjust so we're not gonna win that battle.

But also it highlights how oppression elsewhere can chill freedom everywhere.
I would change the elsewhere to anywhere.

This just doesn't work!

[Dr. Spork]

I bet you the pages of these idiots got more visits from all the people whose curiosity was piqued by the bad. They must be thrilled to be banned! I bet you there are some Nazi sites and "Holocaust Never Happened" sites and "Bush is Smart" sites that are like "hey, what a rip! How come we didn't get banned! That's bloody favoritism!"

Censorship...

[pdboddy]

Google's a target, that's for sure, it's a drawback to being highly successful. But Google has to follow the laws of each nation it is based in. So of course Google.de and Google.fr had to remove the links. It *could* make a stand, and challenge the laws, but does it really want to put the time and effort and money into such a legal challenge? These laws have stood, what, almost 60 years? Take a look at ChillingEffects.com and see how many cease and desists Google has to wade through... for simply having a link to a controversial site.

Re:Censorship...

[Citizen of Earth]

So of course Google.de and Google.fr had to remove the links.

So are the Google.de and Google.fr servers actually located in those countries? How about Google.ca? Canada has certain laws that outlaw certain types of speech too.

In response to the submission

[photon317]

There's a difference between supressing *all* speech about a bad topic like those listed, versus just supressing the speech of the active supporting groups. In at least some of these cases I'd be willing to bet they banned (for instance) an anti-semetic hate-group's website, but not another that merely discusses anti-semitism in a rational and moral light.

Re:In response to the submission

[photon317]

Dear Mr Stupid Fucking Cowardly Anonymous Poster,

To discuss something in a rational and moral light means to have a meta-discussion about the moral and rational ways that the thing can be viewed. Your view that niggers and jews are crushed under your boot are as valid in that discussion as anyone else's. You missed the point, and then made yourself look stupid by announcing your ignorance and calling me a dumbass. Try it without being anonymous next time moron.

Anti-Abortion sites?

[goodEvans]

such as this one? Or this?

Need global playing rules

[jukal]

Otherwise, the final result will be that each country will have it's specifically censored index which will ultimately result into a mess which does not change anything but only makes hypocrites feel good. There is not much you can do by applying local rules, and in the context of internet every corner of the globe is local. Ohh, and this is not a free speech campaign - IMHO, it is just stupid that even at this very exact moment tens or hundreds of people are wasting time & money trying fix the problem with the wrong approach. As the publisher of the site with racist content said:

It's really a French and German issue rather than a Google issue."

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[sql*kitten]

So it probably sounded like a good idea to filter out Nazis...everyone hates Nazis right? (except the Nazis) While we're at it let's censor White Supremicists, cause we all hate them too.

The list of what's censored is in an of itself controversial. For example, pro-Fascist sites are censored... what about pro-Communist sites? After all, Stalin killed 20M or more of his own people in his purges compared with 6M in the Holocaust. Anti-abortion sites are censored, what about pro-Catholic? After all, Catholics oppose abortion.

Note that I'm not claiming to be pro or anti anything in this post, I'm merely pointing our some gaping inconsistencies that render the policy meaningless, and hence probably mere cheap political point-scoring rather than a serious attempt to suppress hate-crime or make the world a better place. Assuming you believe in hate-crime; my personal opinion is that it matters little to the victim what the criminal's motivation was.

Even more meaningless than it would be if French and German users couldn't simply point their browsers at google.ca.

Censorship Vs Information

[Ravenn]

Hypothetical Question:

A [German|French] student needs information on WWII, and the political aftermath. Where can they find information on anti-semitism and white supremacy groups to add to the project?

Same student needs to study the socio-politcal problems facing modern medicine. They know that others are choosing stem cell research or cloning, and want to do something with more information. They choose abortion. Where did all the statistics and one side's propaganda go? They need to offset one point of view with the other side, and can no longer access pro-life sites.

Propaganda is still propaganda, regardless of truth. But politically, propaganda is what the opposition puts out, and must be eradicated.

Not good. Not good at all...

Ravenn

Re:Censorship Vs Information

[Alsee]

BOOKS... nothing can teach you a topic better than a few days in the library.

Not if your topic is the crap currently being spread by a censored group. And I'd say that is a perfectly legitimate topic.

-

This is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to democracy, people. France and Germany are both democratic countries that have decided (along with most of Europe) that racist speech is not acceptable in society. The government isn't trying to dictate what people think, or say privately, but in public we expect people to behave in a certain way (eg. masturbation in public is not okay).

It saddens me when I see white supremacists in the USA campaigning outside schools for the removal of black teachers and children etc. If we need laws to stop that kind of abuse, then we have no other option. Your freedom to speech stops when it promotes violence and hatred towards other people. Don't forget that even in the USA theres no such thing as freedom of speech - try writing an "ANTHRAX-HOWTO" or setting up a pro-terrorism website and see how long it lasts. Its just a matter of drawing the line somewhere, and in Europe we draw the line closer at protecting personal freedoms - the freedom to live in peace is more important than the freedom to kill/promote killing.

Re:This is a good thing

[A non moose cow]

I disagree.

Taking nazi, etc. content offline does not stop the proliferation of the actual practice of it. All it does is hide it from the public. Why should people not be allowed to look up information about something that they are curious about?

It seems that it would be much better for curious people to be able to read about these things in the safety of their own home, rather than having to attend a fan-club meeting about it. Generally I believe that people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves about ideas like anti-semitism, because the fools that believe in such ideas tend to represent themselves poorly. Apparently Germany and France do not think their citizens are smart enough to make their own decisions.

Personally, I occasionally visit Communist and Socialist web sites. I don't do this because I believe in either philosophy, but because I am curious about why other people believe in them. What this typically ends up doing is re-affirming my notion that these ideas are inherently flawed (I'm not trying to start a debate, this is just my opinion). If I could not reach web information about these ideas because my government prevented me from doing so, what am I supposed to think? Is the government hiding these sites from me because there is some merit in their ideas?

Re:This is a good thing

[Dr. Bent]

Your freedom to speech stops when it promotes violence and hatred towards other people.

Violence? Yes. Hatred? Of course not. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre but you're free to tell everyone that you think the director of the film is a complete asshole. Some people may think hate speech against certian groups is offensive (Eminem, for example), but nobody's forcing you to listen to it, and it is certinally not illegal. Nor should it be...that's not how we operate here in the U.S. (regardless of what those nutcases over at Reporters Without Borders say).

Re:This is a good thing

[ratamacue]

France and Germany are both democratic countries that have decided (along with most of Europe) that racist speech is not acceptable in society.

A "country" does not decide anything. A "country" (or more generally, a "society") is nothing but a collection of unique individuals, each with unique viewpoints on any given issue. Government is also nothing but a collection of unique individuals. When you say that a "country" has decided to pass a law, what you really mean is that an elite group of individuals (belonging to the class "government"), who were selected to rule over the rest, have decided to force a standard on the people. Once elected to office, these individuals have absolutely no obligation to represent the common people's interests, or even to keep the campaign promises they use as bait to achieve power.

Democracy is not the magic bullet some people would have you believe. Democracy could very well result in fascism or communism. Do you really think that the majority of US citizens approve of (for example) using their tax dollars to poison the crops of poor Columbian farmers, causing sickness and death to entire communities, in an attempt to reduce the supply of cocoa plants used to manufacture cocaine? Do you really think the majority of US citizens approves of government using their tax dollars to keep troops stationed in 144 countries around the world? These decisions were certainly not made by the individual members of society; they were made by the individuals belonging to the group called government.

Re:This is a good thing

[mesocyclone]

In the US, you can put up an ANTHRAX-HOWTO and you can set up a pro-terrorism website, and it is perfectly legal (although the latter has a few limits).

Fortunately, in the US we have constitutional democracy. In other words, we have checks and balances to prevent the majority from violating constitutionally protected rights of minorities.

Of course, our self-admiring universities, actively try to suppress speech that *they* don't like, but that abhorrent practice is not as bad as the state passing censorship laws.

I think Germans should be able to read Nazi hate propaganda. It is good to be able to understand how these groups operate. They should be able to read pre-WW-II Nazi propaganda in order to understand how a majority of Germans supported Hitler well into World War II.

As far as the suppression of the jesus-is-lord site, it looks to me like hate speech suppression. Jesus-is-lord is audacious enough to attack certain acts of certain muslims: Muslims are killing, raping, torturing, mutilating, kidnapping, and enslaving Sudanese Christians in their Islamic jihad ("holy war").

The fact that this statement happens to be true is apparently not enough for the site to avoid censorship.

Or maybe it is their attack on the Catholic Church? Somehow I doubt the European governments are all that fond of protecting it!

Or maybe it is their complaint about abortion?

But nowhere that I saw (and I didn't have the stomach or time to read beyond the front page), the site does NOT preach violence or hate.

In general, the site is pretty bizarre and offensive, but to deny their citizenry the right to read it is wrong and silly.

Given what gets posted on slashdot, including this posting, maybe Slashdot will be next on their censorship list!

Re:This is a good thing

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

The Anti-Nazi laws in Germany were imposed on the country immediately after WW2. By the Allies. They have widespread acceptance here - the point being that the sites in question are basically telling offensive lies about what happened 60 years ago (it is not: 'we did it and it was right' but 'it is all lies, we never did a thing'). Most adults are pretty immune to this stuff, it is the kids who are liable to be more impressionable.
Most of us went through a phase of: 'it is in print so it must be true', or the printed word at least looking more authoritative at the age when kids are re-evaluating their beliefs.
As to the Anti-Abortion sites, it will be the ones advocating killing Abortion Doctors which are being 'hidden', anything else would be totally unacceptable here.

Re:This is a good thing

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

Maybe to a certain extent. I thought about this in depth after having posted it and it it seems to be an 'age' thing. I am in my late 40's and have become less inclined over the years to trust kids' rationality. Some will always bite.
Or maybe it was an ex-girlfriend who corrupted me, she believed in Ufos because she read something convincing enough for her. It turned out that her Ufo beliefs had more than a passing resemblance to those in the National Enquirer (which she will have never read).

