Slashdot Mirror
Google Under Fire Over Racist Blogs
AcidAUS writes "Google is being accused of refusing to remove racist blogs targeting minority groups in Australia. Google, whose corporate motto is "don't be evil", says it will take the blogs in question offline only if ordered to do so by a court."
The question is which is the greater evil: racist speech or censorship? The evil of racist speech can be effectively countered with anti-racist speech, but the evil of censorship can't be easily repaired.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I know different countries have differing attitudes toward freedom of speech issues and the fomenting of violence (racial or otherwise).
But I have to admit, if you take out uncovered meat and place it outside, without cover, and the cats come to eat it -- then whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's? This case is no different.
And still humanity doesn't grow up ... racism is so ridiculous.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Let's have the courts sort it out and not the providersm carriers etc.
People can either decide for themselves what they want to believe or have someone else decide for them what they should read. I'd rather decide for myself and tolerate some hate blogs than have my internet censored, thank you very much.
Start your own racist blog to counteract the original racist blog!
is this: what would happen if a (google-based) Chinese blogger runs afoul of the Chinese Government?
Will Google remove the blog? Or will it take a stand for freedom of speech? "Don't Be Evil" is a nice motto, but Google has proved time and again it is willing to compromise to do business in China.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Just remove anythying that would offend anyone or any group. :P
If you don't want to read Racist blogs, don't google for them.
The best form of censorship is self-censorship.
Karma: Bad. (As in Good?)
censoring is evil.
especially censoring cartoons.
World: "Some are racist - you're evil!"
Google: "We won't remove them unless a court tells us"
World: "You're letting them stay? You're evil!"
Google: "Okay, we'll take them down."
World: "Infringing freedom of speech like in China, eh? You're evil!"
Google: "Okay, we won't take them down."
World: "But they're racist. You're evil!"
Google: "Okay, we'll wait for a review by a court."
World: "So you're condoning racism? You're evil!"
Sometimes even I feel for corporations...
bang goes my karma... again...
They would be if they were to remove blogs just because someone finds them offensive. The only difference now is the amount of people finding the matter offensive, but that shouldn't really make a difference. Censorship should be taken very seriously, and I don't find that yelling "RACISM!!!" at the top of your lungs is really grounds for censorship.
It's true that racist blogs and propaganda do alot of harm, and in a perfect world there wouldn't be racism at all. But to take away someones free speech 'just because' is equally bad.
It's like someone once said:
"I don't like what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it!"
Blog -
You cannot, on the one hand, take Google to task for caving to the demands for censorship by the Chinese, and on the other, for their failing to cave in to pressure to remove blogs.
While their failure to take a stand in China is questionable, their refusal to remove blogs is on much more solid ground. As has been said, racist hate speech can be countered, but censorship is just simply evil. And worse, were they to indulge in censorship in the free world, there would be no end to the reasons people would demand more of the same.
--- Bill
The price of freedom of speech is the unfortunate ability to be surrounded by stupidity.
Going to have to side with Google on this one. Racism sucks, and racists are immature morons, but to silence anyone because you disagree with them is wrong. The purpose of a blog is to give a person a voice, regardless of how "dee-dee-dee" that voice happens to be. If that person starts to explicitly break the law, then fine, let the courts of the land decide how to handle it.
Racism is evil. Censorship is much more evil.
It's a good thing that google is not removing racist blogs. Fact is that any content, is highly subjective. If you start removing something because a certain party finds it offensive, you might as well blank the entire internet. Yeah it's a shame that such measures also include things like racism, but that is in my opinion a small price to pay for the greater value of free speech on the internet.
I deplore any form of -ism, but it seems people shout if they don't have freedom of speech and then cry foul if someone uses that right to FOS to broadcast their, sometimes unpleasant views!
Attention: Common-sense and forethought have been retired from service, due to lack of demand. Thank you.
Exactly. According to the article, the people who want this material removed seem to be just in the preliminary stages of that process. And that's fine--there is no harm in politely asking Google to remove the content first.
If the jurisdictional issue of "Where are the Google Blogger servers?" is decided, and those people get a court order demanding the removal of the content, then and only then should Google comply.
It's referred to as "Defending free speech."
From my point of view, Google should be commended for not caving in, no matter what the content of those blogs happen to be. They've got my appreciation.
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
Including this one! DOWN WITH SLASHDOT!
Seriously, did you think about what you said? I'm going to assume you didn't say what you meant. I'm going to assume you meant 'Any blogs that are abusive, racist, or discriminatory should be removed from the internet'.
Everything offends someone. I'm offended by blogs that post goatse. (I'm sure I'm not the only one here.) Is that a reason to take their right to free speech away? How about people that think cars are 'sexy'. That offends me. How about...
No, there is no 'line' that you can draw and be sure that one side is 'speech that should be banned' and the other side is perfectly fine.
Censorship sucks!
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
There are more racism in Australia than Stateside. It's a very different picture down there than what's portrayed in films and TV.
Public hate speech has no more protection under freedom of speech laws (or their analogue) than shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater. That is, if what you are saying is designed to forcibly infringe upon the rights of others, it should not be guarded. However, these weblogs are not similar to the aforementioned example in that nobody is being unwillfully subjected to their messages. Is that definitive enough to determine that these weblogs should not be removed?
Why bother.
Just like in the Faurisson affair, where Chomsky wrote the following:
Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East, where I describe the Holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy.
Google is right, submitter is wrong for attempting to start a flame war. 'Nuff said.
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
I take offence that. You're implying that the world is full of mealy-mouthed, small minded people with nothing better to do that to tell people what they can and can't say, so that they don't have to hear somethign they don't like.
Moderator: Mark parent down and ban all future submissions
Karma: Bad. (As in Good?)
I think you're completely right, but there's another side to it.
