Google Under Fire Over Racist Blogs 567
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."
greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
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, Funny)
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:4, Funny)
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:5, Insightful)
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, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
By that token, perhaps they should have refused the Chinese government's demand of censorship, and offered to put a "Warning: rated subversive" notice on those pages.
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, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Protected speech doesn't need to be constructive to be protected. And as far as I understand the law (which granted isn't usually all that much) it's violence and/or harm that free speech isn't allowed to incite - hatred is fair game.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Dude, where the hell do you live? I'm guessing not the US.
Most
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: (Score:3, Funny)
I think most will agree that the real world cannot be boiled down to such absolute statements. There are certainly times and places where censorship is a lesser evil than what it's meant to prevent. However, we all probably agree that those times are few and far between and probably agree that this case is not one of them. But I for one would not over-generalize from this.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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).
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Oblig. joke: And I for one welcome our Google non-censoring overlords.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I used white people because I'm white :)"
And you used man because you are a woman.......on /.?
Seriously though, you probably used white because you have been made to feel guilty for something you never did to people who are no longer alive. Isn't the media wonderful!
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that kind of retarded? Do you really think that the only reason that person needs to kill someone is racist speech? If so, wouldn't him be some kind of psycho? In that case he would end up killing anyways.
I am a member of an often targeted race myself, but I'd rather let racist blogs exist than put free speech on peril, it is easy to screw freedom of speech starting with 'good intentions'. I am afraid that people who think they got the right not to ever be offended are the biggest danger to freedom
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I read in the book Presidential Anectodes an incident about a US president and a European Prince visiting the prez: The papers, especially one specific editor was vitriolic about his anger and spewed venom in his paper against the Prez (venom that today would land him straight in Gitmo). The E
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:greater or lesser evil (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck at the next Nazi boot boy rally.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a no brainer in my book, but apparently not in everyones. Making it difficult or illegal to discuss racisim certainly doesn't remove it.
The best strategy is to create an environment where being a racist is 'uncool' (for lack of a better word). This is one arena where the rest of world can, I think, learn quite a bit from the United States. Although the U.S. still has a huge racial problem, it has improved vastly since 1950. Maybe it's getting worse again under the new administration, I don't
Is it really Google's fault? (Score:2, Insightful)
But I have to admit, if you take out uncovered meat and place it outside, without cover, and the cats come to eat it -- then whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's? This case is no different.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Uh.. You can get uhm.. a good look at a steak by sticking your head up the butcher's ass.. er no, that's not it. The bull's ass. No, er...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely it's the meats fault.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Explained (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ideas aren't meat and sentient, thoughtful humans aren't instinctive predatory felines. Total bloody nonsense. Reasoning by analogy is the sort of bollocks that kept western civilisation in the Dark Ages. It's intellectually bankrupt posturing that can lead to the most specious arguments appearing to h
That's good. Way it is supposed to be. (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll need a judge's order (Score:3, Insightful)
If the jurisdictional issue of "Where are the Google Blogger servers?" is decided, and those people get a court order demanding the removal of the content, then and only then should Google comply.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Easily Solved (Score:3, Insightful)
The best form of censorship is self-censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
On the internet, it's very easy to only see what you want to see. There's enough content to satisfy anyone, without having to risk stumbling onto someones hate-site.
It's a tricky problem. Is censorship worse or better than racism and hate?
Re: (Score:2)
But please read what I mean, not just the very letters I use to convey my message.
Take advertising as an example instead. How about if half of all the ads around you when you're out of the house were racist? Is censorship ok then? What's worse, someone not being able to speak their mind, or hateful messages being fed to you from all around?
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't. Google has shown time and again that their motto should truly be "Do no illegal activities" rather then "Do no evil." Although there's no pleasing everyone in this case, they are backing their "do nothing illegal" policy, rather then a "do no evil" one. After all if they sought to do no evil either they would leave the blogs online no matter what, or they would remove them no matter what. At the moment they're just doing as little as they're legally obligate
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Subject (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Then again I agree that, if we look at their action, their motto should indeed be Do Nothing Illegal. That's fine and all, they can do as they please with their own company. But there *is* a way to define "evil" when it comes to freedom of speech-related things.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are now defining "evil" by your own standards. Even in the same society, a traditional hacker's ethos and value system is very different from that of an ordinary person or even a new-age hacker. Furthermore, different people, societies, and countries have their own concept of evil/moral or good/bad.