As to your second point, starve them of publicity and they bleed in private.

Re:This is a good thing

[SuperMario666]

Get off your high horse. It saddens me to hear about the recent wave of synagogue burnings in Europe and when I see Jean-Marie le Pen place as high as he did in the French presidential election.

Racism exists in every nation. Censorship is not the answer.

Oh, and the whole, I see white supremacists in the USA campaigning outside schools for the removal of black teachers and children etc thing. That went out of style a long time ago. You'd get laughed out of town in even rural Alabama if you tried that. You should be bitching about white flight, which accomplishes much the same thing. I imagine you would expect the government to ban relocation to the suburbs.

So, ummm, in conclusion, I guess I'm just trying to say that the government cannot and should not be a womb.

not only France and Germany

[lovebyte]

According to the Harvard report, some sites that Google does not list include 1488.com, a "Chinese legal consultation network", and 14words.com, a discount Web-hosting service and some conservative, anti-abortion religious sites. Those sites do not appear to violate either German or French laws.
This is a particularly surprising move though. The German and French laws against racist speech are well known, but why would google remove sites like the ones mentioned in the article and that I have reproduced above? Certainly not because of pressure of the French or German governements.

Interestingly, 14words.com, which seems to be just a web-hosting company, is in the following category in google directory:
Society > Issues > Race-Ethnic-Religious Relations > Hate > Hate Groups

Re:not only France and Germany

[FeloniousPunk]

"14words" is a white supremacist rallying cry. It refers to the number of words in some mission statement that some neo-Nazi came up with. I vaguely remember adding 88 to it had some other significance, but have since forgotten. There was an article in a Der Spiegel issue sometime back about the women in the neo-Nazi movement and how they utilize the internet for their political ends.

Re:not only France and Germany

[overunderunderdone]

It is somewhat ironic that you are defending the french and german position to ban anti-semetic sites but have a link to electronicintifada.com in your .sig.

I'm not saying that being against isreali policy or even anti-isreali is the same as being anti-semetic (otherwise *I* would be anti-semetic). BUT some argue (wrongly) that it IS. Electronicintifada.com appears to be a good faith and fair-minded site. But many of the other pro-palestinian sites and even reputable, government sanctioned Arab newspapers have started to do more than just dabble in sentiments that ar unarguably anti-semetism & banned by German law - denying the holocaust (& then expressing regret that it "never happened"), perpetrating the blood-libel (that jews sacrifice gentiles & drink their blood during religious festivals), publishing "the protocols of the elders of zion" and "Mein Kampf" (the arab version with Hitlers opinion of Arabs deleted)).

Electronicintifada.com appears to have no link to any of these sentiments and I it doubt would be banned but it is possible. Similar good-faith sites have been caught up in censorship of their disreputable allies. I'm sure the nuremburg-files.com is the kind of anti-abortion site intended to be banned, but I wouldn't doubt at all that an organization like operation rescue could also be banned. It is painted by it's opponents as a violent terrorist group - Yet they disclaim violence & murder while advocating protest and civil disobedience. If Electronicintifada.com had powerful political opposition in France or Germany it would not be surprising at all to find them caught up (perhaps inadverantly) in this effort to censor anti-semetic sentiments that are being expressed in even reputable Arab news sources.

"The truth is that such persecution was a malicious fabrication by the Jews. It is a myth which they named 'The Holocaust' in order to rouse empathy.
-Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (The largest daily in the PA)

For this holiday, the Jewish people must obtain human blood so that their clerics can prepare the holiday pastries. In other words, the practice cannot be carried out as required if human blood is not spilled!
-Dr. Umayma Ahmad Al-Jalahma of King Faysal University in Al-Dammam in the Saudi government daily Al-Riyadh

(the Holocaust) is nothing more than a huge Israeli plot aimed at extorting the German government... But I, personally and in light of this imaginary tale, complain to Hitler, even saying to him from the bottom of my heart, 'If only you had done it, brother, if only it had really happened, so that the world could sigh in relief [without] their evil and sin.'"
Fatma Abdallah Mahmoud in he Egyptian government daily Al-Akhbar

All of these papers & sites & many others would be banned under the German law. Even Al-Jazeera has had cross-fire style argue shows where three out of four panelists (and arguably the moderator) denied the holocaust. It is not hard at all to invision a wide array of pro-palestinian sites being banned - even those that don't publish such ideas themselves.

Re:not only France and Germany

[overunderunderdone]

It is somewhat ironic that you are defending the french and german position to ban anti-semetic sites

I did no such thing.

But you did, or at least implied that you did. You said:
"Maybe they only host that kind of content .. ?
Which to me implies that it's OK then to censor "that kind of content" even when the site itself was for the hosting service and did not have "that type of content" itself. Much like electronicintifada.com does not have "that type of content" but likely has at least some links to sites that do.

You also said:
I have quite a lot of faith when it comes to Google, they've done the right thing lots of times.
When the action in question, the one you have a lot of faith is the right thing is the censoring of opinions offensive to the French and German law.

To be honest I am not actually suggesting that the French and German position, and the decision of Google to comply with those laws without protest is actually wrong. There is a case to be made that some speech really is beyond the pale. "Fire in a crowded theater" and "The constitution is not a suicide pact" and all that. I was simply pointing out that your cause and the site in your .sig are not unlikely to be the victims of such censorship if it steps even a little over the line - I thought that ironic.

Re:not only France and Germany

[overunderunderdone]

Maybe you should stop assuming in the future, and admit you don't know.

Huh?

Actually...

[Atzanteol]

"And drugs being illegal makes it less attractive for kids too, right?"

Yes. Not nearly as many kids do drugs now as there would be if they were legal. How many more kids smoke cigarettes? Even that is in decline...

anti-abortion? wtf?

[Ender Ryan]

Is it against the law in fr/de to be against abortion, and speak about it?

Re:anti-abortion? wtf?

[lougarou]

It's not. It's against the law to encourage people to kill the doctors that do the abortion operations. It's against the law to post their portraits with "Wanted" written under it.

is it possible ...

[beta-tim]

... as i live in germany and use an german ISP i always get redirected to google.de even if i visited google.com(the language changes to english and it looks like google.com but sitll the name i read is google.de) my question now is is it possible for me to go to the .com page and STAY there and search the .com index or will google always redirect me?and if the index has to be censored in germany because google.de doesn't want to be sued in germany, is it then legal for me to search the .com index(that is hopefully not censored) or do i become a criminal then? hopefully someone with some knowledge about laws can help me

Re:is it possible ...

[pg133]

I don't think its your ISP thats redirecting you to google.de.

Why don't you just click on the "Google.com [English]" link on the "google.de" web page, it will bring you straight to google.com!

'Net law.

[RPoet]

This is what may result from the internet being evenly accessible from all over the world. You need to comply with a set of laws forming the "lowest common denominator" of all laws in the world, eventually - meaning that the strictest laws is what you comly with. Sad, and dangerous.

Re:'Net law.

[cyberformer]

No, sites ending in .de must obey German law, those ending in .uk must obey British law, those ending in .fr must obey French law.

This makes life harder for Web companies, but it's not unreasonable. You may not like the laws that says they can't publish anti-semitic propaganda in Germany or anti-Scientology information in the U.S., but you can't blame Google, Yahoo, etc. for obeying them.

Google seems to use geolocation

[Raetsel]

I believe that Google uses some sort of IP address database or geolocation system. When I set up a computer for the in-laws (who live in Maine), setting the start page to www.google.com automatically and instantly redirected to www.google.ca.

No matter what, it wouldn't give up the plain vanilla .com version -- go figure.

Maybe Prexar (their ISP) routes through Canada? Or perhaps they're using a set of IPs that ARIN has listed as Canadian. Who knows, I didn't dig that deeply into it.

At any rate, it sure did a damn good job of keeping me away from google.com. Yes, I know a proxy server would solve the problem... but proxying all of France and Germany? Ouch. Even with Google's lightweight "do the search and get 'em out" philosophy, I wouldn't want that bandwidth bill!

If only it was possible!

[Anonymous Coward]

Greetings,

First of all, I absolutely agree with you. Censorship is never the right way to go after ideologies of debatable morality. The only thing it's gonna achieve is make its proponents feel persecuted, and as such, it legitimates their views.

Thing is, you absolutely CAN'T touch those anti-racism/antisemitism/whatever laws. It's a very, very touchy issue over here, and some organisations will scream bloody murder if you ever even want to open the debate about it. (Note that it's the same organisation -- *not* the government -- that had the Yahoo auctions censored, for example). If you want to open the debate then you're obviously a racist antisemitic extreme-right wing nazi and should be dragged out and shot. So the debate is never opened. Heck, Sharon called Chirac an antisemite when France stopped supporting his attacks on Palestine.

And it is growing into a REAL problem. People are so afraid of being thought of the extreme-right that they'll never speak up, but brood in their corner instead, and then (other) people act all dumbfounded when the extreme-right candidate suddenly makes it to the second turn of the presidential elections.

While opening the debate will allow to laugh the extreme-right into oblivion in a matter of minutes, to everyone's benefit. Sigh.

Oh well. Now you can mod me (-1, Flamebait) for obviously being an antisemitic nazi bastard. :/

(Posted anonymously, for obvious reasons -- I dared open the debate, so now I'm gonna play it safe and hide.)

Re:If only it was possible!

[DaytonCIM]

How the HELL do you legitimize the slaughter of three million people?

Huh?

That attack came out of nowhere...

Re:If only it was possible!

[fferreres]

Anti-abortion = Neo Nazi? I don't know, but I don't like abortion. Just like you can't kill someone alive and outside, you can't kill someone inside.

In reality, I don't kind abortion (meaning getting the child out of you) as long as you don't kill it.

Abortion = preserve a human live
Nazi = genocide non-arians

This is really fsckd up. Law != Truth. Nazism is bad and abortion is not, no matter what law has to say about it. Really.

Re:If only it was possible!

[DaytonCIM]

I definitely understand why you posted Anon.

