Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Complies with Law, Excludes 'controversial' Sites

Posted by Hemos on from the mmmm-dumb-laws dept.

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.

43 of 645 comments (clear)

  1. only 100 sites by mirko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
    1. Re:only 100 sites by NetRanger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

      --
      -- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
    2. Re:only 100 sites by Rhubarb+Crumble · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

    3. Re:only 100 sites by RevDobbs · · Score: 4, Insightful
      . . .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.

    4. Re:only 100 sites by plumby · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    5. Re:only 100 sites by mseeger · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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

    6. Re:only 100 sites by overunderunderdone · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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
    7. Re:only 100 sites by BrianH · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --

      There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
  2. Don't blame google for this by Laglorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  3. They're all ready slipping down the slippery slope by Mantrid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

  4. France should know better by techstar25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 . . .

  5. Ineffective? by A+non+moose+cow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What prevents French people from just using Google.com ?

    1. Re:Ineffective? by Glanz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
    2. Re:Ineffective? by the+bluebrain · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      yes, we have no bananas
  6. Well the french are offensive... by phunhippy · · Score: 4, Funny

    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"

  7. Re:Wow by CaVi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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,...

    --
    -- No signature yet.
  8. Re:Wow by Bartmoss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. This just doesn't work! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!"

  10. Censorship... by pdboddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Julie Moult is an idiot.
  11. Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl by sql*kitten · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Censorship Vs Information by Ravenn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    --
    Of all the things you can accomplish by screwing up your face and swearing into a dark room, sleep is not one of them.
  13. This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This is a good thing by A+non+moose+cow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

  14. not only France and Germany by lovebyte · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    --

    I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

  15. anti-abortion? wtf? by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Is it against the law in fr/de to be against abortion, and speak about it?

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:anti-abortion? wtf? by lougarou · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  16. 'Net law. by RPoet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
  17. If only it was possible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.)

    1. Re:If only it was possible! by DaytonCIM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  18. Re:Not as Bad as it sounds by sebi · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --
    Hank! White!
  19. What does this imply? by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
  20. Re:OT: Kids and drugs by Scarblac · · Score: 4, Informative

    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).

    --
    I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
  21. Re:Wow by JonTurner · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "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.

  22. Re:Wow by Gorm+the+DBA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  23. The problem is elsewhere by imr · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  24. Now, this workaround is interesting... by Noryungi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  25. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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.

  26. Re:Wow by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  27. What's Google got to do with free speech? by Winterblink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
    -Hoban Washburn
    1. Re:What's Google got to do with free speech? by oldstrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  28. Re:Germanies Free Press by Rhubarb+Crumble · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

  29. Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl by sql*kitten · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  30. Commercialism offends me, they must comply by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----