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."

Comments

greater or lesser evil

[tverbeek]

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.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[localoptimum]

I totally agree with this comment. I'd rather listen to/read a different perspective, albeit completely orthogonal to my own views, than see a suppression of the freedom of expression (especially in the f***ing internet).

Re:greater or lesser evil

[clickclickdrone]

Exactly and starting censorshop is a slippery slope - where do you stop? Almost every country, individual or group will have something that they take offense to. You can't please everybody and trying to do so is only going to cause a problem to pop up somewhere else
Oblig. joke: And I for one welcome our Google non-censoring overlords.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[aka.Daniel'Z]

Just a point to keep in mind: that could be the case, until someone goes out there and kills a member of one of those minority groups, motivated by racist speech. Then it can't be repaired at all - can't bring them back.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[hey!]

John Stuart Mill would argue that even wrong ideas serve an important purpose. Unless the truth is challenged, it becomes empty doctrine.

I think the recent history of the Balkans show this. Yugoslavia was unified, but on a superficial level. As soon as the force of censorship was removed, the country flew apart.

This is precisely why hate speech is valuable. It forces us to confront ugly ideas. While this makes us uncomfortable, it also makes us stronger.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[MightyYar]

Right! Exactly why we should ban violent video games! Oh, wait... no, we should ban murder.

By the way, in the US - which is 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. For instance, you can say "White people are evil and stupid." You cannot say, "Everyone go out and kill a white man." I used white people because I'm white :)

Re:greater or lesser evil

[Jessta]

Yeah, Let the idiots have their blogs.
The great thing about the internet is that, to be offended by something on the internet you actually have to intentionally search for it.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[mjjw]

Google are damned if they do and damned if they don't. They are evil for supporting racism or evil for censoring free speech.

Conversley their PR machine can say they are supporting free speech or acting against racism. Ultimately they are in a no-win situation and choosing to let the courts decide is (IMHO) probably the least damaging route.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[aussie_a]

Atleast Google is standing up....

No they're not. All they're saying is "we aren't going to do it because some random person tells us to do it. We want the government to tell us to do it." How is that standing up against anything within your post (which is about censorship by the government, not voluntary censorship).

Re:greater or lesser evil

[malsdavis]

Shouldn't we therefore ban cars as well?

They kill over 40,000 people and leave hundreds of thousands with permanent disabilities every year in the USA alone! Kind of puts the relatively few racist, paedophilic and even terrorist murders into perspective.

At the end of the day though I think it's only the freaks who commit such acts who should be punished not whatever they claimed "motivated" them or else we'd see everything being eventually banned. For example: sometimes computers just piss me off (and I'm sure millions of others) so much I could kill! ...so ban computers?

Re:greater or lesser evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it Googles job to decide what is acceptable and what isn't? If I have a sex-related blog on Google and someone complains, would it be acceptable for Google to remove it? What if I had a blog that was critical of a Government, and a that Government asked Google to remove it?

Google arn't responsible for policing the Internet. If you don't like the idea that there are racists on the Internet, don't read their stuff, or just don't use it.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[indifferent children]

How would you like to be Google? You cave in to the legal (not 'good', but legal) demands of the Chinese government to censor content, and you get slammed. You refuse to censor blogs in Australia, you get slammed. Maybe they need to add a line to their mission statement, "Don't be neutral."

(Insert Zapf Brannigan quote here).

Re:greater or lesser evil

[deficite]

"The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored." - Chandon Seldon

Re:greater or lesser evil

[hemorex]

Google hosting a blog does not imply that Google condones the content of the blog.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[mgblst]

OK, everybody else doesn't want to be google, I will be google.

This is what happens with every slightly complex issue, there are always two sides to an issue. Governments get this all the time. Reducing taxes is good and bad. Invading Iraq is good and bad (ok, mainly bad). Even at a personal level - buying a new car is good and bad, having a baby is good and bad. We all need to weigh up the benefits, and you will probably be critised no matter you do.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[Vexorian]

Isn't that kind of retarded? Do you really think that the only reason that person needs to kill someone is racist speech? If so, wouldn't him be some kind of psycho? In that case he would end up killing anyways.

I am a member of an often targeted race myself, but I'd rather let racist blogs exist than put free speech on peril, it is easy to screw freedom of speech starting with 'good intentions'. I am afraid that people who think they got the right not to ever be offended are the biggest danger to freedom of speec.

I would ban them if and only if they promote killing and other illegal stuff though.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[PinkyDead]

Interesting... so you are suggesting that people are born prejudiced, and full of hatred - that they do not learn such things. Is there a gene that defines this rascism thing? Could we breed it out?

I can't think of very few atrocities in the world that didn't stem from something that someone wrote or said - and communicated to rational free thinking individuals.