Thing is, you absolutely CAN'T touch those anti-racism/antisemitism/whatever laws. It's a very, very touchy issue over here, and some organisations [uejf.org] will scream bloody murder if you ever even want to open the debate about it.

"Over here" I suspect means Europe? We have the same situation in the US. But we have it two-fold. One, if you don't support Israel, then you're anti-semitic. Two, if you don't support the war on terrorism, then you're anti-american.

You can't win with everyone, nor should you try. German and French laws prohibiting Nazi propaganda are derived from fear and hatred of the past. No one in Europe wants another facist, murderer, yet Milosavic (sp) was pretty damn close, and no one did much to stop him. Oh the irony...

If you want to open the debate then you're obviously a racist antisemitic extreme-right wing nazi and should be dragged out and shot.

Pretty much the same attitude here in the states. If you don't support the troops, then you're anti-american. If you don't support Israel then you're a nazi. If you don't support Cuban exiles, then you're a communist. Etc... All of it meaningless rhetoric. Problem is, if you get enough people spewing meaningless rhetoric, then it becomes opinion and soon after, policy.

But then we have great technical sites like /. to openly discuss these types of issues... damn, there's my bleeding-heart, liberal sarcasm again.

Re:If only it was possible!

[StarFace]

Easy, drop a couple of nukes on civilian cities to end a war. They managed to spin that one quite well.

Re:If only it was possible!

[Sj0]

What attack? It's just a very spirited question. We're not talking about an abstract concept like communism here, we're talking about backing a group that killed millions of innocent people slowly. How do you legitimize something like that? How do you make the common man sit back and say "well gee, you know what? Those nazis never hurt anybody! Why can't we just let them live in peace?" knowing what we know about the nazis?

Re:If only it was possible!

[Sj0]

The original post I responded to said that by banning nazi propoganda, we'd end up legitimizing the cause -- everybody knows that the nazis killed millions of innocent people. How do you legitimize that?

Read the article for God's sake

[nutshell42]

Also banned is Jesus-is-lord.com, a fundamentalist Christian site that is adamantly opposed to abortion.

I haven't read the page just looked around, abortion seems not to be the main topic (there's a number of pictures which put rotten.com to shame though) of the page it's more like an "Anti-*" page against anyone and everyone. Probably they violated hate-speech laws somewhere in one of their texts, wouldn't surprise me

Linking ain't illegal in germany!

[Qbertino]

This is all just preemptive stuff by google.
You can only get into trouble if you deliberately 'hardlink' a foreign site with illegal stuff (Nazi propaganda, Al Quaida rallying and the likes) and at the same time recommend contents of that link and make them part of your opinion ("sich zu eigen machen").
If you've got a disclaimer on your site, you can even hardlink it. It is then seen as more of a kind of 'journalistic quote' than anything else.
No need to go bashing at the 'krauts again. ;-)

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[NeoSkandranon]

Anti-abortion sites are censored, what about pro-Catholic? After all, Catholics oppose abortion.


To the best of my knowlege, Catholics generally don't advocate the murder of people who are pro abortion. that's the difference

What does this imply?

[cr@ckwhore]

Somehow this implies to me that anti-abortion views (read: pro-life, anti-murder) are supposedly "evil" just as pro-nazi views are assumed to be "evil"... at least according to the French government. Its a simple assumption to make.

First of all, nobody controls the free speech (supposedly) of US entities. Secondly, who decided that Anti-abortion, Pro-nazi propaganda is offensive? Are the french people that weak that their government decides whats offensive to them?

I happen to find pro-abortion sites offensive, but I don't rally for google to block those sites from their index! My respect of free speech and other people's opinions to be far more important that the content of their views.

So, lets think about the implications of this for a moment. The French government has the power to remove listsing from the internet's most popular search engine. Ok, so there are a couple hundred governments in the world that could do the same. [sarcasm]Wouldn't it be great if other governments hopped on the bandwagon and reduced the quality and accuracy of search results for the entire world? [/sarcasm]

What if another country decides that chickens are offensive? Do they now have the "right" to lobby Google for removal of chicken websites from the index?

Re:What does this imply?

[lovebyte]

slow down cowboy.
As has been said multiple times below, there is no law in France or Germany that prohibits anti-abortion speech. The fact that an anti-abortion site is blocked is, for the time being, a mistery.

Re:What does this imply?

[DAldredge]

So does thei 'anti-violence' law also outlaw abortions? I personaly can not think of a more violent act.

History

[Halo1]

No, it will definitely not make those things go a away or prevent them, just like a law that allows most people to carry guns will not really make a country more safe or prevent government oppression. It's just history: the US has been occupied for a long time and the Founding Fathers did not want to risk that the people would ever again be oppressed by the government, so they made the carrying of guns a fundamental right (at least, that's the way I understand things).

In Europe, people didn't want such horrible things as the holocaust to happen ever again, so to help prevent that they banned all sorts of hate speech, since that was what the Nazi's used to rally the people against the rest. This wasn't about curbing the rights of the people regarding what they could say, but to try to stop speech that promotes the limitation of freedom of other people (YMMV of course, but that's the intention).

Neither is a real solution to the "problem" they want to prevent, but nevertheless a lot of people hold on to them because their symbolic significance is quite big. Just like getting rid of that amendment would be interpreted as "Ok, now they're coming for us because they want to take away our rights to carry weapons", getting rid of those hate-speech laws would pretty much signify "Well, the holocaust wasn't that bad after all, who cares if a couple of people start again with spreading such crap and other hate speech".

Which one of these things. . .

[polyphemus-blinder]

is not like the other?

Is it just me, or does anti-abortion stick out as being rather unlike pro-nazism and anti-semetism?

I hope that the sites in question were militant anti-abortion sites--otherwise this is the most illogical grouping I've seen in a long time.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[_Spirit]

There is a difference between nazism and communism.

Nazism killed a lot of people, the wish to eradicate groups of the population being an integral part of the nazi ideas.

Stalin might have done the same, but communism itself is not about killing or suppressing people.

My point is that people have wronged other people in the name of some ideal or other for as long as we know. What makes nazism different from the others you mention is that it tells people to wrong other people. That can never be right in my book and might even be reason to censor.

So a site that is against abortion is ok, a site telling you to kill doctors who perform abortions is not.

Use a proxy server

[splorf]

like www.anonymizer.com.

What about Google's stated policy

[splorf]

of notifying www.chillingeffects.org when they got a censorship demand? Government censorship shouldn't be treated differently from Scientology censorship.

Re:What about Google's stated policy

[The Cydonian]

The distinction is that this is not "Fan Fiction, Copyright, Domain Names and Trademarks, Anonymous Speech, and Defamation.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[WCMI92]

"So it probably sounded like a good idea to filter out Nazis...everyone hates Nazis right? (except the Nazis) While we're at it let's censor White Supremicists, cause we all hate them too."

And the black supremicists, and the christian fanatics, and the muslim fanatics, the man haters, the woman haters...

It can go on and on. Which is why it's better to censor NO ONE. The cost to society is far less in letting the KKK march than the cost of allowing the government to have ANY power to prejudge speech.

USA is only 17th on "freedom of the press" index!

[liberteus]

Hey wait, this is France and Germany censoring Web contents.
Please people before commenting on how bad is the situation of "freedom" in the US look at your own countries first!

(note: I am FRENCH)

BASIC violations of free speech.

[Gannoc]

They ban sales of Mein Kampf? So they're burning books in France and Germany?

These are the people who we're worried about offending with a conflict with Iraq?

This isn't some quirky "Can I block an intersection/burn a flag/show porn in public" free speech issue, this is "This book contains material we don't like, and it reminds us of something we'd rather forget. Ban it."

We can discuss the erosion of civil rights in the United States after 9/11, while the readers from overseas loudly criticize the president, but I suppose if this was Europe, we'd be banning terrorist literature and shutting down Islamic web sites.

Re:BASIC violations of free speech.

[Nicolas MONNET]

"Mein Kampf" is not banned from bookstores; it is just required that it features a warning notice.

I'm not sure I understand what good this notice is, but anyway ...

Those laws are useless and, arguably, may do more harm than good, but fighting them with disinformation is not going to make it any better.

in France figth against Fascists is not over !

[gillus]

Some facts that you don't seem to be aware of :

• yesterday two fascist skin head have been convinced of the murderer of a gay in a public park
  
• a month before a rascist did "drive by shooting" against an arab cafe. a youth of 17 killed IIRC
  
• one month ago an muslim homophobic has stabbed the mayor of Paris because he didn't like the gay politician.
  
• few months ago a member of the former "unite radicale" tried to kill Jacques Chirac the french president
  
• we're living constantly under the threat of the fascist Lepen
  
• we have plenty of regionnalist, nationnalist, independentist groups who dop bombs just every week.
  
  • 
    
    France is not a democracy, there are political prisonners. Germany and US are not democratic also !
    
    If you feel that we should enforce freedom of speech for the fascist, no problem, just give the a green card !
    
    

The problem is elsewhere

[imr]

The real problem in France is that there is no laws done for the internet. So basically, and IANAL, they use laws on publications.
There are laws on what you can write in a publication, laws on what kind of foreigns publications you can distribute on the french territory, and so on. And they don't fit the internet.
Instead of building from the ground up new better laws, they try to enforce those laws, a process which require brutal force and a lot of resistance to stand being ridiculous, since they don't fit the internet.
Did I mention that they don't fit the internet?
The real problem has nothing to do with speech freedom. A lowering in speech freedom is just a consequence, even if a bad one. The description of this problem is better explained in the famous text of John Perry barrow "The Economy of Ideas". Seing the origine of this text and famous US laws I read about in /., I believe this is not a european related problem. At least the US proved that "made for the internet" laws can be worse than old unfitting laws. :(
Now on the anti nazi issue: 2 things.
1/ We did suffer a lot from our own behaviour during those years and do not trust us anymore on this subject. Good luck to you in being better. (sorry, I doubt it)
2/ This laws are actually a part of a vast protection scheme against real existing threats. The use of publications is at the core of the extreme right wing movements in Europe. This movements are extremly well organised, dedicated in seizing the power by all means necessary. They succeeded once and are not to be let loose again.
Would the guard be lowered just a little on the publication issues that there would be massive propaganda denying the Jewish extermination soon followed by massive lies how the nazi regime was great and in fact prevented from doing a righteous governmentship by this terrible coallition. All this followed by flows of trials to prevent real journalists from doing their work. From this on, they would make their base grow. Yes, they would.
3/(yes, I know) Unfortunatly, since the political partis in place learned nothing from history, they continue to play the "security" card to use the "extreme right wing" movements against their opponents. Miterrand(left) used the national front to lower the votes for the righ wing and stay elected 7 years more. Chirac(right) just did the same recently.
Unfortunaly those laws are still needed. Yet they do not fit the internet and result in highly ridiculous trials. (After the yahoo affair, some of the plaintiffs were disappointed because nothing that came out of the trial was about what they were complaining about. Of course since they used laws which were not about their problems. They recognised that, had they known that, they wouldnt have sued in the first place).
Until the day when governments really adress issues of poverty (and people stop electing morronnic puppets), there will be ground for "political" movements based on hatred and laws to hold them.