The only realistic way in today's world for a Google to retain its "integrity" is to do exactly what it is currently doing
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't be evil? They're not! (Score:5, Insightful)
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!"
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
A price (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom of speech isn't worth much if one can't use offensive speech.
"Bush is an idiot", for example, might offend Bush, but can anyone really say it shouldn't be protected speech?
Good for Google (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the message being forced on others? (Score:2, Interesting)
Public hate speech has no more protection under freedom of speech laws (or their analogue) than shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater. That is, if what you are saying is designed to forcibly infringe upon the rights of others, it should not be guarded. However, these weblogs are not similar to the aforementioned example in that nobody is being unwillfully subjected to their messages. Is that definitive enough to determine that these weblogs should not be removed?
Tripping over myself. (Score:2)
Yes, of course, that is all correct and far be it for me to doubt or deny freedom of speech. I failed to put my words together rightly in trying to determine if there is a comparison between writing a weblog that disparaged people of a certain race and shouting “fire”. We do, in certain contexts, ban both of them. In the former case because it infringes upon liberty and in the latter because it potentially infringes upon life. What is the proper response to the former however? What constitu
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.
Chomsky? (Score:2)
Either way, I would take the freedom of someone saying the most racist hurtful things on the planet to me directly over censorship any day. Google is right. The funny part is they've got more balls to do what's right regarding freedom of speech than the US government these days.
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.
It's a very dangerous dangerous move (Score:2)
hint: I'm posting on it right now.
Follow up to this story... (Score:3, Insightful)
Could someone define 'hate speech'? (Score:2, Insightful)
How about this statement:
'I'm not sure what's the better description - that Lebanese are assholes, or that Lebanon is the assy country and Leban
Censorship is not uncommon from Google. (Score:2)
Since google does it already, when its works want to promote a certain way of thinking, what is really wrong with its customers trying to force them, ie protest, that they think the company should do something they want, and if they can get enough support probably f
not google's job to decide what is racist (Score:5, Insightful)
Shame on Google. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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:What I'd like to know... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Our parliment has started censoring itself [iheu.org], so I'm not sure where they stand. Unfortunately we don't have a bill of rights.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what I think would be a good thing for Google to do? Start offering a service where I could post high-quality downloads of my favorite movies and television shows without commercials. It would be the ultimate in freedom of expression. Unfortunately, though, we have these little things called laws that, while Google is not being evil, they still have to follow. Weird as it may sound, other countries have them too, and sometimes, they're not the same as ours.
Did you not read the summary? If th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's about as ridiculous as hating someone for the OS they choose to run ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:racism (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In order for humanity to grow up, there has to be real education.
Re:racism (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, did you think about what you said? I'm going to assume you didn't say what you meant. I'm going to assume you meant 'Any blogs that are abusive, racist, or discriminatory should be removed from the internet'.
Everything offends someone. I'm offended by blogs that post goatse. (I'm sure I'm not the only one here.) Is that a reason to take their right to free speech away? How about people that think cars are 'sexy'. That offends me. How about...
No, ther
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I take offence that. You're implying that the world is full of mealy-mouthed, small minded people with nothing better to do that to tell people what they can and can't say, so that they don't have to hear somethign they don't like.
Moderator: Mark parent down and ban all future submissions
Re: (Score:2)
With freedom of speech comes responsibility. Sure, you can say what you want, but don't be a coward and hide behind your "right" to do so. If you want to be a racist, stand up for yourself and take the responsibility that comes with carrying a message most people will abhor. I can't walk into a group of Yankee's fans, yell "Yankees suck!!" and not expect to get anything back in return.
The problem is neither free speech nor censorship. It's all
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! Because if we hide it well enough, it will cease to exist and we can all sit around and sing Kumbaya.
Re: (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