I can't say I'm a big fan of censorship - but it is a law like any other law and ideally reflects the democratic will of the people.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[Malfourmed]

In principle I agree, however the situation can get murky.

For instance, from the article:

The blog posts photographs and full names of anti-racism activists from Australia and New Zealand, in effect making this information available to those who wish to do these activists physical harm.

and a different site contains:

numerous posts that include photos, street addresses and even phone numbers of various [anti racism] activists.

Not quite crossing the line perhaps ... but if not, then getting dangerously close.

And it's not like Stokes, the anti-racism activist, doesn't see the opposing view:

"I think what Google intends is not to restrict people's freedom of speech," Mr Stokes said. "But we're talking about bashing up brown people and defaming them. This isn't politics, this is terrorism."

And, finally two points also worth mentioning. Firstly the blogs may be in contravention of the blog providers' terms of service:

Both blogs appear to violate Blogger's user agreement, particularly Red Watch NZ.

and secondly, they may also be illegal under Australian law:

"The Racial Discrimination Act [federal legislation] and Anti-Discrimination Act [state legislation] both prohibit racial vilification. It doesn't make that a criminal offence, but it does make it unlawful for a person to do an act which is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group. As long as that act is done because of the person's race..."

So at what point does the expression of a "different perspective" become an incitement to violence or intimidation?

Re:greater or lesser evil

[tkrotchko]

Just calling something terrorism doesn't make it terrorism. It reminds me of the 50's when you didn't agree with someone you'd call them a communist.

As far as something that might be illegal in some jurisdiction, common sense tells you that the best route is to prosecute the person or people who did something illegal, not the medium carrying the message. Saying Google is responsible is like saying that the paper makers are responsible for what's written on their paper (not a perfect analogy, I realize).

Re:greater or lesser evil

[Maelwryth]

"I used white people because I'm white :)"

And you used man because you are a woman.......on /.?

Seriously though, you probably used white because you have been made to feel guilty for something you never did to people who are no longer alive. Isn't the media wonderful!

Re:greater or lesser evil

[Smidge204]

Sorry for going slightly offtopic but the whole "two tone vision" thing bugs the hell outta me. Nothing is ever as simple as "good or bad."

There are as many ways to look at a problem as there are people looking at it. If you find anyone who agrees 100% with another person on some issue, then that person has obviously not bothered to think about it for themselves.

There are never "two sides" to an issue. If you were to represent any social/political/economic issue as a 2D geometry, the best example would be a circle not a line.
=Smidge=

Re:greater or lesser evil

[kent_eh]

Sorry for going slightly offtopic but the whole "two tone vision" thing bugs the hell outta me. Nothing is ever as simple as "good or bad." There are as many ways to look at a problem as there are people looking at it. If you find anyone who agrees 100% with another person on some issue, then that person has obviously not bothered to think about it for themselves. There are never "two sides" to an issue. If you were to represent any social/political/economic issue as a 2D geometry, the best example would be a circle not a line.

Someone give this guy a +5 insightful.

I get sooo frustrated with the "the only way for me to be right is for you to be wrong" binary thinking cop-out. No question always demands an absolute yes or no answer.
We have an analog computer between our ears. The answer can be "maybe, sometimes, sort-of, or with added caveats".
</rant>

Re:greater or lesser evil

[operagost]

No question always demands an absolute yes or no answer.

Did you get out of bed today?
Did you brush your teeth today?
Did you post on Slashdot today?
There's three. I'll try to ignore the irony of your statement itself being an absolute statement.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[Rude Turnip]

To quote a sig I read here some time ago: "black and white are also shades of gray."

Re:greater or lesser evil

[ScentCone]

Suck it.

And right there, perfectly formatted, is the classic example of someone who, rather than face the discomfort of acknowledging that that some issues simply are black and white, decides to be slippery (changing the meaning of the questions by playing dumb about context) and and snarky (sounding like you're dishing out some sort of verbal retaliation for having been somehow offended, which is BS).

People with a vested interest in a not-firm position on anything (because holding and affirming one one would expose their own mixed premises, hypocrisy, or other cognitive or philosophical shortcomings) tend to opt rather quickly for ad hominem or just plain boorish responses to reasonably-put challenges. Thanks for illustrating that so nicely.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[Curien]

Aggravated assault.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree that there is always a shade of gray. Raping a woman is bad; not raping a woman is good. Tell me there is a shade of gray there? There are some things that are going to be black and white. However, for the majority of issues a binary view is not appropriate.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[BoberFett]

Have you ever thought about why rape is bad? Is it because it's inherently bad? Or is it because society says so? In the grand scheme of the universe, rape is irrelevant, and therefore it's society's opinion that it's bad. What if there were a society which decided that rape was good?