This Isn't a Free Speech Issue

[reallocate]

Since Google operates in France and Germany, why shouldn't they be expected to obey the laws of those countries?

This is not a free speech issue. Google is a private company making its own business decisions. They're under no obligation to index everything or to enable access to everything they index. If you don't like it, too bad -- take your business elsewhere.

Nazism and abortion

[Quill_28]

I was under the understanding that Hitler was for abortion. An easier way to get rid of those he wanted. Much like the founder of planned parenthood. She was for abortion so the riff-raff wouldn't reproduce.

Re:Nazism and abortion

[echucker]

An interesting theory, but one I doubt. While the NSDAP was ruling Germany, women were given medals for "producing" more children for the Reich. Upon reaching the four, six, and eight child levels, a woman would recieve the Honour Cross of the German Mother. If memory serves, the ancestry and race of the child (and family) had to qualify as Aryan. Images of the medals can be seen here.

Re:Nazism and abortion

[mshomphe]

I was under the understanding that Hitler was for abortion. An easier way to get rid of those he wanted. Much like the founder of planned parenthood. She was for abortion so the riff-raff wouldn't reproduce.

Just because Hitler was 'for' something doesn't make it invalid. Hitler also (probably) believed 2+2 == 4. Should we rewrite mathematics since an evil person believed this and espoused this view?

If someone arrives at a conclusion by faulty/evil/misinformed logic, the conclusion could still be true. You just have to find the right path to get to that conclusion. Perhaps it is true that the founder of Planned Parenthood wanted to control breeding in the 'riff-raff', but the right to control your own reproductive abilities is a good thing. And it's good for both ends of the spectrum: those that are infertile can take fertility drugs (if they wish); those that do not want offspring can ensure that they will have none.

Re:Nazism and abortion

[Quill_28]

>Just because Hitler was 'for' something doesn't make it invalid. Hitler also (probably) believed 2+2 == 4. Should we rewrite mathematics since an evil person believed this and espoused this view?

Can we take something completely out of context?
What are you talking about?
The article was written that nazism and anit-abortion as they were related to each other.

Oh... that's TOO bad

[sielwolf]

I guess then you just have to use the US google German or French language versions to get all of your anti-abortion and nazi web searches.

Swiss people have agreed to such laws

[krouic]

Switzerland has similar laws that make public "incitation to racism or negation of crimes against Humanity" an offense. These laws have been challenged in a popular votation and the majority of the voters decided to validate them.
I voted against them, but being a democratic person, have to accept what the majority decided. Of course this votation took place at the time of highest wave of political correctness and no opinion leader dared publicly express a negative position, for fear of being labelled as a nazi supporter.

Now, this workaround is interesting...

[Noryungi]

This is based on Declan's article (Hi Declan!)

I am using Opera 6.03 uner Linux.

Entering "Stormfront" in the "Internet Search" field gives me [hit n.1] "stormfront.org -- Stormfront White Pride" neo-nazi web site we all love to hate.

If I enter "http://www.google.com", I get re-directed to "http://www.google.fr" and "Stormfront" does not appear in the results anymore. Screenshots available upon request.

On the other hand, I can always go through my main (US) ISP and browse google.com without redirection.

What's the moral of the story? If you are a [French|German] neo-nazi, and you have a [French|German] ISP use Opera to go around the google limitations. Or get a USA-based ISP.

What's the moral of this moral? Geolocation does not work!!!!. Moronic solution such as this one are simply to easy to avoid. And, yes, UEJF, that one is for you.

Whether neo-nazi opinions are worth defending is left as an exercise to the reader...

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Eagle7]

You say:

In fact there is, by definition, no censorship in Germany.

and then say:

Any restrictions must be justified either by yells of "think of the children" or by some other law, e.g. Holocaust denial is a punishable act specifically mentioned in the Strafgesetzbuch ("book of punishments").

So it sounds like you're actually saying "There is by definition no censorship in Germany, if you define censorship as not applying to any speech against the law," which is pretty meaningless. One could argue that the Anti-Abortion lists are similar to the "Yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" argument, but stopping holocaust denial - as repugnant as most people might find those sites - is censorship, plain and simple. One of the costs of living in a free society is that not everything is warm and fuzzy - I wish more people would remember that.

Not hypothetical at all

[mblase]

A [German|French] student needs information on WWII, and the political aftermath. Where can they find information on anti-semitism and white supremacy groups to add to the project?

At google.com, of course. Most of those students will know English well enough to navigate the site and set their preferences to return matches only from German/French-language pages, if that's what's desired.

Re:Not hypothetical at all

[mblase]

But as someone else pointed out, countries can shape and redirect traffic back to their own TLD. How can you get google.com if you keep getting google.com.fr back?

If they're actively doing that, they surely have the power to block the offending sites as well, and they wouldn't have had to ask Google to stop matching them in the first place.

conundrum

[telstar]

One company breaks the law **cough*MSFT*cough**, they get chastized...

Another company DOESN'T break the law **cough*GOOGLE*cough** they get chastized...

Like it or not ... agree with them or not ... Companies should adhere to the laws within which they operate. If you disagree with the law, take it up with the law makers ... but don't take blame the company.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[dvdeug]

Catholics generally don't advocate the murder of people who are pro abortion.

Anti-abortionists generally don't advocate the murder of people who are pro abortion. The extreme fringe does not speak for the group.

German law

[oku]

Although not a lawyer, I will provide some info directly from Germany.

One possible problem that Google has is that recent German laws make a site's owner responsible (among other things) responsible for all linked content, unless there is some explicit disclaimer of a certain form. It sounds strange, but even if you cannot control the linked site, you are still responsible.

Another peculiarity of German law is that it is very inclusive. It claims to govern (more or less) all actions done by a German, to a German, or in Germany. I.e., it affects Google even if all servers are on the other side of the big lake, simply because the download happens in Germany.

This is very annoying and impractical, but do not expect those who make laws to understand the Net.

Some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you want to impose us YOUR truth

1. French and Germany are Democratic country. Repeat it 1000 times.

2. Dont be surprized when DMCA apply to other country.

3. You disagree with these europeans laws, but realize most people are fine with it. We perhaps dont have nazis stuff, we perhaps dont have guns, but we dont have snippers in our citys.

4. All comments to defend europeans views are modded "Insightful", how nice !

5. You know what, its illegal in france to put name of doctors and asking them to be killed. If thats a problem for you and want these names use google.com not .fr

Re:Some thoughts

[Stonehand]

You certainly do have guns in your cities.

It wasn't that long ago that a man with a pistol shot some of your Parliamentarians, if memory serves; and likewise, somebody tried to kill Chirac with a rifle (but from a rather close distance, suggesting a curious lack of clue from the wannabe assassin). ...and I'd be surprised if France did any better in completely prohibiting Nazi paraphenalia.

Germanies Free Press

[ACNeal]

So German press reports that Germany has a freer press than USA. Then we get an article about their censorship.

Germany has a more open press, as long as you don't talk about anything that might upset someone?

Re:Germanies Free Press

[Rhubarb Crumble]

So German press reports [slashdot.org] that Germany has a freer press than USA. Then we get an article about their censorship.

And if you read the original article (by a french, not german outfit BTW), you will read that:

"The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings."

No mention of actual censorship. Although the american media has a reputation for being good at self-censorship, i.e. 'don't criticise the president while we're "at war"' and all that.

Re:Germanies Free Press

[mesocyclone]

Obvious this poster doesn't read the New York Times, watch network TV or in general partake of the dominant media in the US, which has a long history of critizing presidents during war - especially republican presidents.

The journalists arrested for failing to reveal their sources simply highlights the natural conflict between freedom of the press and the need of the people to be protected from criminals. None of these people have been imprisoned for refusing to reveal *political* sources.

Re:Germanies Free Press

[Spruitje]

No mention of actual censorship. Although the american media has a reputation for being good at self-censorship, i.e. 'don't criticise the president while we're "at war"' and all that.


Heheh, that's why i'm always watching bbc world instead of cnn.

Re:Germanies Free Press

[mesocyclone]

Regarding US press self-censorship...

The NYT is and has long been hostile to republicans and conservatives in general. They take every opportunity to hurt the president and his policies. The same is true of the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, the major networks and CNN (perhaps less so since they have lost leadership to FOX).

However, after 9/11 I don't think the NYT felt like self censorship. I think their natural reaction to the attack was to retaliate (although few at that time were talking about bombing Iraq). If your city had just been attacked that way, and you were in the press, you might also be a "war monger" (term normally applied by the left to the right) for a while.

Now it is true that the Guardian, which you cite as some sort of reference, is even more reflexively anti-Bush than the New York Times. But in Britain, unlike the US, the media are at least willing to admit, or brag about their particular editorial biases.

The US press does indeed in self-censorship, in the sense that they select which stories to cover of the myriad of possible subjects. But this selection is based on their editorial biases (which they don't admit to having) rather than some odd idea like "don't criticize the president."

Re:Germanies Free Press

[dinotrac]

>But in Britain, unlike the US, the media are at least willing to admit, or brag about their particular editorial biases.

