I think that's how I remembered the quote from one of those "bug" movies, where the evil dicator bug was trying to explain almost exactly the same topic.
There is an important distinction between falsely crying "Fire" in a crowded movie house and exposing a corrupted government and potentially causing mass riots. Both involve possible harm, one is definitely not protected free speech and the other should always be. The difference seems to follow whether the statements are actually true or not.
Google, Bing, Yahoo, and the other corps seem to only be interested in protecting their profits. If they cared about the truth, the Tiananmen square would be available for computer users in China and censorship wouldn't exist on the web. The idea that we could/should create "protected" internet by censoring disturbing content, where only "good" ideas are allowed to remain is to keep ideas away from everyone. If you really want to "think of the children," you'll protect their right to say or write anything they choose into the internet. If you don't like what you see, turn off your compter or go somewhere else. Remember, you chose to read Slashdot, you chose to read this! (Uncle Malchick excluded, I've chained him to a chair and I show him Slashdot content as part of his treatment)
I'm not quite sure how I come down on the Indian instance. I don't know if it was true or slander, or even what the authors wrote. If it was even partially true, Google should be ashamed. If it wasn't true, who cares... it will prob. get picked up over on DrudgeReport and onto Fox News.
If we start down this road, the next stop is censoring the 9/11 conspiricy folks, because they're ideas are disturbing people, and so on and so on...
Hmmm.. On second though, I think I'd better get my attitude straightened out...