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

[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

[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

[deficite]

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

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

[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

[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

[critter_hunter]

Nice irony there. You get frustrated ... because you're right to see things in shades of gray and they're wrong to see things in black and white? Nice binary thinking mr analog!

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.

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.

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...

A price

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[aussie_a]

what would happen if a (google-based) Chinese blogger runs afoul of the Chinese Government?

Will Google remove the blog?

I don't expect slashdotters to read the fucking article. But at least read the fucking summary.

Google ... says it will take the blogs in question offline only if ordered to do so by a court.

Pretty easy to work out what they'd do in the case of China (especially given their past actions). But I'm guessing you just wanted to bash Google rather then have a serious discussion.

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.