With freedom of speech comes responsibility. Sure, you can say what you want, but don't be a coward and hide behind your "right" to do so. If you want to be a racist, stand up for yourself and take the responsibility that comes with carrying a message most people will abhor. I can't walk into a group of Yankee's fans, yell "Yankees suck!!" and not expect to get anything back in return.
The problem is neither free speech nor censorship. It's all the cowards who want to speak their mind, but don't want to take the consequences.
Blog -
This is the Internet, not a damn kindergarten. People are going to say things you don't like, and you can't stop them. Live with it. If they show up at your front door or start harassing you, there are already laws to handle that.
I hope Google doesn't back down. I figure they'll just move the blogs to a server in the US (assuming they're in AU) if challenged in court, though.
There is a difference between censoring the results you get back from a search engine, and actually hosting (what is widely perceived to be) offensive material on a public space which you own. If someone wants to put their prejudiced opinions in the public eye, let them pay for it out of their own pocket. No company should allow this sort of thing to happen. But then that opens a whole new can of worms. Who will decide what should and should not be allowed?
Exactly! Because if we hide it well enough, it will cease to exist and we can all sit around and sing Kumbaya.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
It's always the meat's fault. If you want to protect your meat, you HAVE to cover it. As simple as that.
Don't you know a blog on which you can see new racist posts every day and that might suffer if anyone could force a blog to be closed because he dislikes what he saw on it.
hint: I'm posting on it right now.
"Google caves in to pressure in Australia, evilly censors blogs. So much for that 'don't be evil' motto, guys!"
I'm quite interested in the differing definitions of 'hate speech'. In my experience they all appear to come down, in the end, to the person's (not me, the other person's) mind-readership of the thoughts and intentions that was behind the statement, which in practice makes it impossible for me to spot hate-speech since I obviously do not have the same thought-radar.
How about this statement:
'I'm not sure what's the better description - that Lebanese are assholes, or that Lebanon is the assy country and Lebanese are the pieces of shit that sprout from it'.
Is this hate speech? You tell me.
Because if it is, then Slashdot should immediately be shut down over similar statements about Americans, which there are repeatedly. Even if you change the above to 'most Lebanese', some would still consider it hate speech, while saying 'most Americans' will completely get you off the hook.
In short, please provide a methodology for identifying hate speech that does not depend on the speech-finder's ability to astrally discern the thoughts and intentions behind the speech, but can be done on any speech sample solely based on knowledge of it and the world, i.e. with no knowledge of the speaker, that I can apply when pointing out hate-speech on Slashdot and in books and texts otherwise. Would be greatly appreciated.
Google has long history of removing sites it considers different from what the majority of its workers think. Since it is a non-US government entitiy it sure has the right to do that; and yes censorship is not the correct word for this subject.
Since google does it already, when its works want to promote a certain way of thinking, what is really wrong with its customers trying to force them, ie protest, that they think the company should do something they want, and if they can get enough support probably force the company to do so?
Chomsky? Linkavich Chomsky?
Either way, I would take the freedom of someone saying the most racist hurtful things on the planet to me directly over censorship any day. Google is right. The funny part is they've got more balls to do what's right regarding freedom of speech than the US government these days.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
It is the job of the courts to decide what is racist. I live in South-Africa and it is racist to call someone a "kaffer" but not racist to call someone a "boer". I'm offended when a black person calls me a boer since most of the time its said in a derogatory manner, but most people in South-Africa, which are black, will deny that they can even be racist because they black. Racism is subjective and Google's opinion is not nessarily that of the majority or correct.
This is my sig.
Yes, of course, that is all correct and far be it for me to doubt or deny freedom of speech. I failed to put my words together rightly in trying to determine if there is a comparison between writing a weblog that disparaged people of a certain race and shouting “fire”. We do, in certain contexts, ban both of them. In the former case because it infringes upon liberty and in the latter because it potentially infringes upon life. What is the proper response to the former however? What constitutes hate speech is not always clear and banning it might even start us down a slipper slope. (Is disapproval of Bush policy in Iraq considered “hate speech”?) Also, there is not a certain irony in using rights protected by the Constitution (or any similar legal document) to infringe upon the rights of those around you? Should those actions be stopped?
Why bother.
After reading TFA and skimming over the Patriot Alliance Downunder blog attacked by Brian Stokes in TFA, I'd have to say I'm a lot more inclined to believe the blogger's angle. But that's my opinion, read it for yourself.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Search engine optimization is a form of spam, why are we giving spammers a voice?
Down with spammers, down with SEO!
Standing up for freedom of speech. Who do they think they are? Don't they know that it is evil to give people a forum for unpopular opinions? Next thing you know, they will be refusing to hand over people's identifying data!
See the problem most people have with freedom of speech is not that it applies to them, but rather that it applies to people with ideas they dispise.
You can not limit speech to just speech you like and/or agree with and still say you have freedom of speech.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
While I'm not a supporter of Neo Nazi goose-steeping fanatic "lets kill all the Jews" type garbage I'm sick to goddamn death with all the whining about "rascism" that goes on these days, usually from some mooching group that wants a free ride and no criticism.
Fact: The Cronulla Riots had nothing to do with a rascist undercurrent in OZ, they had everything to do with Muslim minority groups who seem to think they can act here like animals and no-one can do anything to stop them.
Fact: Most people aren't "rascist" per se, they just object to uncivilised, uncouth, barbaric behaviour exhibited by certain minority groups...you know the ones, don't you guys? If you're in the US, or Norway, or the UK or Sweden or France....you know who I'm talking about......don't you ?
Fact: I'm sick to death of the Lefty Thought Police who jump up and down every time something gets into the public domain that doesn't fit in with their Utopian dreamworld.....
Fact: One in five South Africans males are rapists.
Fact: One in three Swazilanders are HIV positive.
