Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Google Censorship

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

The Washington Times lead editorial today (June 3, 2006), “Conservative sites un-Googled”, exposed a problem I heard about two weeks ago. Two web sites that carry my ‘nationally-focused’ op eds, MichNews.com and New Media Journal, were told by Google that they were removed for ‘hate content’.

“The offending material cited by Google were articles criticizing radical Islam and Islamists. Upon review, the articles contain language no more – in some cases far less – inflammatory than the numberous Muslim web sites a user can find when searching Google News.”

Google’s bowing to Islamists isn’t “any less cowardly and, as we’ve seen in Europe, dangerous to a free society. “

“Islamists have exploited Google’s seemingly well-intentioned business practices to silence critics. Because if you can’t find it using Google, chances are you won’t find it all.”

In light of the civil suit here in Virginia against anonymous blogger – Black Velvet Bruce Lee – and comments about blogging at today’s State Central Committee, RPV meeting, it brings the issues of free speech, responsibility and rights up again for Virginians.

Google shouldn’t edit for ‘hate speech’. Neither should others. If the speech is hateful and stupid enough, it will be self censoring because no one will read it or care. The laws for slander and libel should still apply. But PC speech codes, especially when they are manipulated by Islamists, should be discarded.

I’ll never forget when a lawyer (U Va Law) told me that if I said, “Homosexual behavior is sinful,” then I had committed hate speech which should be made into a hate crime, prosecuted and punished.

Freedoms require ever-lasting vigilance.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

14 responses to “Google Censorship”

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I see the point – sort of.

    But GOOGLE is a directory service, one of at least a dozen

    The website(s) in question quite probably still exist and can be
    accessed by keying in their domain addresses.

    GOOGLE does not control what is put on the websites – just
    whether or not it’s directory service will reference the
    website when one keys in keywords found on that website.

    I’ll be honest. I don’t know what the ethics should be and
    my only comfort is that I’m quite sure I’m not alone.

    For instance, do you want GOOGLE to point to child porn or
    torture or animal sacrifice sites?

    Ditto for your local library if one really gets down to it.

    or perhaps a better analogy would be that the library has
    the material but will not put it in the card catalogue.

    Before the internet… information could be more effectively controlled and restricted.

    For instance, hate literature could still be passed out on a street corner or circulated among like-minded individuals but there were physical and monetary limits on such activities. With the internet, the audience is worldwide and the costs of publishing are minimal.

    That basically allows anyone to say anything no matter how hateful – and be heard.

    Back to GOOGLE. They already are forced by some governments including China to remove references to some material. That could be if not justified, understandable because they really are just a company that essentially can be put out of business if they don’t conform to government rules.

    GOOGLE also, as a private enterprise, has the right to determine what info it will reference and what info it will not.

    Are we advocating that GOOGLE be forced to release any/all info or are we advocating that certain “rules” be put into place for GOOGLE to follow?

    That would be fun .. to see folks different ideas of “rules” … first.. and then the process of deciding what rules GOOGLE should use.

    Methinks… all of us were much more secure when info was controlled even when we didn’t always agree with some of the restrictions than being in a world where all info is available to anyone unless…governments, businesses and individuals employ their own respective (arbitrary and non-uniform) standards as to what should be restricted.

    As a practical measure with respect to GOOGLE… try DOGPILE or one of the other “umbrella” search engines that passes the query on to multiple search engines.

  2. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    I find this scary. Google has a national franchise — is is the No. 1 search engine in the country.

    I haven’t seen the websites in question, and I’m always open to hearing Google’s side of the story, but the company seems to be doing a grave dis-service by removing websites for “hate” content. Inevitably, such actions entail editorial judgments about what constitute “hate” speech and what does not. Presumably, Islamist calls for jihad do not constitute hate speech, but calls for combatting jihad do.

    If Jim’s characterization of Google’s action is a fair and accurate one, then the logical remedy, I would suggest, would be to use other search engines. Fortunately, Google does have competition.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    As long as you all agree that Christian bookstores engage in censorship and that is simply of the type you approve, then I will go along with you.

    Goverments censor. Businesses make choices to improve the bottomline…and sometimes that means taking political positions.

  4. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Anonymous 12:16, No one is disputing the right of Google to make its own decisions about what websites it indexes and what it does not. But your comparison with Christian bookstores is misguided. Christian bookstores don’t pretend to offer equal access to other religions. Google, by contrast, does have universalist pretensions. From the Google website: “Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”

    Sounds like Google needs to modify its mission statement: “Google’s mission is to organize the world’s politically correct information, as ascertained by us, and make it universally accessible and useful.”

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Not all speech qualifies as “information.” The out in Google’s mission statement is that they have the ability and discernment to classify articles or publications as “misinformation” or “noninformation” or “opinion.”

    You may consider it information…Google apparently does not. I do not consider much of what appears on blogs as information, but as opinion. Google’s mission statement does not make them responsible for oranizing all the opinions of the world.

  6. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Anon: Let’s say it’s just peachy for Google to choose sides in presenting opinion (which I disagree with – given their ambitions that Jim Bacon pointed out). Consider the fact that Google is choosing the side of the Islamists. Not good.

    Larry Gross: You can distinquish between offensive speech and illegal speech. Simply look at the law. The existing limits are quite adequate, I believe, and provide good guidance.

