Slashdot Log In
Google Under Fire Over Racist Blogs
Posted by
samzenpus
on Thu Oct 26, 2006 06:50 AM
from the dreamtime-racism dept.
from the dreamtime-racism dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Google Under Fire Over Racist Blogs
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 567 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://microsoft.toddverbeek.com/)
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.jessta.id.au/)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
(Insert Zapf Brannigan quote here).
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, 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 (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.warpedsystems.sk.ca/ | Last Journal: Sunday March 14 2004, @11:20PM)
Kinda. I have dentures, so I soaked them.
Today, no. I posted when the article was listed for subscribers, which was yesterday. Suck it.
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Since you were both drunk, if she was on top, is she the one guilty of rape?
If your BAC was 0.20 and hers was 0.18, then you were more incapacitated than she was. Is she guilty of rape?
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.artboy.org/)
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.
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.ducktapeandglue.com/)
Zap: "So, a neutral plot to assasinate a weird looking alien with scissors... But rock crushes scissors! But wait... Paper covers Rock! Kif?"
Kif: "mugghh"
Zap: "We have a conundrum. Search them for paper... And, bring me a rock."
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:4, Interesting)
Does it matter whether somebody is a serial telltale with an agenda or not if the end result is the same?
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.worldinprogress.org/)
For instance, from the article:
and a different site contains:
Not quite crossing the line perhaps
And it's not like Stokes, the anti-racism activist, doesn't see the opposing view:
And, finally two points also worth mentioning. Firstly the blogs may be in contravention of the blog providers' terms of service:
and secondly, they may also be illegal under Australian law:
So at what point does the expression of a "different perspective" become an incitement to violence or intimidation?
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://mysite.verizon.net/tkrotchko/)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.dolemite.com/)
Don't worry everyone, I've contacted the Department of Homeland Security.
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://pcbookreview.com/)
Oblig. joke: And I for one welcome our Google non-censoring overlords.
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday February 10 2006, @02:51PM)
You cannot say, "Everyone go out and kill a white man."
You are incorrect. You certainly CAN say "Everyone go out and kill a white man," and even mean it 100%, so long as your saying does not create an imminent danger and is likely to do so. (This was settled in Brandenburg v. Ohio.) So, saying it to an angry mob of radicals who you expect to follow your orders - probably not OK. Giving orders to a criminal enterprise - not OK. But saying it as your opinion in a speech, editorial, or yes, on the internet - that is your right as a free man.
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://kamthaka.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 30 2005, @03:18PM)
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.
Explained (Score:5, Informative)
(http://brianglanz.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 08 2005, @10:44AM)
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 [abc.net.au], 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 [blogger.com] before they would actually remove it. Anyone else read this and hear echoes of user 606117 writing yesterday, "Don't come to Australia" [slashdot.org]?
Re:racism (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.joe-bunting.com/club)
Re:racism (Score:4, Interesting)
That's good. Way it is supposed to be. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.landoverbaptist.org/)
Freedom of speech is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What I'd like to know... (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday February 11 2005, @04:09AM)
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.
Easily Solved (Score:3, Insightful)
The best form of censorship is self-censorship.
Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday February 11 2005, @04:09AM)
IMO if "do no evil" is to be more then a clevert piece of marketting it does need to mean more then "do nothing illegal" and does need the owners of Google to enforce it regardless of the law.
Don't be evil? They're not! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://endemoniada.org/)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Good for Google (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with Chomsky (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Whiners. (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.ryanwaddell.com/)
not google's job to decide what is racist (Score:5, Insightful)
Shame on Google. (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday July 15 2003, @11:13AM)
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.
"don't be evil" (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday March 13 2006, @01:53PM)
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.
Read the article (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://en.wikipedia....vated_protein_kinase | Last Journal: Monday April 30 2007, @06:22AM)
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.
Do not censor - educate (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Plenty of racism down under (Score:3, Interesting)
start with the racist crap, others tend to jump on them. (re: Gary Anderson)
Ah, but then again, neither Melbourne or Kerang are anywhere near Sydney