Fact: Imams and Mullahs preach hatred towards Westerners and women every day without censure, they even lock their women up, when they're not genitally mutilating them
Fact: These people are coming from shitholes of their own creation...stop with the Colonial Legacy whining...that was years ago, get over it. Mugabe is the absolute poster child of that one!
Fact: If you just act like a decent human being and fit into the society you're living in then most people will treat you fine...start acting like a sub human raping animal and see what happens to you...
Fact: What the HELL is going on with US when we tolerate whole areas of OUR cities and countries becoming no-go zones for US ?!?!?!?!!?! We all know what I'm talking about...the areas full of brown people..the slums...the shitholes....whole areas of major cities being over-run. Don't give me the crap about diversity and wonderful new spices....if you're coming over to live then at least don't screw it up for everyone already here...
Tell me...truly...how does it feel to know that parts of LA or Paris or Amsterdam are now no-go..they're not yours anymore?
Do the burning cars keep you warm at night?
Mod me troll, I don't care...I'm just saying what most people believe deep down, every thinks it but no-one will admit to it.
Thank god some people are starting to wake up..look at the Netherlands starting to clamp down for example....how long until Britain is Sharia ?????
Oh, I'm in OZ btw and you probably live next to me, I'm just an ordinary guy who works hard, pays his taxes, is nice and friendly and stays out of trouble.....not some cliche neo-nazi white supremacist (as I can just see the "Don't listen to him, we're not like that here really" type posts that are bound to folow....NEWSFLASH---> es we are!!).
Interesting to see this story just after the "where would you live in the world" story. Ever wondered why it's easier to go work/live in the EU if you're from the US or Canada or Australia???....because we're white and not trouble!
What Google did, sounds ostensically like the sensible thing to do. After all, they shouldn't censor, right. If we would censor them, the chances of getting in a discussion with them would only decrease, and we would hide them from our radar.
This is all true, however this is assuming they are being reasonable in some sense. Well they aren't just look below the saying they won't break the law, if this isn't solicitation to harass those people, i don't know what is. (I am sure other posts are also full of it) I don't understand how they can't see themselves as a hate-group. They even see the German people as discriminated against by the Jews'
I have the distinct feeling that they aren't racist is because they really think it is reasonable, on the contrary, they don't really think about it at all. -Its about belonging in the group, or if it isn't that. About feeling better because you feel like a lesser being inside. Or maybe its about bullying people.
If you want to post about this, be sure to look at the link and read a bit. If you have time, maybe you can send whitty comments to bother them, don't lower your level though. (i mean sensible comments!)
For all the non-Australians with no idea where the uncovered meat reference came from, an Australian sheikh has just managed to more or less publicly blame scantily clad women for inviting rape, causing an uproar there. Condemnation has been quick; John Major already chimed in to call the comments "preposterous."
Having said that, Google has said content would need to be illegal, e.g. spam related before they would actually remove it. Anyone else read this and hear echoes of user 606117 writing yesterday, "Don't come to Australia"?
Oh, I fully agree that 'freedom of speech' is not 'freedom from consequences of speech'. Totally different animal.
There's another aspect of free speech that most people don't think about. I can use someone else's speech to judge them before I get involved with them. I use this on multiplayer video games all the time, and to a lesser extent, in real life. (As you said, they hide when they know there's consequences.) If I see someone named 'Goober2' I'll be cautious. '1337w@rri0r' is a definite avoid. 'Adamasius Horatius' is probably someone pretty safe to game with. I generally won't have to worry about translating their text back into English, and I pretty much know they aren't 'Leeroy Jenkins' in disguise.
Most people can't understand this, and don't use it. But I find online gaming a LOT less stressful by filtering people according to how they type/talk. I probably miss a few good people here and there, but I avoid the majority of the jerks, too.
It's the same with these blogs. These people are people I -know- I can avoid without any worries whatsoever. They are unlikely to do anything of great import and are simply mouths that can't controls themselves.
I do the same in real life, when someone goes all racist. I just ignore what they're saying, because they are either fools or horribly mis-informed, and you can't even trust them to be wrong, so you can't just believe the opposite of what they say.
Does it get my dander up when someone hits home with a discriminatory comment? Yes. But knowing to not just ignore it, but actually use the information gained... That's the key to regaining peace of mind.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Huh ?
Read radical news here
Reduce, reuse, cycle
Are you sure you didn't just reply to the wrong post, nitwit? You quoted text that appears neither in my original comment, nor in the article. That leads me to believe that you just made something up so that you'd have something to respond to. And let's not forget how edgy and brave your "anti-racist" stance is. Oh, well played, troll, well played.
As for the other garbage you wrote, it seems that you're in favor of dispensing with the rule of law and just labeling and libeling any content you personally find racist and objectionable. Well that's great, so why exactly are you more qualified than judges who have the job of making those determinations, oh great Arbiter of Thought? That was a rhetorical question, because of course you aren't. You're just another pompous, anonymous jerk who believes that her/his/its bullshit opinion is tantamount to the law.
God, I hope that was meant to be funny, because... I fear for the world, otherwise.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
The firefox anti-phishing is from google. How much free speech do you leave for the phishers? or what exactly is a phisher and what is still a business opportunity? Surely there is some fine print somewhere that explains this.
Why is this flamebait ???????
Why can't we debate this ?
Are you scared?
How can this be moded Troll?!
He's absolutely right! The same way we have learnt to do fire we must learn to avoid racism. Humanity has to grow up.
IMHO, Google/Blogger has every reason to keep sites open that do not violate TOS or US laws/rights. If there existed a blogger.co.au then the Aussies getting upset by racial insensitivity could affect a change on those nation specific servers. Also, likewise, if there existed a neo-nazi site on a Germany based Blogger server then the offending site could be easily removed.
