Google found to be censoring sites

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by MagiK: You bring up a particularly puzzeling point for me. Why is it hate speach for a person to vocalize any form of disaproval for a Gay life style, while it is ok for Gay groups to say rather nasty and sometimes unprintable things about the people who do not agree with their agenda? And what the HELL is a Hate Crime? In my experience, Crimes comitted out of love are rather rare. Dichotomy, Dichotomy wherefore art thou oh Dichotomy?

I really can't comment on the gay/anti-gay hate speech, People who are zealots about any cause tend to behave foolish and irrational.

Perhaps it is just plain cause and effect that they either get sued to bankruptcy, put in jail, killed, or openly discredited. Thats all the speculation I can muster. I need a drink.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Nachtrafe: quote: Originally posted by Lord Shield: well uunfortunnately these things have owners and they can make the rules they like for their own systems, damn it i would have thought such sites would be good for research for debates on such issues, or history even how can a person get the full story on such things if he doesn't understand why BOTH sides do what they do?

Yeah, I know. And the owners have to follow the law. It's just frustrating sometimes. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I fully agree with your last point BTW. I mean, look in a modern history book. They dont even talk about the bloody Holocaust! It happened! It's a FACT! It's HISTORY!! Get over this over-sensetive, whiny, protect-people-from-their-own-shadow, big-brother-knows-best-mentality! Big Brother DOES NOT KNOW BEST.

*PANT* *PANT*....Hmmmm...guess I'm in more of a [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] mood than I thought. Sorry y'all. I think I'm off to go hunt gobbler or something else cheerful.

Nacht[/QUOTE]I may be wrong here Nacht but I think you misunderstand. It isn't sites about the Holocaust that are banned, it's sites that DENY the fact that the Holocaust took place.

White supremacy sites are not banned in Britain. I like to look at these when I need a laugh!

[WillowIX]

Isn´t this a just a way to follow a country´s laws on an international basis? For instance if someone publishes a website in the US saying that the holocaust never took place he isn´t breaking any laws right? If he did it in Germany he is. Correct? Now since it´s apparently illegal to publish such material in Germany wouldn´t Google be breaking the law if they did link to such sites? Maybe I´m viewing this too simplistically. Anyways "freedom of speech" has it´s limitations doesn´t it? Look what happened in Germany? Ahh, "what a wonderful beast is democracy" [img]smile.gif[/img]

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by Yorick: Along with free speech I'm also an advocate for freedom of choice regarding publicity. Just as a website owner should be free to say what they want, so should a search engine owner be free to link or not link what it wants. Why should freedom only be applied to one group of people and not others? Why should a person or group be forced to publicise a view they do not hold? With freedom comes responsibility.

I agree completely.
Google is a public service in the way that anyone can get to it. That doesn`t mean that the owner has to like, nor accept, everything that`s submitted.

It is the same situation as here at IW- anyone can get here, it is thus a public service (even though it`s privately owned); but there are rules. Ziroc as the webmaster has the final word on what threads stay and what threads go- he censors the forum at his discretion; and noone has any right to stop him- if we don`t like the way he works, we don`t come here.
Relating that back to google, the webmaster has the final say on what (s)he will allow to be in the database, (s)he has the right to censor the search engine, and noone has any right to stop it. If we don`t like the censorship, we just won`t use it as a search engine anymore.
Censorship of a site is the right, and often duty, of any webmaster.

[Lord Lothar]

Originally posted by LennonCook: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Along with free speech I'm also an advocate for freedom of choice regarding publicity. Just as a website owner should be free to say what they want, so should a search engine owner be free to link or not link what it wants. Why should freedom only be applied to one group of people and not others? Why should a person or group be forced to publicise a view they do not hold? With freedom comes responsibility.

I agree completely.
Google is a public service in the way that anyone can get to it. That doesn`t mean that the owner has to like, nor accept, everything that`s submitted.

It is the same situation as here at IW- anyone can get here, it is thus a public service (even though it`s privately owned); but there are rules. Ziroc as the webmaster has the final word on what threads stay and what threads go- he censors the forum at his discretion; and noone has any right to stop him- if we don`t like the way he works, we don`t come here.
Relating that back to google, the webmaster has the final say on what (s)he will allow to be in the database, (s)he has the right to censor the search engine, and noone has any right to stop it. If we don`t like the censorship, we just won`t use it as a search engine anymore.
Censorship of a site is the right, and often duty, of any webmaster. [/QUOTE]You took the words right out of my mouth LennonCook. If the Google webmaster chooses to censor or block the sites, then it is his right as the webmaster. If people have a problem with it they can just use another search engine.

[True_Moose]

Let Google do what it wants to do. It is simply a utility for more easily finding those sites. They don't have all the sites on the 'net anyway. As long as they aren't blocking access to those sites, it's not really censorship, just deciding on which sites are best for business.