Which is something I find far more commendable than pretending to be objective when you are not.

The truth is that every human is biased and our biases affect what we do, even when we make a serious effort to be objective.

More to the point, if you really are trying to be objective, admitting to your own biases has a way of ensuring an extra bit of diligence WRT your efforts at balance.

Re:Germanies Free Press

[mesocyclone]

All of the Clinton scandals were first published by the right wing media, and the rest picked it up because they had no choice at that point.

Bush got plenty of media coverage about all you described - in fact, the coverage of his business dealings was far worse than the actual fact of his dealings.

Re:Germanies Free Press

[sg_oneill]

Yay! Someone said it!
There is a magic quote from University of Queensland, Australia, academic John Hartley on the News. Unfortunately I can only paraphrase as the exact wording eludes me;- Propoganda is more honest than News because Propoganda admits it's bias.

It's one thing that I like about the indymedia press etc is that it's alternative propaganda to news propaganda. You can then pick and choose which fool you wish to believe.

What's Google got to do with free speech?

[Winterblink]

Someone explain to me why Google is being slagged for removing these items from their indexes? Yes they're a popular search engine, but at what point did the idea surface that they were required to maintain some kind of free-speech or anti-censorship policy? It's their site, their database -- they can do with it whatever they want. It's also not as if Google has taken down the sites it's removing from their indexes -- as much as I object to the content those sites might have on them, they're still available for people to read.

Re:What's Google got to do with free speech?

[oldstrat]

Someone explain to me why Google is being slagged for removing these items from their indexes?

I will.
Google is being 'slagged' because it affects the integrity of Google as an impartial (aside from the programmed rules) producer of search results.
Of course you are right Google can do anything with it's property that it wants, and it will have to suffer the barbs of the consumer in response.

I do appreciate that for the most part they are only complying with the law, however the results are the results, and results don't care about the law.
The results will be tainted by the fact that the dataset has been corrupted and can no longer truely be 'trusted'.

You cannot change the fact that hate groups exist by hiding them. I know this is not Google's intent, it's the laws intent.
Failure to collect the information that these groups exist, the levels they exist at, and the mis-information they are trying to spread will diminish the ability to see them, and hence to fight them.

"Just cover your eyes and it will all go away." Nope, won't happen.

Re:What's Google got to do with free speech?

[Winterblink]

Google is being 'slagged' because it affects the integrity of Google as an impartial (aside from the programmed rules) producer of search results. Of course you are right Google can do anything with it's property that it wants, and it will have to suffer the barbs of the consumer in response.

Hold on: what consumer? You? Me? I know I haven't paid for Google, therefore I have no right to demand quality *anything* from them. The fact that I use them as a search engine for free and get decent search results back is just gravy to me.

I do appreciate that for the most part they are only complying with the law, however the results are the results, and results don't care about the law. The results will be tainted by the fact that the dataset has been corrupted and can no longer truely be 'trusted'.

TRUST doesn't factor into it because I never signed an agreement nor read ANYTHING on the Google website that lead me to believe the results would be 100% authentic. *shrug*

Re:What's Google got to do with free speech?

[Alsee]

What's Google got to do with free speech?

Google has become the de facto single greatest filter of what information people see on the internet, though I'd say AOL is comparable. Most Slashdot readers already consider AOL to be the worst way to access the internet, and we have a pretty low oppinion of those who use it. Few of us use AOL.

It is that we have an extremely high oppinion and expectations of Google, it is important, and it affects us.

-

Re:What's Google got to do with free speech?

[oldstrat]

Hold on: what consumer? You? Me? I know I haven't paid for Google, therefore I have no right to demand quality *anything* from them. The fact that I use them as a search engine for free and get decent search results back is just gravy to me.
The fact that you do not pay anything directlty to Google does not mean you are not a consumer.
One of the definitions of consumer is n:a person who uses goods or services.
You _have the right_ to demand anything, getting it is another story.
Also don't forget that individuals are not the only consumers of Google's output. Business of all kinds use the Goog, as well as institutions of learning and the government.

Trust factors into everything, I can't debate that point. The Internet is an interconnected network of trusted systems.
You don't have to sign an agreement, It's your fault that you didn't read this; http://www.google.com/terms_of_service.html
This is the part that put's Google in hot water ...
The sites displayed as search results or linked to by Google Search Services are developed by people over whom Google exercises no control. The search results that appear from Google's indices are indexed by Google's automated machinery and computers, and Google cannot and does not screen the sites before including them in the indices from which such automated search results are gathered. A search using Google Search Services may produce search results and links to sites that some people find objectionable, inappropriate, or offensive. We cannot guarantee that a Google search will not locate unintended or objectionable content and assume no responsibility for the content of any site included in any search results or otherwise linked to by the Google Search Services.

Bold added by me.

Google being a corperation operating in the public venue is obliged, by law to comply with the law, and to meet it's public obligations. The agreement above that you, me, and Google agree to when I use it is being violated... hence trust is damaged.

The last part of the paragraph above from the agreement is something I count on, I expect, hope and deman content that is offensive to me.

Re:What's Google got to do with free speech?

[Winterblink]

I guess the point to be made by your bolding of that particular line is that no screening of sites occurs -- which is NOT what the line reads as. It states no screening occurrs BEFORE adding to the indices. It follows with the statement "A search using Google Search Services may produce search results and links to sites that some people find objectionable, inappropriate, or offensive." The two together seem to be mean to indicate objectionable material CAN be filtered out after being added to the indexes, and that the content could be found before that occurs.

Re:What's Google got to do with free speech?

[oldstrat]

.
I guess you just decided to overlook this part;
'...assume no responsibility for the content of any site included in any search results'

When they prefilter by exclusion because of content they do take responsibility for the content.

It's a slippery slope they've started down and my concern isn't just for the quality of a Google search, but for the survival of Google itself.
The French and German governments seeing that they cannot control non domestic content, are attempting to control the ability to find that content.
I suspect, that they may be violating thier own laws in putting the onus on Google, being that Google is only a near real time index of sites, not the owner of the content.
Are known hate groups and individuals removed from the local telephone directories and 411 type information services?

Google itself may be going too far in compliance, it would seem to me, depending on the wording of the court order, removing the K and P items (see http://www.google.com/help/interpret.html) would be enough keep Google out of any connection with republishing content forbiden by law and identified by authorities.

Re:What's Google got to do with free speech?

[Winterblink]

I guess you just decided to overlook this part;

Not overlooked -- ignored. We were discussing the filtering of their indexes, not the content of the sites available from the search results.

Google itself may be going too far in compliance

Again -- it's their website. They can comply much or as little as they want, as it pertains to a court order.

I suspect, that they may be violating thier own laws in putting the onus on Google

More than likely, but that doesn't mean they have any kind of jurisdictional authority to enforce their laws on Google. As sovereign nations they have the right to control things that come in and out of their country -- information included. We don't have to agree or disagree with that policy. Regardless, that's ALL they can control.

Re:What's Google got to do with free speech?

[theLOUDroom]

It's their site, their database -- they can do with it whatever they want.
No they can't. Otherwise they wouldn't be removing these links. Duh.
Just because you own something doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. There are laws you know.

Having you site removed from search engines is a very big deal. Imagine a book sitting on a shelf in a giagantic library that does its book numbering randomly. If someone removes it from the card catalog (electronic or otherwise) that book might as well not exist becuase anyone looking for it can't find it.

Re:Another common misconception

[NumberSyx]

But lumping members of the pro-life movement along with the terrorist action of a few pro-lifers is being extremely shortsighted and unwitful. Dumbass.

You didn't read beyond the first line did you. If you had, you would have gotten to this part;

this is pretty clearly a website supported by a hate group and inspite of its Christian trappings, has nothing what so ever to do with the teachings of Christ.

Re:Statistics are funny things...

[Scarblac]

Regardless, all these posts about drug use really don't have to do with the original point of my offtopic post, which was simply that the majority of kids don't do illegal things because they're illegal.

Yes, sorry for dragging the thread further off-topic, and good point about the 15-16 yos.

Anyway, I think it's actually more likely that those kids listen to what their parents tell them is bad, instead of what's illegal. Kids know that copying music and games is illegal, but all of them do that, basically... Otoh, cannabis may be "legal", but most parents still aren't very happy to see their kids use it.

Uhm, yes. The topic. Nah, Google delisting stuff on a few national sites just isn't so interesting :-)

Re:Well the french are ... more OT

[Howzer]

Hey, funny comment! Those dumb Frenchies, ho ho ho. Boy you're a card. Pity about the rifle slur, which shows a vast lack of anything approaching knowledge about WWII.

You may be interested in repairing that ignorance. Here's part of the picture:

A certain General S.L.A. Marshall did unimpeachable research after WWII which determined, among other things, that out of all the American soldiers directly involved in fighting (ie. infantry) in World War II, only 15 to 20 percent of them ever fired their weapons.

It's an odd statistic, but a fascinating one. It's all in this book, which I recommend to everyone, and not just makers of half-funny "those dumb frogs" comments on slashdot.

Mod this man up!

[Brian_Ellenberger]

I would +1 Insightful if I had any mod points. I can't believe someone modded this down as flamebait.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[Eagle7]

Ah... I understand now. Sorry about that.

Censorship etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

In France and other European countries, there are those who remember the Nazi holocaust of WWII -- perhaps they have a right not to be reminded of what happened. In Germany, many are very sensitive about pro-nazi propaganda -- they have learned from their country's past.

To say that their censorship of such material is wrong is to say that the efforts of Germans to learn from their past mistakes has been in vain.

Let me remind those in the US that there has been much self-censorship since September 11th -- for example the film Spider-Man (the film was recut to remove references to the Twin Towers). Currently, there are arguments being made that a film featuring a sniper should be banned.

I am a strong supporter of freedom (including free speech). But I also recognise that there are times when, in the cause of the common good, censoship is important. For example, giving out the names and addresses of those suspected of working in abortion clinics, and advocating their assasination, is clearly wrong.

Some may argue that abortion is wrong, but either way, change must be brought about peacefully by following the legal channels.