Like it or not, Blogger.com is a US based company, and chances are high that the servers are also located in the US. People/entities creating & posting to the blogs should only stay within the TOS and US laws. Either get Google/Blogger to change & enforce the new TOS or try to fight the creater(s)/poster(s) in US court.
We had a few websites at my hosting company with anti-semetic and other material on them (before blogging was around). The customers were all in Germany or Austria.
Strange how one of America's most prized exports seems to be freedom of speech.
These people are trying to silence others because they have different views.
"if you take out uncovered meat and place it outside, without cover, and the cats come to eat it -- then whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's? This case is no different."
+1, Bizzare Analogy
also, George Bush, is that you?
You know, I am getting tired of people throwing the "don't be evil" phrase in their face all the time. It is old, tiring, and played out so many times in the wrong way.
I don't like racism, but in our country -and google is based in our country- our laws let people spew whatever trash they want to trash as long as it doesn't cause harm....and while racism may infuriate me, and hurt people's feelings - it does not cause actual harm (yes someone will argue it teaches young people to do stupid things, but the harm came from the young kids).
All in all, Google is correct for letting people have their free speech.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
The problem with that argument is that they have only removed certain sites as news. It also doesn't just apply to the right like your link claims either. DailyKos was removed from Google News LONG before LGF. Do a plain Google search. Those sites show up JUST fine.
Now, I'm all for citizen journalism, but DailyKos, Michelle Malkin's rambling blog, and Little Green Footballs do not classify as news in any objective sense. The only idea they are foisting with their "censorship" is that opinion blogs do not count as news.
Not doing evil to prevent someone else from doing evil is not evil. Perhaps google should censor these groups that preach intolerance, that is intolerance of blogs that contain intolerance.
i blame the gnome AIDS epidemic on those night-elf whores, dancing around, half-naked, in ironforge all day.
This just shows that the largest population of /.-ers are just teenagers, siting now behind their desk going 'njah njah njah njah'
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means!
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
If you don't eat your meat, how can you have any pudding? How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
When are the actual racists going to be under fire?
While the article states:
the referenced "flag" article on Google does not mention anything about "removal" of questionable blogs in the case of hate speech. The only actions Google might take are:
and
Indeed, there is a "removal" clause:
but it applies only to the activities I put in "bold". Prove that the blogs are engaged in "illegal" activities in court, not by appealing to Google, and Google surely will obey the order of the judge. The problem is of course that this is international matter, but this is a general problem for all Internet activities.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Well, like the Voltaire quote goes, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.". Freedom of speech protects everyone, including those who have politically incorrect ones. Google, in this case, and IMO, is doing the right thing by not caving to them... the problem is whoever started the blogs', not theirs.
"Let's face it, it's a good story. Accuracy would kill it."
"There's some buzz moving around the blogosphere that speculates on whether the left-leaning ideology behind one of the most popular search sites on the Internet may be tainting their ability to provide unbiased results"
Does trying to not be evil make you a commie, nowadays. So presumably commentaters like yourself hold the oppposite view, lets do evil while making money.
6. You can make money without doing evil.
Google is a business. The revenue the company generates is derived from offering its search technology to companies and from the sale of advertising displayed on Google and on other sites across the web.
was Re:Censorship is not uncommon from Google.
davecb5620@gmail.com
What do people expect? People expect Google to either censor or not censor web pages on infinitely many topics. What should Google do? If they don't want to just make ad-hoc judgements, they'd have to instate some kind of internal judicial system where they, personally, decide what is "evil" on the Internet and what is not. But that's what the actual government judicial system is for! It's best for Google to adopt a policy of not censoring anything unless legally ordered to do so. I hear objections like, "But in this case, it's obvious that Google's actions are [evil|not evil], regardless of what the courts or a government says." But it isn't obvious. Users on this very site can't even agree on the evilness of Google's actions in China, for instance.
>> Let's have the courts sort it out
The entire "west" is being turned into some godawful mixture of nanny state and police state precisely because of the influence of courts, judges, and lawyers.
The last thing we need is courts adding even more mountains of red tape and restrictions on communication.
Leave the courts to deal with actual physical events only, not with the ramblings of morons who are easily countered by reasoned argument.
Don't forget to add the parent to your foes list as well. That will learn him good.
Can I bum a sig?
I think Google is doing the right thing. It's not Google's job to decide whether a page is 'legit' or not. If Australian laws forbid racist web content, a judge should bear with the responsability of closing the said page. Otherwise, thinks get really ugly. Who can order Google to remove a page? A politician? A bishop? A civil servant? Any citizen? This is plain madness.
Perhaps as a compromise they could remove them from the blog search.
...that by calling AC's argument "total bloody nonsense ... bollocks ... Dark Ages ... intellectually bankrupt posturing ... specious ... Stone Age," you have said the same of a powerful Muslim cleric in Australia, whose analogy AC was quoting.
Oh, and Salman Rushdie called, said could you kindly return to him Ali Khamenei's fatwa as he wants to spend more time underground with his wife.
Aside from the fact that I get a bit tired of the internet being blamed for social problems, whereas in reality it only makes them more visible.
I basically see two options:
- Censorship. Take offline the racist hate speech, forcing said racists to continue their business underground. However it continues to exist.
OR
- Let the racists (and everyone else) ventilate their hate speech. It only makes them more visible. Which makes the problem so much simpler to solve than if they remain underground. At some point they will say something punishable by law, at which point they can be arrested.
Google obviously once again faces a situation where it has to choose between the lesser of two evils.
I feel racism is also largely solved by educating and creating understanding between groups. I propose a third option, the opposite of censorship - Adding a warning to certain pages rather than taking them offline:
"Warning- Racist content. This page contains racist statements. Before accepting these statements, consider the primitive state that your country would be in without worldwide cooperation between countries and cultures."