    It becomes a problem when you criminalize more speech as the Liberals want to do.

    Until then, if it isn’t illegal, then it’s just offensive (to someone) and Google shouldn’t serve as an Islamist censor.

  7. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    Both sites are on Google. Does someone need to do some fact checking.

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Both sites are on Google”

    hmmm.. methinks… folks are quick to convict on allegations alone.. vice doing a simple verification as Mr. Wamsley suggests.

    Makes me wonder… if the effort to “spread the word” about GOOGLE’s “terrible censorship” is perhaps an attempt by some to claim that GOOGLE is … HORRORs yet another example of the liberals infiltrating our trusted institutions with their lies and misinformation. 🙂

    No matter.. even if not true… clearly the “potential” for liberal type folk to infest GOOGLE is still a huge threat… so I full expect the folks on the right to come up with a Fox News type Search Engine.. to insure “fair and balanced” indexing of world info.

    Now.. for a name… how about FABOOBLE? 🙂

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: the difference between illegal speech and offensive speech.

    On a worldwide basis?

    I didn’t know we had agreement on such a global level to censor “illegal speech”.

    Does the US direct GOOGLE to remove references to websites that have “illegal speech” on them?

  10. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Larry Gross: An American-based company providing an international service can follow American law as a guideline.

    Here is the email from one of the folks Google censored:

    During routine daily maintenance to The New Media Journal website it was observed that the new opinion and news entries published for May 19, 2006 did not appear in any Google News or Google Search Engine query. What was uncovered after Frank Salvato, managing editor, contacted Google News was nothing short of discrimination and censorship and a blatant snub to the First Amendment right to free speech.

    Each morning, Frank Salvato, after uploading the day’s new edition of The New Media Journal, would diligently check the statistics and the community of search engines to chart reader trends and to make sure that the search engines captured the newly published opinion pieces. On Friday, May 19, 2006, Google News’ crawl omitted The New Media Journal.

    Mr. Salvato contacted Google Help to inquire about the omission suspecting that it was a technical error. The response from Google Help was not what he expected.

    The following is the actual email received from Google Help explaining why The New Media Journal was to be censored by Google News and Google Search:

    —–Original Message—–

    From: Google Help [mailto:source-suggestions@google.com]
    Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 11:56 AM
    To: NewMediaJournal.us
    Subject: [#58423255] Google News

    Hi Frank,

    Thanks for writing. We received numerous reports about hate content on your site, and after reviewing these reports, decided to remove your site from Google News. We do not allow articles and sources expressly promoting hate speech viewpoints in Google News (although referencing hate speech for commentary and analysis is acceptable).

    For example, a number of the complaints we looked at on your site were found to be hate content:

    http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/peck/05102006.htm
    http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/stock/05082006.htm
    http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/imani/04222006.htm

    We hope this helps you understand our position.

    Regards,

    The Google Team

    The fact is, all of the writers mentioned in the complaints are contributors to numerous other websites included in Google Search and Google News. Therefore, the targeting of The New Media Journal is selective and does not constitute a consistent policy applied to all publications by Google.

    Further, each of the writers have credentials in the subject area of radical Islam:

    Ms. Peck is a television host and columnist from Los Angeles who has spent an extensive amount of time in Israel and the Middle East. Although her viewpoint is entirely her own it is validated by of her first-hand life experience.

    Mr. Imani is an Iranian national whose family had to flee after the Shah was toppled. He has first-hand knowledge of the atrocities committed within that country and his viewpoint is validated by his life experiences.

    Ms. Stock validates her viewpoint through research of first-source material from think tanks and governmental agencies.

    Finally, The New Media Journal is branded on each page with a disclaimer that reads:

    “Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal.us, its editorial staff or its publisher.”

    Fact checkers: Read the articles for yourself.

  11. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    James:
    Your 8:10 am comment today is an excellent comment about Google. Thank you for the good work. Google seems to respond to complaints first, and get back on track later.
    Your 11:15 Saturday item was the one I criticized. If only we could post after we read the comments.

  12. Jonathan Avatar
    Jonathan

    Just so we’re all on the same web page. It’s not the Google search engine that’s censoring, it’s the Google News Service. Isee that as a big difference. I think their decision to censor conservative sites from the news service is a crock o’ crocodile dung. Pansies.

    The islamofascists turn our then when we speak out about how the Islamist extremists are criminals, Google decides to offer some courses in Anger Management.

    boyrobot
    call sign … LUCKI
    and
    call sign … LAIKA

    “I will call Prince Harry ‘Sir’ and he will call me ‘Sir’,” said Sgt. Major Vince Gaunt. “But he will be the one who means it.”

  13. Jonathan Avatar
    Jonathan

    Oops; make that:

    The islamofascists turn our airplanes into missiles, then when we speak out about how the Islamist extremists are criminals, Google decides to offer some courses in Anger Management.

  14. Kely Avatar
    Kely

    These articles are fantastic; the information you show us is interesting for everybody and is really good written. It’s just great!! Do you want to know something more? Read it…:Great investment opportunity in Costa Rica: condo costa estate real rica, condo costa rica, condos for sale in costa rica. Visit us for more info at: http://www.jaco-bay.com/

Leave a Reply

Read More