History is rife with examples of successful peaceful protest. American history is particularly rich in such respect.

Personal freedom is hugely important, but I believe that community freedom is far more important. Americans have the right to bear arms, but this personal freedom results in thousands of deaths in the US each year. In countries where it is illegal to own firearms, death rates from gun-related incidents are almost zero.

Saying that the French or German government's laws banning pro-nazi propaganda is wrong is xenophobic and naive -- there is a rich history behind those laws, designed to protect the community and its way of life. Both countries have functioning democracies, have good education, healthcare, standards of life and are important players on the world stage.

Perhaps the US should look at itself in a new light -- how many of its freedoms are harming it?

Consership is only oppressive when it is used by a powerful government to pull the wool over the eyes of its citizens. As a non-US citizen, I am always amazed at how one-sided US and pro-administration US news-sources are, compared to the rest of the world, who tend to get a far more balanced picture of world events.

So, is the US really the nirvana of free speech its citizens think it is?

Re:Censorship etc.

[Stonehand]

Pro-administration?

Tell me, when was the last time Bob Herbert or Paul Krugman wrote a column which actually agreed with the policies of the Bush administration? And, in case you don't recognize their names, they both work for a little newspaper you may have heard of -- the _New York Times_, one of the most well-known papers in the world. You must also have missed Dan Rather (again, not exactly buried in some backwater indy news site) suggesting that oil might be a motive in an Iraq war, the heavy criticism all-round about Bush's initial dissing of the "ballistic fingerprinting" scheme, the frequent lacerating of the previous administration during its tenure...

So, tell me, are you ignorant, or were you just trolling?

BS -- Communism is at least as racist as Nazism

[swb]

There is a difference between nazism and communism.

It's unfortunate you don't know what it is.

Nazism killed a lot of people, the wish to eradicate groups of the population being an integral part of the nazi ideas. Stalin might have done the same, but communism itself is not about killing or suppressing people.

"Nazism" is the expression of the political will of the National Socialists in Germany, which was a rather demented expression of a more general poltical philosophy which arose in early 20th century Europe known as Fascism. Nazism injected a lot of flawed ideas about racial supremacy and a number of very radical solutions to the problems presented by the supposition of Aryan racial supremacy.

It's possible (but incorrect) to argue that because the known governments that reasonably qualify as fascist (Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain) were all fairly repressive, dictatorial governments that fascism itself is a repressive, dictatorial political philosophy. But the same arguments can thus be made of communism -- all of the communist governments I'm aware of all have abyssmal human rights histories that make Nazism look like a 5th grade civics project.

Stalin's purges killed millions, including deliberately and specifically targeting non-Russian ethnic groups like the Ukranians, Armenians, Jews, Central Asians in addition to "normal" political enemies of communism. China killed millions in the cultural revolution and has a terrible track record of repression of non-Chinese minorities in the far western Muslim areas and in Tibet. Pol Pot slaughtered a third of the population.

Often the motivation for killing in communist countries isn't stated deliberately as promoting a racial hegemony but is instead phrased in propaganda as "fighting the enemies of the people" or "the enemies of the revolution", but strangely they're always the same ethnic group.

I think there is some missing information here

[Arker]

I am in Sweden, but my localisation settings on this machine are for English. I pull up google.com without ever having a problem. At the same time, another computer on the same net, setup in Swedish, does pull up a localised Swedish version when I type in google.com. So it has to be more complicated than just looking at your network number.

Godwin's Law

[Monkey-Man2000]

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law on this article.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[operagost]

I am ... but it's for his appearance in Battlefield Earth.

I'd put Hubbard away for that if he was still alive.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[jamie]

"stopping holocaust denial - as repugnant as most people might find those sites - is censorship, plain and simple. One of the costs of living in a free society is that not everything is warm and fuzzy - I wish more people would remember that."

Well said.

I've been involved in combatting Holocaust-denial on the net for ten years. I work with The Holocaust History Project, have transcribed and helped translate documents, including those about gas chambers, and have prepared information on deniers. I've even co-authored a lengthy and highly technical paper on chemistry of the Auschwitz gas chambers.

I think it's deplorable that Google has bent its knee to the German government in this way. Practically speaking, it's unfortunate because this gets the neo-Nazis and Holocaust-deniers more press (unintended consequences). And they do love this kind of attention, there is nothing they love more than being censored.

But more importantly, morally, it's wrong that these people are being censored. What they say is despicable. But until they start making credible threats against people, or telling harmful lies about individuals, instead of simply telling lies about a group of people, they should be allowed to have their say. Fairness demands that. And just because they would refuse to treat us with basic fairness, is no reason for us to be so afraid that we stoop to their level.

Re:I don't condone it, but..

[TamMan2000]

I don't see how the blind hatred of people for their skin color is different than blind hatred for those that make decisions that do not concern yourself.

Many people don't see it as a decision that doesn't concern them. There is someone running around the east coast of the US killing people who I don't know. There are also doctors all over the world that are killing unborn people who I have never met. Yet everyone seems really concerned about the sniper, and not about the abortions. You could say the sniper is different because it could be me next, well I could have been aborted too, but I wasn't so I will look out for those who might be in the future.

labeling as "hate speech" = censorship

[jazzbotley]

Seems rather Orwellian to me ... if you reinvent the language, you control the people.

[1984]Let's introduce a new term, boys and girls: "hate speech". Yes, that's right, these are thoughts and ideas that are too terrible for you to contemplate, so we will censor them from your tender minds. What? No, you are not sensible enough to arrive at your own conclusions, so we must ensure that you are never exposed to these evil ideas.[/1984]

One of the consequences of truly "free" speech is that you have to hear a lot of crap from people you strongly disagree with. These are the "idiots" that we "love to hate", but if their speech isn't free, then nobody's is. That's the idea of free exchange of ideas in a free society. But then again, there's no such thing, because every attempt at a free society has ended by a centralization into a totalitarian state. [© 2002 jazzbotley the cynic] Ah, the rub. (Thanks, G.W.!)

Law? Bah!

[donscarletti]

O.k. So the content of the sites should be dictated by what is currently legal?

I am certainly not advocating the killing of anyone (hell the anti-abortion movement was about preserving life last time I checked) but disputing what is moral and what isn't possibly to the point of suggesting breaking laws is part of free speech.

I don't think there are many NAZI advocates here so I will use them as an example.Back when they were in control it was illegal to be a jew. Does that mean that anyone that broke that law and escaped the haulocaust alive was moraly corrupt?

By shutting down these sites one side of the debate is silenced and this must be considered a kick in the teeth to free speech.

By the way, in Ireland for example aborting fetus = bloody illegal, linching doctor that performs abortions = technically illegal but no one gives a damn (at least not as heavily punished as aborting a feotus). Does this mean it is right to linch abortionists? Should the anti-linching sites be banned?

Of course not, linching people is murder and just because the lincher does not think it is wrong doesn't make it right for them to do.

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl

[sql*kitten]

Nazism killed a lot of people, the wish to eradicate groups of the population being an integral part of the nazi ideas.

Well, I contrasted fascism and communism, not nazism ("Hitlerism", if you will) and Stalinism.

The modern-day Left would have you believe that Hitler and Stalin were ideological enemies, but it would be far more accurate to describe them as rivals. They both ran totalitarian police states with absolute power concentrated in a single leader, both believed that the only purpose of the citizen should be to serve the state (and hence the maximum leader), both ran command economies, both had expansionist foreign policies, both persecuted ethnic minorities. The only real way to differentiate between them is that Stalin's purges killed 3-4x what Hitler's did. It is also worth noting that other self-described Communists (China, Cambodia, etc) have similar records to Stalin's.

But mysteriously, modern-day Fascists are shunned and modern-day Communists are tolerated. In fact, the same attitude should apply to them both; neither has a place in the modern world.

maybe we should all reread locke

[b17bmbr]

maybe we should all reread john locke, etc., and remind ourselves the natural course of governments. thus it is only through the social contract, that the government governs with the consent of the governed that rights and fredoms are preserved.

eventually, all governments, whether democratic or not so, will attempt to seek power and control through various and sundry ways. whether by resrictions on freedom or by doling out public monies, they acquire ever greater power.

look at the us tax code. why is reform so hard. hell, EVERYONE stands to lose something if you reform it. so, we leave it unchanged and only add to its complexity.

Re:Elected

[Carbonite]

And your point is what?

Wired interview with Google on their policy

[iamr00t]

here

So where will it end?

[kitzilla]

So where will this end? What will Google be forced to remove next? What will be left of ANY website after it's whittled down each nation's pet peeves?

As an aside, I think it's pretty bizzare to censor "anti-abortion" (self-identified "pro-life") sites. Yeah, there are some crazies out there. But most anti-abortion sites I've seen are just people peacefully expressing their opinions.

I'd like to see international law exempting search engines from this sort of censorship.

Come On Google, FIGHT!

[fire-eyes]

This is highly disturbing. What is it with this international law bullshit? Google is BASED IN THE UNITED STATES, would someon care to explain to me why the HELL they have to listen to some other countries laws, laws which they had NO SAY IN?

It seems that such laws go one direction: Enforcement. Is there some way to fight them? This is absoloutly rediculous.

The very idea of someone having to follow a law they had ZERO SAY IN is violation of human rights as far as I'm concerned.

What can be done? This sort of thing MUST be stopped.

Re:I don't condone it, but..

[squiggleslash]

The fact that the sniper is killing sentient human beings also makes a major difference to the minds of many.

The hell...?

[CAIMLAS]

Certainly there has been a mistype. The initial post isn't serious when it lists "anti-abortion" and "pro-Nazi" right next to each other? I can't imagine a governmental state both condoning the slaughter/killing/removal of preborn and newborn children, and at the same time, condemning Nazi/socialist beliefs (and obviously the horror that prevailed during WWII). That sounds incredibly hypocritical.

A pretty good take on Nazi banning in Germany...

[FurryFeet]

here.

Sesame Street Flashbacks

[Cheesewhiz]

"anti-abortion, pro-Nazi, white supremacist or anti-semitic"

Why does that song "one of these things is not like the other" from Sesame Street keeping running through my mind?