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
I like when stupid people talk (read: write). I can find them and avoid them easier. Also if I'm having a bad day, I know who to take it out on.
Is a self righteous do-gooder and should mind his own business. How patronising of him to take up the plight of the "minorities". I certainly wouldn't want some middle class white guy acting as if i need protecting from words on a blog if i was part of a minority. These people are just a different colour, They aren't mentally disabled people who don't have the ability to stand up for themselves and shout if they think an issue should be shouted about.
God Be Gone
google arnt responsable or liable for content they did not write, so why is this google's fault?
portfolio
Quite right too, it's not Google's job to decide what is and isn't legal.
I suspect Google would actually love for a court to order them to take them offline, but only an idiot would do it without having the legal obligation to do so; you're opening yourself up to no end of problems and legal headaches otherwise.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
"just about as liberal as it gets when it comes to free speech - you are allowed to say anything you want about a group, but you are never allowed to call for violence"
But you are allowed to shoot someone as long as the gun manufacturers get imdemnified againsd being sued by the surviving relatives.
You do have freedom of speech, just as long as you don't exercise it. Now that the commie label can't be used to demonize whole groups, it's saving us from the terr'rists that's the pretext. Now y'all don't go accusing me of being in cahoots with people who think like the following.
'you accuse us of being warlike, intolerant and un-peacefull, in that case we must kill you', signed Abd-AL-Latif
Here's some people exercising their right to free speech.
Lawyer gets locked up for defending client.
Nurse gets fined for bumper sticker.
Librarian served with lifetime gag order.
was Re:greater or lesser evil
davecb5620@gmail.com
The price of freedom of speach is being aware of being surrounded by stupidity.
FRA: STFU GTFO
interesting.
A relation of mine has said "If I buy a Ford and it's crap, and I buy another Ford and it's crap, and I buy another Ford and it's crap, and then I say 'Ford vehicles are crap' that's rational. Why is it racist if I generalize about my experiences with <racial group x>?" (Of course, it's expressed a little more crudely than that)
Aside from the fact that people are not cars (and everyone has a different nature/nurture background, so no two people are alike) it's hard to find a counter argument. Not that he would be open to a counter argument, of course. The ideas that things can be put into groups and that we can base expectations on our experience are rational. Just not in this case. But saying "it doesn't work like that" isn't enough to counter that pattern-matching behavior.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Whenever those questions of censorship/hate speech arise, the whole slashdot (US) crowd is unanimous. While I generally agree that free speech should trump everything, I have the following comments :
1. In this specific case, there is no censorship. First, Google is not a government entity; second, not advertising != censoring.
2. More generally, we should never underevaluate the dangers of racist speech. The following may sound controversial, but at the end of the day, the reason why the US public allowed its govt to invade Iraq is racism. Iraqis are Arab and Muslim. With the bullshit about WMD and helping Bin Laden, they looked close enough to Al Qaeda (the real perpetrators) to deserve punishment. This is racism : punishing someone for the sins of his (alledged) fathers/brothers.
3. Real censorship walks under a disguise. If you call it "punishing the disclosure of classified material", it's still censorship. Especially if everything the govt does is classified.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
Although some people may see Google as the "bad guy" here, but they are just following suit. Any servers that host stuff like this have an obligation to provide their customers with a medium for free speech of any sort. It starts to get blurry around things like this, but this is really tame compared to other things I have seen. Many people may not have read about this, but there was an article on indymedia about a socialist in Warsaw who was targetted by a group who own a website called www.redwatch.info that actually lists personal information about people who are known socialists like their addresses, phone numbers, pictures, etc. As many complaints as their host has received, they still refuse to do anything about it.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
From the evil, racist Australian blog:
"We ... hope to preserve and defend our heritage, culture, customs, traditions, morals, and values, as well as our blood itself, against hostile alien elements that are destructive to who we are and we as a race hold dear."
That was written by a white man. Had it been written by an Australian aborigine, it would be a civil rights web site.
Censorship is never an alternative.
Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
Granted, there is a second edge to this sword - when that speech is likely to directly impact the rights of others (by inciting hate crimes, for example) it is necessary to limit the individual right of free expression in favor of the collective right to personal safety and liberty. Google may or may not be in the right here, but I doubt seriously that Google actively shares the viewpoints represented in these blogs.
Besides, this strikes me as a great way to keep track of sub-mental gene-damaged inbred neo-nazi pinheads. I say, let Google leave these blogs in place for all to see. As a Jew, I find their speech to be both reprehensible and frightening; but I'd rather know who and where these morons are from their blogs than to find out the hard way when they resort to terrorism to disseminate their ideology.
Thanks for wasting three minutes of my day, you moron. I actually wasted my time reading the article you linked to when you claim Google practices censorship, only to discover that the link you provided is an article about how Google does not practice censorship .
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Freedom of speech != Freedom to offend
Just calling something terrorism doesn't make it terrorism.
True. But labelling as terrorism something that isn't terrorism IS in fact terrorism.
Seeing a lot of that these days...is that an election I see over there?
[UID-HeinzIntel]
Hey, its their right to be a racist.. Just as much as some muslim has a right to bitch about christians.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
From what I have seen, Google is censoring racist speech from one side only. For example, mild criticism of Islam is censored while sites that spit the most vile slander about Israel are given a pass. Additionally, sites that aim one way politically are much more likely to be approved Google 'news' sources than sites that aim in the other direction.
Just for once I'd like to see some individual, business, organization or whatever react to the complaints of one of these crybaby "offended" people with a response like
"Yeah? Kiss my ass."
When did we become such a bunch of spineless, apologetic worms?
Ohhhh, I'm Soooooooooooo sorry that I hurt your feelings. Please let me grovel at your feet and accept my humble apology and most sincere promise never to do it again .
