Comment Re:Topolsky (Score 1) 269
No, he had no counter-argument.
Child pornography is universally morally abhorrent. The definition of 'child' and the age of legal sexual consent differs from state to state to country, but the first worlders have it pretty much set at about 16+ years (Japan being a strange exception with some provinces at 13). Google does filter child pornography (http://www.google.com/goodtoknow/familysafety/faq/). Did I read you right? Did you say they didn't? But are they right to do this? Yes. No thought required, the automatic affirmative is the correct answer. It's not a slippery slope of censorship, but it is Google policing the flow of information and it is the minimum essential moral obligation a global corporation like Google can do in a world where there is no globally held morality.
Finding links to download the latest hollywood blockbuster on Google isn't even a far distant cry to filtering for child pornography - the two are not even comparable and the distinction is false.
Emanual should be mortally ashamed for even thinking policing child pornography and policing links to torrents equate.