Since when is being anti-abortion in the same category as being pro-nazi, a white supremacist, or anti-semitic? This is a scary bit of phraseology on the front page here!

"Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence ineherent in the system!"

Re:Sesame Street Flashbacks

[Alsee]

"anti-abortion, pro-Nazi, white supremacist or anti-semitic"

Why does that song "one of these things is not like the other" from Sesame Street keeping running through my mind?

Those four are all exactly alike, we need to censor them because they all commit acts of speach inciting murder. They all spread lies, and all lies must be censored. We need to create a global Ministry of Truth to handle this.

[Disclaimer: I understood exactly what you meant]

-

US democracy

[osolemirnix]

Fortunately, in the US we have constitutional democracy. In other words, we have checks and balances to prevent the majority from violating constitutionally protected rights of minorities.

I'm glad you didn't say "working democracy". Check your facts: In the US, the voter turnout during national elections is pretty steady around 50%. That means if about 50% of the voters voted for the current government (Bush), he only has the votes of 25% of the population. In other words: a minority of the population sets the rules for the whole country.
In Germany for example, the voter turnout during national elections is pretty steady around 80%. While not perfect it seems a whole lot better than 50%, wouldn't you agree?

IMHO a working democracy requires citizens taking an (active) part in it. Figuring out where the democracy is working better is left as an exercise for the reader.

Personally, I wholehartedly agree with your opinion on cencsorship though. On the other hand, if people are not even responsible enough to go vote, what will stupid lying hate propaganda do with them? Lead them to believe their country must start a war, perhaps?

Re:US democracy

[mesocyclone]

Actually, I am not so sure that I am unhappy with the voter turnout. If those who do not care enough to vote don't vote, it leaves the governance to those of us who DO care enough to vote!

It would be better if the citizenry were more educated (hard to do with our idiotic educational system) and more motivated.

Also, it doesn't matter if those who don't vote have political opinions we don't like. They have no input.

Also, a lot of us who do watch events very closely and apply critical thinking to them do believe that our country is already at war, declared by radical islamists and by totalitarians by Saddam, and that we must act to protect our interests (which mostly correspond to the interests of the civilized world).

Re:I don't condone it, but..

[TamMan2000]

do a little research and you will see that the fetus is sentient as well.

Hogwash

[dh003i]

No matter how offensive, mean, or cruel-spirited you may find people's ideas, they have the right to express them. Its a fundamental human right to freedom of speach. It exists whether or not government's recognize it, just as does the right to life.

If pro-nazi speaches offend you, then don't listen to them. Go somewhere else. Don't read Mein Kampf. No one's forcing you to listen: the right to speak does mean the right to necessarily be heard (though it does mean the right to have the potential to be heard).

That Germany as a nation chooses to ignore and violate the right to freedom of speach proves they haven't learned much from Hitler's era, when human rights were completely ignored. Had they, they would respect these rights. I'm speaking as someone of German descent, in this case. Its even worse in a democracy when human rights violations occur than when they occur in a dictatorship; when they occur in a democracy, that means that a majority of the people must have voted for someone who supports human rights violations.

To those who say that Google's doing the right thing by obeying the laws of Germany and France, I say that's non-sense. Unjust laws should not be obeyed. Just as in Germany during WWII, the right thing to do was ignore orders to kill Jewish people, so is the right thing to do in this case to disobey these laws which violate freedom of speach. This is not such a severe case, but the right thing to do is to violate laws which are wrong.

That said, I wonder why Google bother's to obey these laws. Google is based in the US, and to my knowledge all of their people are in the US, as is all of their finances. If Google chose not to obey these laws, how could the German & French government's possibly coerce or penalize them, since Google is beyond their sovereignty?

Re:Hogwash

[Alsee]

That said, I wonder why Google bother's to obey these laws. Google is based in the US, and to my knowledge all of their people are in the US, as is all of their finances.

Google.com is NOT obeying these laws. Google.de is obeying German law and Google.fr is obeying Frech law.

It is idiocy, but it is localized idiocy. Anyone in Germany or France can with effort still use Google.com. That is, the ones who KNOW about it can. Most of them will live in blissfull ignorance that they are using a censored search engine.

-

Re:Hogwash

[dh003i]

Google is one organization. It is located in the US, and all its finances are in the US. So the question is firstly how do European countries have any sovereignty over it? and secondly what possible means could they have to force Google to obey their laws? Why should Google bother obeying these backwards laws, when it can ignore them at no cost.

Commercialism offends me, they must comply

[nurb432]

Google, Please remove all web pages that discusses the evil practice of commercialism.

And Christianity violates my moral beliefs, so they must remove those pages too.

Only kidding, but you see my point i hope. This sets a BAD precedent.. a really really bad one.

This will open the flood gates on mass censorship.

No swastika?

[Brendan Byrd]

There goes Wolfenstein, or Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

Heh...

[neocon]

Aren't these the countries that Reporters Without Frontiers claimed had more freedom of the press than the US? I guess we now know how much that claim is worth...

And why's not free child pron too ...

[Beretta Vexe]

Because, of course, not being able to talk about something makes it less attractive right? And drugs being illegal makes it less attractive for kids too, right? *sigh*

sed s/drugs/child porn

Because, of course, not being able to talk about something makes it less attractive right? And Child porn being illegal makes it less attractive for pedophile too, right? *sigh*

Oh ok let make the child pron legal ...

Your comment is stupid.

It isn't the work of a Franco-German political office but the normal complaints expressed by courts and citizens, who asks for the application of laws which were never called into question by citizens, of France and Germany.

If a US hosted site is closed, because it contient illegal stuff, even if it's legal in France or Germany (DeCSS for example), no one slashdot's user will say anything but it is enough that these are another country which face to respect its laws on its Web sites so that it is censure.

If you want really attack the censorship, take a look of the situation in Egypt or in Iran.

gotta love the US

[spudwiser]

i can't read rhat release notes, but i can read all the white power bs i want.

14words.com

[knuth]

Blockquoth the poster:

Interestingly, 14words.com, which seems to be just a web-hosting company, is in the following category in google directory:
Society > Issues > Race-Ethnic-Religious Relations > Hate > Hate Groups

Now it is merely a redirect to a web hosting company. But it used to be a Wotanist site, 14 Word Press. (If this site doesn't look like much, view source.) It was white supremacist at least. They called for the establishment of an exclusive White nation, to preserve "the beauty of the White Aryan woman." The "14 words" are a recently coined white supremacist slogan.

Reminds me of yesterdays article...

[sheldon]

Germany and France have much stronger support for Freedom of the Press, according to yesterday's article.

What was interesting was the bias this report introduced, as they considered Freedom to be how free someone was to publish stuff which wasn't currently outlawed by the government.

Another thing that makes you go hmmm...

Very annoying redirect "feature"

[geekotourist]

Last year while visiting Japan our Palm caught a bug. No problem, we thought, we'll just download the software again. But Palm wouldn't let us go to "palm.com." Instead it would always redirect to "palm.co.jp," and that site didn't have an English option. Have these auto-redirecting companies never heard of "tourists" and "business travelers"? Luckily for us the Palm software problem hit at the end of our trip-- we'd been using the guides and whatnot we'd downloaded into it throughout our visit.

But where is the scripture?

[Loundry]

If any of you actually visited the pro-life site in question, you will notice that it doesn't advocate violence against anyone, it merely states that abortion is immoral and against God's law.

And where, exactly, is the scripture that states that abortion is against God's law? I doubt that it's possible to use scipture to show that a fetus is a human before the sixth month of pregnancy. Dennis Mckinsey has a great writeup on this in Biblical Errancy (do a find for "abortion" to page down to the discussion). Now, before you go off and assault Dennis Mckinsey, first respond to what he wrote on the subject.

Re:But where is the scripture?

[Rich0]

Regardless of whether abortion is or is not immoral, or is or is not against God's law, the fact that the website states that this is the site author's opinion should not be grounds for censorship.

In the same way, a site which states that God is in favor of people smoking pot should not be censored - despite the fact that smoking pot is illegal, and that the matter is controversial.

Re:But where is the scripture?

[Alsee]

>Mckinsey also suggests that Jeremiah might be a "special case
What kind of an argument would that be?

I haven't looked at the site, but how about this...

God specificly consecrated Jerimiah, something that he does not do to everyone.

-

Re:But where is the scripture?

[Loundry]

Probably the most relevant verse is in the first chapter of Jeremiah:

I think you meant to write, "the only possibly relevant verse."

Mckinsey dismisses the verse as ambiguous. I'm not inclined to agree. Though not yet born, Jeremiah is clearly recognized as a person.

First, your choosing to use the word "clearly" shows the weakness of your argument. If it was really so clear, then you wouldn't need to tell me that it was; its clarity would be evident to me without your assistance.

Second, what does God's statement "I knew you" mean in this instance? This sctipture is not stating that Jeremiah was "known" despite being born, it is stating that Jeremiah was "known" despite being formed. How can something be known if it has no form?

Third, you can't claim that "I knew you" implies "I recognize you as a person." It is possible to recognize someone as a person without knowing them.

Fourth, how could a fallen Jeremiah be consecrated?

The scripture is not nearly as clear as you pretend it is. I do agree with you that McKinsey was reaching with his "special case" argument. McKinsey has blasted apologists for making the same kind of argument, usually when apologists say something like, "Well, that was a special case and not intended for the general" (such as Mat 19:16-21).

Re:Germany's Free Press

[Yet Another Smith]

The national rankings of "Reporters without Borders" were measures of freedom of the press, not freedom of speech.

Free Press != Free Speech

If only "journalists" are protected by free press laws, then all manner of censoring and abuse can go on that would never create a blip on the free press index.

That's not to say that the RWB index is useless, but you need to understand what it was saying. The US could certainly use some renewed focus on civil liberties, now that we've had some time to digest the post 9/11 world.

This is just wrong.