In regards to 2D geometry, a line is a good example (IMHO) because it shows that there are an infinite number of points (i.e. opinions) between the two extremes. Though I guess technically we're talking about a line segment since by definition a line goes on forever. Of course most political debates seem to go on forever, so maybe a line is a good example :)
So it's NOT okay for Google to censor SEARCH RESULTS in china, but it's okay for them to censor "racist" blogs in Australia?
Gimme a fucking break! You assholes can't have your cake and eat it too!
Sorry, but you are totally wrong.
(I had to)
I recall one judge commenting that free speech does not entitle you to shout 'fire' in a crowded cinema. It's surely a question of degree. Freedom of speech should not extend to specifically targetting individuals, their friends and families, and property for assault or damage.
I quit using Google News because it was obvious that they were "puffing" the official news service of a brutally repressive government (China), no doubt to gain a favored place in its huge economy. At Google the real motto isn't "Don't be evil," it's "Make lots and lots of money."
The final straw came when they gave China's propaganda arm priority over Atlanta/Georgia/US papers in covering the story of the runaway Atlanta bride and a Florida hurricaine. That was "sucking up" on such a monumentally stupid scale, I yanked my Google News bookmark and haven't look back since. I've not missed them because, with all the spin, there's nothing there to miss.
Oh, and don't take any "free speech" claims they make about linking to racist/terrorist websites seriously. Back when I paid attention to Google News, they were drawing a lot of heat for including some rather nasty news sources while refusing to include quite sensible, well-respected conservative ones.
Make no mistake. Google has an agenda. Create a scifi tale about a scary future where society is manipulated by a few technological behemoths and Microsoft and Google-like entities would have their place. And, as I keep reminding myself, how we get our news is very important. One reason Britain blundered so badly in the years before WWII, is that the BBC was intensely hostile to the critics of Nazism such as Churchill, giving them almost no news time and treating them negatively when they did. The parallel to today and the Islamist terrorist threat is rather obvious.
And like I said, this isn't surprising. Like Microsoft, Google has serious problems with sorting right from wrong, good from evil. Only I suspect with Google the rot isn't just at the top.
--Mike Perry, Seattle
You don't need a right to free speech to say stuff everyone agrees with. Freedom of Speech is only used when you are saying unpopular things.
Nazis have just as much right to say what they do, as I do to say that George Dubai Bush is a Nazi.
Why can't Google just put a "rated offensive" warning page like YouTube has?
We are all just people.
With regards to 2D geometry, i would go with the circle, since a line is one dimensional.
I applaud Google's actions here. Censorship is never a good thing, it can seriously mask the level of problems, especially where the evil of racial hatred is concerned.
For example, as a foreigner living in Germany I am constantly aware and reminded daily of the growing Nazi problem here (I've given up on using the prefix "Neo" since it's still the same old problem that never went away). My feeling is that the German Government's censorship of Nazi related things has made things much worse. It has added attraction by deeming such things forbidden. It makes it difficult to openly talk about the situation and to ridicule the Nazi position, thus to some degree dissipating the threat. Not to mention the fact that the application of anti-fascist laws are so utterly fascist that a man was given 7 years in prison for selling anti-nazi badges depicting a swastika with a red line through it. That's just plain dumb... or a fascist conspiracy... hmmm, which I don't entirely throw out as a possibilty... stranger things have happened.
Perhaps worst of all though, it blinds Germans to how big the problem really is. A few instances such as the recent Afghanistan skull f**king photos, etc do make the news but they seem few and isolated.
The truth is that there are lesser incidents every day, all over Germany. There are parts of this country that, as a foreigner, it would not be safe for me to travel to. The Nazi problem is still growing, and unlike in many countries it is not just a symptom of a band of lunatic disgruntled extremists. Here it has broad appeal and a significant percentage of the population is still sympathetic to many of the Nazi ideals. Secretly, because they can't talk about it and neither can anyone else.
Presumably - after it is again too late - someone is going to deal with the problem. Hopefully for once it's the Germans themselves this time and not the Soviet AF, USAF and RAF. Until the Germans remove this problem internally it will never go away. It has remained partially hidden since 1945, and it's not going anywhere soon, except to positions of greater strength.
So, yes, Google protecting free speech is good, but it would be better if it were consistent, bearing in mind that Google censors free speech in Germany. Which is part of the problem, not a solution.
..gets its name from the Poem of the same name by "Dub Poet", Linton Kwesi Johnson.
He generally speaks poetry in Jamacan Patois over dubbed reggae beats. He was an activist in the 1980s in England, when there was a lot of racial unrest, but he's mellowed out recently. His stuff is on iTunes.
The chorus is;
"Facists on de attack, noh bodder worry about dat,
facists on de attack, we will counter attack,
facists on de attack den we will fight dem back,
facists on de attack, den we will drive dem back"
There are many groups in the US and around the world whose ideologies and agendas are driven by genuine racism. Most of these groups create literature or propaganda of some sort, and much of this is delivered through the US postal service to their followers and potential converts around the world.
Therefore the US postal service is supporting racism!
To stamp out this evil the postal service MUST begin screening letters and packages for racist content. Each letter or package must be examined and read very carefully by postal agents who have been specially trained to detect content that promotes racial dis-harmony. Those packages and letters found to encourage racism will be burned and those responsible for sending them charged with racism. Convicted racists will be placed in death-camps of tolerance.
If we don't do this then those racists will continue to be racists and spread their racism throughout the world, a crime against all humanity which cannot be allowed to stand!
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Noam Chomsky correctly put it (paraphrasing): You are either for free speech or you are against it. There is no meaningful middle ground. Everyone is for free speech that they agree with. Even Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels agreed with that. The meaningful test is whether you are for speech that you disagree with. Blogger Brian Stokes wants to remove racist blogs. Therefore he is against free speech that he disagrees with; he is against free speech.