And please, if anyone is going to reply, stay away from strawmen. I'm not making a statement on my opinion of the goodness or badness of rape, simply arguing that there everything is inherently neutral and good or bad is simply a human construct.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[iocat]

There's a key difference. When they censor sites in China, they're criticized by people who value free speech. When the refuse to censor sites in Australia, they're criticized by people who don't value free speech. Racism is fucked, obviously, but I'd rather let those people spew their bile and have it out in the open for others to refute, than have it fester.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[Dread_ed]

Show me even "two sides" of genocide, or homophobically motivated violence, racial prejudice, or slavery, much less this circle plot you refer to.

I won't apologize for stating that there are some things that I put in the category of "right" or "wrong" and I won't accept some high minded excuse for not making a value judgement and sticking to it. Principles can be as clear as black and white, even though the whole world may dissent.

Sure gray has a place. There are many complex issues (most of them) that deserve a gray/in-between rating. However to deny that some things are strictly wrong or inherently right invalidates the whole idea of value judgement and evaluation on a moral basis. If that is invalidated just go with what feels good and what profits you most, with every other concern to be damned.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[orielbean]

TO append this comment - this is the danger posed by Aristotlean philosophy that we are taught in school and has filtered almost all aspects of Western classical & modern culture. There is no room for gray areas and uncertainties. You have to wonder where we posit those defective ideas of Intelligent Design or Erich Von Daniken "explaining" how the civilization was a result of alien intervention. They both push the idea of "if you can't disprove it, it MUST be the answer". I say to hell with politics and religion today. Let us give thanks to the Flying Spaghetti Monster once again. Ramen.

Re:greater or lesser evil

[NMerriam]

Show me even "two sides" of genocide, or homophobically motivated violence, racial prejudice, or slavery, much less this circle plot you refer to.

Genocide: Frees up resources, eliminates political opposition. Can bring great personal fame to a leader. Can lead to outside investments and attention to an otherwise ignored region.

Homophobic Violence: Discourages homosexuals to publicly state orientation, thus marginalizing their influence on society. Can bring great personal fame to perpetrator. Creates incentive for homosexuals to continue living in dishonest marriages/families, which may be beneficial to the family.

Racial Prejudice: Promotes self-esteem and stronger community in each racial group. Can be used to justify unfair treatment of others, which brings financial and social advantages to yourself and your group.

Slavery: Provides low-cost labor force. Creates trade and political connections between regions that otherwise would be separate.

If there weren't another side to these problems, they wouldn't still exist as problems. And if you refuse to understand the other side and simply write them off as evil, you'll never eliminate the problem, another person will come along and create it all over again because the benefits are still there.

Is it really Google's fault?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Is it really Google's fault?

[MightyYar]

The alternative is to have the hate groups operate completely underground, or using euphemisms in their writings. Then there is no opportunity to debate their beliefs - no chance to counter their message.

Re:Is it really Google's fault?

[garyok]

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.

Ideas aren't meat and sentient, thoughtful humans aren't instinctive predatory felines. Total bloody nonsense. Reasoning by analogy is the sort of bollocks that kept western civilisation in the Dark Ages. It's intellectually bankrupt posturing that can lead to the most specious arguments appearing to have at least the veneer of respectability. Meat and cats have nothing to do with the issue. Mod parent into the Stone Age...

racism

[polar red]

And still humanity doesn't grow up ... racism is so ridiculous.

Re:racism

[master_p]

The establishment is served well by ignorance...people are not educated by schooling, they are simply trained in a discipline so as that they can have a job so as that they are not poor so as that they don't rebel against the establishment.

In order for humanity to grow up, there has to be real education.

That's good. Way it is supposed to be.

[gd23ka]

Let's have the courts sort it out and not the providersm carriers etc.

Freedom of speech is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What I'd like to know...

[Noryungi]

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.

Re:What I'd like to know...

[KingSkippus]

You know what I think would be a good thing for Google to do? Start offering a service where I could post high-quality downloads of my favorite movies and television shows without commercials. It would be the ultimate in freedom of expression. Unfortunately, though, we have these little things called laws that, while Google is not being evil, they still have to follow. Weird as it may sound, other countries have them too, and sometimes, they're not the same as ours.

Did you not read the summary? If the Australian government orders the content to be taken down, it will be taken down. Just because Google has a corporate goal of not being evil doesn't mean that it can afford to simply disregard laws it doesn't like, any more than you or I can.

Did it ever occur to you that Google would love to publish blogs that run afoul of the Chinese government, and that as soon as it is hopefully able to do so without international legal repercussions, it probably will?