[stonewolf]

During the 1960s when there was no trade or diplomatic contact between the US and China and the Soviet Union, you could walk into a book store and by a copy of Mao's "Little Red Book." "On People's War," and everything ever written by Lenin... You could do that because in the US you have the right to read and talk about anything, even if it is offensive to someone.

It would be better to break off diplomatic relations and stop all trade with Germany and France, even the whole of the EU, than to allow even one page of material to be censored by those governments.

I would much prefer to see Google shut down their .de and .fr sites than knuckle under to those fascist bastards.

Stonewolf

Country TLDs Only

[Mittermeyer]

I'll say it before and I'll say it again- let each country have it's country TLDs and they can chose to impose their own stupid local laws (whether the stupidity is the PRC, France, or the US).

Blocking sites for anti-abortion stance?

[knuth]

McCart42 says,

What blows me away is not the racist speech blocking, but the fact that they're blocking anti-abortion websites from google's listings...

I don't see a reference to abortion anywhere on the Harvard web site summarizing the study. The supposition that jesus-is-lord.com was blocked because it is anti-abortion may be a conjecture by Declan McCullagh. The site in question is vehemently anti-Catholic. Might it be over the line as far as French or German law is concerned, and regarded as inciting hatred?

Hate Literature in Canada

[stew-a-cide]

As many people know certain forms of 'hate speech' targeting people on the basis of race, religion, etc. are banned in Canada. Currently (openly gay) MP Svend Robinson is trying to pass a private members bill that would add anti-homosexual propaganda to the section of the Criminal Code pertaining to hate literature.

While I'm all against gay bashing, the repercussions of this going through are very broad - going so far as to ban certain passages of the bible, prevent certain religions (e.g. Catholics) from distributing certain of their teachings, outlawing political party platforms that call for un-equal rights for gays (such as pertaining to marriage), etc. Again, while I'm not religious, and don't object to any of these possibilities personally, they are by most people's definition extreme.

I'm not sure what chance he has of getting this through (I certainly wouldn't call it impossible), but he certainly got a leg up yesterday when the leader of the opposition Stephen Harper (from a very right-wing party that would certainly oppose such an amendment) made a homophobic slight against Mr. Robinson in an unrelated debate. Stephen Harper and his party are very sensitive to being labelled as homophobic, so they might now just keep their mouths shut and let the proposed amendment go through rather than draw more negative attention to themselves.

Re:Hate Literature in Canada

[MikeBabcock]

This is one of those "slippery slope" issues like gun control (which we also have in Canada). It seems however, that the issue should be allowing the court to define what indeed is the spreading of hate. In Canada, that has been a very tight definition in the past. Saying "I am anti-semetic", for example, is not illegal. Telling someone the holocaust didn't happen and the Jewish people made it up to make themselves look cool because they're a bunch of mind-controlling megalomaniacs (that's almost a quote ... I won't link to the website though; I'm sure you can find them if you want to) is pretty close. Telling people to go out and beat up (or kill) *put group here* because they're lesser people, _is_ (and should be) a hate crime, however.

I don't think many americans would even dispute that last one; its held up in International law at least these days (I hope it continues to be) and should be held up at a national level too -- making it a crime to incite violence against a group.

There is a difference, however, with literature to some degree; and that involves descriptions of past events; describing what the Nazi camps did to people it imprisonned is good for our collective historical knowledge; making editorial comments about it being a good thing would be a bad thing :)

chillingeffects.org

[knuth]

chillingeffects.org is about First Amendment rights. That means it's about the United States.

The not-so slippery slope...

[Zhe Mappel]

First they came for the Nazi memorabilia sites
And I did not speak out
Because I am not a Nazi, and frankly, only fetishists want such shit, anyway.

Then they came for the anti-abortion sites
And I did not speak out
Because I am not a loopy right winger, and those assholes can plan their violent clinic disruptions somewhere else.

Then they came for the white supremacist sites
And I did not speak out,
Feeling, as it were, a bit under-sympathetic toward those sewer-dwellers.

Then they came for me.
I used to run a site selling Beanie Babies that played a midi version of "Wish Upon a Star" while you shopped.
And even I'm forced to admit I got what I deserve.

Re:Well the french are ... more OT

[Howzer]

Which would probably correlate to the percentage actually on the front line and fighting at any given moment or to the percentage actually using rifles

Nope. Sorry. Dead wrong. Although "distance" does have something to do with the explanation for why they didn't fire (ie. your tanks planes etc.) actually the figure is exactly what I said. Out of all the people with rifles, who were supposed to fire, only 15-20% of them did. Read the research, it's utterly more fascinating that cheap shots on slashdot I assure you. As for your "tell that to all the..." well, yeah, and your point is?

Re:Well the french are ... more OT

[Howzer]

Read my other response. Your "point" was made by a non-AC and so I answered that one. By the way, it's got nothing remotely to do with what you are suggesting.

Re:*Grin*

[Ted_Green]

Statistics are meaningless without a point of reference.
Without that refernce I can just as easily say Cannabis use in the United States is greater than in the Netherlands because the United States is bigger.

Simply because two facts happen to be true, does not mean one is the cause of the other.

Differnt cultures/societies within differnt nations(and their respective cities) is a far better explaination for why one has a greater drug use than the legality of drugs themselves.

As far as alchol when somone who's abused alchol since 18 hits 21 they don't suddenly stop... (it usualy takes them till they get out of college.)
Likewise, I doubt the common sense of anyone who seriously thinks that if we legalized drugs the majority of people who would have done anyways, won't.

This happened to me...Re:Censorship Vs Information

[Joey7F]

I was a student in High School researching the KKK. I went to the KKK's official website only to have the filter kick in. I then tried other searches to no avail. I even tried using the National Association for the Advancements of White People to get a picture of its founder who was a klansman.

It blocked that as 'hate speech'. Interestingly the 'Black Panthers' were accessible.

That proved to me, conclusively, that "hate speech" is considered one way and always originates from "Whites". Too bad equal standards don't apply to groups that spout hate speech. If you allow one, then you should allow the other. If you block one, it is inconsistent to not block the other.

--Joey

The Germans have suffered too

[NewsWatcher]

There is no doubt that during World War II the Germans perpetrated some evil crimes against the Jews, the Gays and the Communists. Millions of innocent people were slaughtered and it serves as a permament blight on the German people that they will have to live with forever more.
I have been to Germany and I can tell you that they are among the most open people in the world. They have rebuilt a society that anyone would be proud of. Where civil liberties are held much higher than in the USA. What Americans fail to realise is that you are not an open society in the true sense of the word. Your journalists are free to write the truth, but not free to get the information. In Germany a few years ago, a newspaper was given access to the private email account of a politician, in the name of transparent government. Can you imagine someone from the Washington Post getting access to W's personal e-mail account? Oh, I am not a German either, or even European, so I have no vested interest in highlighting US hypocrisy.

Reason?

[fireboy1919]

I don't really think reason is entering into the argument here. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

What you call a "mass of cells" I call a human. Why? Fundamentally, because I believe it is one. A secondary reason is because it is developed enough to behave the same way that a newborn would - requiring incredible amounts of support to sustain life, but producing almost exactly the same organic activity. I take slight offense to your making this a call to reason here, because I think science is on my side. There is more to point to the fact that a foetus is a child than that there isn't if we examine humanity as a machine whose function is life (one of the few objective ways to do it).

The one fact in your favor is that the baby is inside a womb instead of outside. Does location define humanity? I believe not, and you believe so. Do not confuse your belief with logos - the issue is far to cloudy for you to make a decision as you have to be such - more than anything else you believe it because you want to.

It takes a mere two weeks for a human foetus to take on the majority (something like 90%) of the biological functions of a human baby. Why has that not entered into your thinking?

Re:you forget one thing

[sql*kitten]

Stalin, for the most part, kept his "cleansings" to his own country, not becoming the worldwide "playground bully" and making other countries cry for help.

The countries of Eastern Europe (for example, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Armenia, Ukraine etc) would disagree with you. These countries were annexed by the Soviet Empire and subjected to the same regime as the Russians. Not only that, but a significant part of the current trouble in Afghanistan can be traced to Soviet invasion (altho' that obviously happened well after Stalin himself died).

Also, it is correct to compare Fascism with Communism and Nazism with Stalinism - you have to compare like with like, and the former are abstract, the latter practical.

High End Hogwash

[Qbertino]

That Germany as a nation chooses to ignore and violate the right to freedom of speach proves they haven't learned much from Hitler's era, when human rights were completely ignored.

You're into serious bullshitting territory without knowing squat what you're talking about. I suggest you ease down on standard resentiments about germany.
What's with the DMCA and the Pop-under Patent? Does that show Americans haven't learned from Hitler or 1984? Would you please be so kind to explain to me why child pr0n should run under 'free speech'? It shouldn't? Well why not? Why is child pr0n exempt, if you're so pesky at defending no-holds barred 'free speech'? And what's that weird US profanity law that passed a few years ago? Hum?
Oh, it's judged by common sense? Well now, how about that.

Nazi propaganda is ILLEAGAL in germany. It's THE LAW MADE BY A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERMENT. Get over it.
And, as I might add, other than in the US, the german gouverment actually DID get most of the votes. You call that 'democracy'.
Aside from Nazi-Propaganda, speech is free, software and algorithims are unpatentable (still, at least) and, guess what, child p0rn is illegal too. Just as in the US. Differnt democratic gouverned countries deal certain issues differently. Is that to complex to deal with?

On the other hand, every day is 9-11

[dublin]

Every day is 9-11. It's true. Abortion has reached such epidemic proportions that the *daily* death toll in American abortion clinics is roughly the same as the *total* bodycount from the Sept. 11th attacks. Check the figures yourself.

If that doesn't cry out for a legitimate protest, I don't know what does...

Re:Nonsense!

[DaytonCIM]

You're joking right?

Nazism has nothing to do with this

Huh? I take it you're one of the less than 1% of 1% of the world that somehow believes the holocaust was some great ruse? That all of those people marched into German Nazi Death Camps from 1938 to 1945 are actually vacationing in the tropics while running a secret underground government that is solely responsible for keeping the "white man" down?

There is a medical name for your condition: cranial-rectum inversion.