... giving the bloggers enough rope to hang themselves. If their opinions are so poisonous, they should be publicly aired so that everyone can see for themselves how pathetic and disgusting they truly are.
Should Google honor his wishes? Clearly they have a right and a reason not to. If you claim to be for free speech you must support their freedom to keep the blogs.
There is a simple rationale why the basic right of free speech has a public benefit in this case
"I really think everything is fair game. That's not to say that I don't find anything offensive. But I think you can make fun of anything as long as it's funny enough. But it has to be funny enough."
"I don't care if you think I'm racist. I just want you to think I'm thin."
And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
Perhaps it comes down to active evil vs. passive evil. If they take down the blogs, that's an action. If they don't take down the blogs, that's inaction.
So the choice becomes: do they actively go against one of their core principles to stop this, or do they passively stand by and do nothing?
As a white guy living in a predomanantly non-white country, I can say this is definantly true. I'm constantly charged more for stuff because I look like a tourist, and either made fun of or complimented on my accent.
Chances are any disscution on Slashdot will degrade into a flamewar about ID/Christianity within 14 posts.
I define evil as, "Intentionally fucking over someone else for your own personal gain." That is objective, simple to remember, and fairly accurate.
There's no legal system required, and it's fairly portable. Take it or leave it, but that's how I judge evil.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
According to the T&C for most of Google's services, all hate speech (including racism) is banned. So the answers to your question, according to Google, is that racist speech is more evil than censorship.
Hey, I'm from FightDemBack, and I thought that I'd respond to a few of the comments here and clarify a few things: Free speech. Seems like quite a few people really love this stuff. FDB quite likes free speech too, but we draw the line when racists are encouraging and enabling violent attacks on minorities and anti-racists. Just as you can't yell out FIRE in a crowded theatre, you shouldn't be able to yell out: Here's some people who deserve to be shot - and here is where they live and what they do and their phone number and details about their family members. Some people would even contend that attempting to intimidate people into silence via threats of violence and posting hitlists is a form of censorship in itself. It's not the racist material that's the issue, it's the names and addresses etc. I don't think anyone honestly believes that somebody is going to read a racist blog and decide to come after one of us - but if a racist psycho reads the blog, sees the addresses, sees the incitement to violence... well, they might just want to do something about it. Similar websites in Europe and America have led to violent assaults and murders in recent years, and similar pre-internet hitlists in Aus and NZ resulted in assaults, arsons etc. Luckily, there have so far only been ATTEMPTED murders associated with the websites referred to in this article. Some here have also taken umbrage with the reference to terrorism. The webmasters of both of these sites have been members of extremist groups who have used terrorist methods to achieve their goals. Methods like blowing crap up and burning stuff down. And now they're trying to put terror into the hearts of those they target through this hitlist bollocks. I reckon we can get away with calling them terrorists for a while. Any questions, am happy to elaborate on our position further.
www.fightdemback.org
I've disagreed with many Google decisions since their last few years of success, but they are dead on on this one.
Freedom of Speech is WAY more important than how any of you cry babies feel about what people might be saying.
People who still get upset by racism are retarded. At this point racism is generally considered a form of retardation, so getting all worked up about it is completely unnecessary.
Freedom of Speech however, is getting limited more and more each day (at least in this country), I mean, if you say you'd like the president dead, you can go to jail for that, even if it's obviously just speech and you don't even own a gun!! Personally though, I'd rather see Cheney in jail, and bush in a straight jacket, or somewhere else where they put retards.
Now are you going to limit my speech because I'm mean about retards? Or is it valid to want a president who is not mentally handicapped?
Whoever this is bitching about freedom of speech and google needs a big cup of STFU. They are obviously retarded and don't understand the slippery slope of free speech whatsoever.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
What is this? A magazine at the grocery store checkout line?
The shocking 411 on Google's cellulite!
OMGZ OMGZ Google and Blogger caught on camera.
Mary-kate cheats Yahoo! - caught in 'one night stand' with Google!
Am no fek Buddhist, but this is enlightenment.
1) Its not Googles place in society to judge content - especially subjective content.
2) The internet is not defined by one set of ideologies or political agenda. Just because one group thinks they are right (and the other group is wrong) doesnt mean it so.
3) Blogs, are by definition opinion and avenues of free speech. Today Google is blocking racism in Austrailaia and anti government talk in China. Well believe the same nonsense when some nation decides Google needs to block pro abortion sites or equal right s for women? Because it will happen if you endorse ideological censorship.
4) People have the right to be idiots.
Okay, you're complaining because the maintainers of a search engine don't censor things unless they're ordered by a court to do so? What would you prefer?
http://outcampaign.org/
If you don't want to read a racist blog, don't go out looking for them. It's not like they are all over the place, waving flags trying to get your attention.
Well said, sir. Were but yours the only comment on this thread.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the dea^H^H^H threat of legal action your right to say it.
Ain't it great how the real world works...
If Google removes the blogs, half the world bitches at them for censorship.
But if Google lets the blogs stay, then the *other* half of the world bitches that Google is helping spread racism.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Firstly i'd like to say that i dont agree with racism etc, and would prefer it isn't in our society. Having said that, asking a core part of internet usage to 'filter' what they show in this case would set a dangerous precedent. Are we saying someone at google should actively decide what should and shouldn't be shown? Sure it may start off simply enough, but perhaps one day they decide a certain political candidate doesn't suit their purpose so they filter that out from view as well... Perhaps they start deciding what is and isn't news... I'd prefer a page i can choose not to look at than a company deciding what my opinion on certain topics should be and presenting wholly biased views.
Theres a suitable saying here that might interest you... "To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." Google didn't get to where it is today by avoiding criticism.
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
yes, correct. i was about to write that comment myself... then i thought to refresh and badabing - there it was. although you gotta work on your spelling - especially when you copy someone else's post.. last time i checked, speach isn't a word..