I don't consider myself particularly evil, either, but if I did business in China, I would also in no hurry to start an international incident by showing blatant disregard for China's laws. And before I get hit with the "just don't do business in China" stick, 1) that's not a practical solution, 2) it wouldn't do any good, as others would be more than happy to fill in the gap, and 3) once China does (hopefully) become a country of greater freedom, would you really want to be the one that turned your back on the country in its time of gradual change?

Instead of posting these little snipes at Google for following the laws of the lands they're working in, how about attacking the root cause of the problem, the Chinese government? How many rallies have you been to in Beijing? How many letters have you written to you Congresscritter asking for the U.S. to put more pressure on the Chinese government to allow more freedom?

Easily Solved

[taff^2]

If you don't want to read Racist blogs, don't google for them.

The best form of censorship is self-censorship.

Subject

[19061969]

Google: "We host blogs"
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...

Re:Subject

[aussie_a]

Sometimes even I feel for corporations...

I don't. Google has shown time and again that their motto should truly be "Do no illegal activities" rather then "Do no evil." Although there's no pleasing everyone in this case, they are backing their "do nothing illegal" policy, rather then a "do no evil" one. After all if they sought to do no evil either they would leave the blogs online no matter what, or they would remove them no matter what. At the moment they're just doing as little as they're legally obligated.

Re:Subject

[asliarun]

"if they sought to do no evil either they would leave the blogs online no matter what"

You are now defining "evil" by your own standards. Even in the same society, a traditional hacker's ethos and value system is very different from that of an ordinary person or even a new-age hacker. Furthermore, different people, societies, and countries have their own concept of evil/moral or good/bad.

The only realistic way in today's world for a Google to retain its "integrity" is to do exactly what it is currently doing. Don't censor anything (or worse, knowingly compromise your users' privacy) until you're forced to do so by law. If people have a problem with some content on the internet, they need to take legal recourse, not start a witch hunt because their sensibilities have been offended.

Don't be evil? They're not!

[endemoniada]

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!"

be consistent

[wmeyer]

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.

A price

[Anonymous Coward]

The price of freedom of speech is the unfortunate ability to be surrounded by stupidity.

Good for Google

[ParraCida]

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.

They'll need a judge's order

[BeeBeard]

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.

Re:They'll need a judge's order

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does anyone need to comply with anything? Racism exists, it's real and it's a valid (if disguisting) world view. Violence and discrimination can be legislated against, thought and opinion cannot. Is anybody suggesting it's impossible to be racist using PC words?

The chairperson of your local thought police is probably a zionist black female!

If anybody should be censored, it's the simpletons that think censorship is more acceptable than racism.

Whiners.

[Pantero Blanco]

"Blogger is absolutely insensitive to complaints about racist and neo-Nazi content," said Brian Stokes, co-founder of FightDemBack!, a group that monitors the activities of racists, fascists and other such offenders operating in Australia and New Zealand.

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.

Follow up to this story...

[Antifuse]

"Google caves in to pressure in Australia, evilly censors blogs. So much for that 'don't be evil' motto, guys!"

Could someone define 'hate speech'?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

not google's job to decide what is racist

[drac0n1z]

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.

Shame on Google.

[DaveV1.0]

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.

Correction

[palladiate]

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.

Read the article

[mapkinase]

Read the article, including short description of Google policy on that matter referenced therein.

While the article states:

Mr Stokes said his group had reported numerous discriminatory Blogger journals to Google, both through the "flag" button that appears on each blog and through an email form that Mr Stokes said was "buried in their site, very hard to find".

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:

The "Flag?" button is a means by which readers of Blog*Spot can help inform us about potentially questionable content, so we can prevent others from encountering such material by setting particular blogs as "unlisted." This means the blog won't be promoted on Blogger.com but will still be available on the web -- we prefer to keep in mind that one person's vulgarity is another's poetry. Or something like that.

and

When the community has voted and hate speech is identified on BlogSpot, Google may exercise its right to place a Content Warning page in front of the blog and set it to "unlisted."

Indeed, there is a "removal" clause:

For more serious cases, such as spam blogs or sites engaging in illegal activity, we will continue to enforce our existing policies (removing content and deleting accounts when necessary).

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.

Do not censor - educate

[mrjb]

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."

Who defines racism?

[J.R. Random]

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.

Re:Freedom to Offend

[mc6809e]

Freedom of speech != Freedom to offend

Freedom of speech isn't worth much if one can't use offensive speech.

"Bush is an idiot", for example, might offend Bush, but can anyone really say it shouldn't be protected speech?

Re:Freedom to Offend

[Anonymous Coward]

WHAT??? I can't believe you fucked up that badly. Freedom of speech is EXACTLY equal to Freedom to Offend and much more besides. What a misguided dumbass you are!