"i stand on the edge of destruction" -shai hulud
So what? Is it only PC now to be racist against evil white imperialists, who are the root of all the world's ills?
(The answer is "yes")
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The funniest part about this whole thing is the group of 'anti-racists' who are kicking up a stink about these blogs. They complain that a couple of these so called racist blogs make personal information (photos, names etc) of alleged anti racism activists available. Now, these 'anti-racists', their entire mission and website seems to focus completely on doing exactly the same thing to the so called Nazis (see: anybody with a differing opinion to theirs), along with defaming them, calling their employers and 'exposing' them, and all around harassment of them and their family. 99% of what they accuse people of is also completely fabricated.
Want to stop hate speech on the web? Stop these 'anti-racist' fascists from forcing their views onto everybody via intimidation. Their only problem is that they dont want to have to take their own medicine. They are nothing more than an anti white hate group.
Well, Im one of the founders of the group that made the complaint, and I suppose I ought put this all into perspective.
The story didn't really tell the full side of the story. Yes the blogs are deeply deeply racist, and yes we don't like it, but thats not what the complaints actually about.
The problem is, these are "redwatch" sites. Now, if you've followed what unfolded with Redwatch UK, and Redwatch Poland, you'll get an insight as to exactly what about these sites raises our ire. First off, as a person on our forums put it:
"I'm trying to remember that old Voltaire quote about getting stabbed in the gut because there was a neo-Nazi hitlist with your street address on it, but it's not coming to me."
The "Patriot alliance downunder" (as known in australia as redwatch downunder) site, is run by one of the most notorious Neo-Nazi's in Australia "Ben Weerheym". This guy is a member of a group called the ANM, who where responsible for a 20 year terrorist campaign of fire bombings, bashings, murder and intimidation. Its pretty much the closest australia has had to a genuine Al Quaida type group, except neo nazi. On his release from prison on charges of vandalising a jewish temple in 2004, Ben went pretty quiet, and we assumed it was the last we would hear from him, but then the stupid fool sparked up again, and as usual went stalking members of the left and jewish and muslim groups. His Mentor Jack Van Tongeran is still awaiting charges on a conspiracy to assasinate the Attourney General, and theres talk of a conspiracy to blow up some shipping lines and stuff. This isnt your usual nutty ultra-conservative racist we are talking about here. Currently his site features names, addresses, phone numbers of all sorts of people he percieves to be threats, and since the first version of his site went up, there has been attempted assaults, a hit and run attempt, smashed windows, graffiti, you name it, directed at people who feature on his site. Its a hit list, that much is indisputable (despite the usual bullshit refrain from these sites that its "research"). Inciting and directing violence has always been unnaceptable in our society. Does doing it on the web make it right? Is it now cool to yell fire in a resturant?
The Red watch NZ sites possibly even more ominous. Nic Miller is a bonafide psychopath of the highest order. The New Zealand nazi scene is *verry* scary. Theres been multiple murders, bashings, arsons, you name it. And Nic Miller is widely regarded as one of the most unhinged members of that scene. The site is adamant that the people on there should have bad things done to them, and provides details on how to find those people. The above mention of the hit and run attack actually happened in NZ before Nic Miller took over maintaining the NZ portion of the hitlist, and
One of the reassuring things is the NZ police are said to be in the process of investigating arresting the maintainer of the NZ site. Its still not sure the police response to the Australian site, as last our lawyers told us , the Director of public prosecutions was nervous about blowing a test case on certain technicalitys regarding identification.
The worst part of all of this? Most of the people on these sites have no interest in nazis. The sites feature a prominant conservative blogger, some tech guy who's now in pretty much crisis mode after he commited his simple crime of commenting on a blog what a nut he thinks nic is. Theres Journalists on there who where simply just doing there jobs before falling under the crosshairs, and some folks who's only crime is being jewish.
I havent even gone into the insane amounts of defamation on that site. All I can say is, if 1/10th of what those guys wrote about the target's of their hate where true, then damn it "The joooos" better hurry up with those paycheck's cos I aint seen a dime.
I'm sorry if some people want to hide behind the fre
By systematically punishing the civilian population in Cuba, the American government influences the world's "leaders" to maintain economic sanctions for over 40 years, and this amounts to genocide. Well, according to some. But according to others, they're just simply trying to "protect the american people" and "spread freedom". And for a more blatant example, how about the genocide that occurred in Hiroshima or Nagasaki? How many pundits still think those were a good idea(TM)? So there's your two sides to genocide.
I'll take a shot at your homophobic violence too, if you like? Maintaining a population that will fund retirees benefits requires children that grow into productive tax-paying citizens. If it's true that every human has potential for bi-sexual activity, but are incapable of accepting that, then it's in the better interest of society as a whole to have the heterosexuality promoted and homosexuality demoted. Turning a selective blind eye to "MINOR" homophobic violence implicitly discourages the stupid masses to deny their latent bisexuality, and we get more babies, more taxpayers, and a more stable society.
No, I don't promote these points of view, but you can argue for just about anything, if you try hard enough. What you seem to not understand about yourself, is that your "moral" judgement is EXACTLY "what feels good" to you, with a different definition of "good" that suits the argument. You are just as much the "moral relativist" that we all are, and there is no "right" or "wrong" except in the head of each of us, and that demonstrably differs from person to person. I don't ask for an apology from you or anyone for their points of view. Just be ready to defend yourself. Or shut-up. No ?
I have to say, this is one of the best articles, WITH comments I have read on /. in quite some time. There is actually some heart felt feelings going into people's responses and very good arguments about the whole Black/White/Grey thing. kudos to all of you, and why can't we see this kind of passion in more posts?
"My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
That would be Irony. We're well know for it in the UK, but sadly not a lot of it makes it across the pond
Karma: Bad. (As in Good?)