Google Complies with Law, Excludes 'controversial' Sites 756
YDdraig writes "To conform with some French and German laws, Google has removed listings for over 100 sites which it believes to be anti-abortion, pro-Nazi, white supremacist or anti-semitic. They're not keen to talk about it either, saying merely: 'As a matter of company policy we do not provide specific details about why or when we removed any one particular site from our index.'" Noted from Declan's articles: This is Google.de and Google.fr, and is done to be in compliance with those countries laws. Because, of course, not being able to talk about something makes it less attractive right? And drugs being illegal makes it less attractive for kids too, right? *sigh* Update: 10/24 13:55 GMT by H : Thanks to Declan for providing the linkage to his News.com original story which has more links then the ZDNet UK one.
Easy work-around (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl (Score:1, Informative)
Germany banned the public display of Nazi symbols about 50 years ago.
Germany also restricted the access to Nazi propaganda books and such to scientists/historians. Since 50 years.
With these materials being accessible via the internet to germans again, it was *obvious* that the german legislation does everything it can to keep germans (and not the rest of the world) from accessing something they can go to jail for.
Oh, and Germany even went to the extreme to ban a nazi political party back in 1952 (the SRP), and is currently on its way to do the same with the NPD.
Have i mentioned, that Germany at the moment has WAY LESS than 3% of its voters voting for extreme right wing parties?
Would it be better to allow everybody access to stupifying nazi propaganda crap and by that also increase the neo-nazi movement here?
Does anyone want the Weimar Republic back, that allowed all this shit - and was overcome by the nazi regime in 33?
Anyone?
Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!? (Score:1, Informative)
I've just looked through the list of sites someone linked to, and couldn't find any obvious anti-abortion ones...
Perhaps what they're referring to is sites that encourage violence against abortion clinics and doctors, including publishing addresses and other details?
In which case they pretty much amount to terrorist sites...
Re:Ineffective? (Score:2, Informative)
www.google.com/en
Re:Ineffective? (Score:5, Informative)
1) Goto Google.
2) Click on "Preferences".
3) Edit the URL in the address bar to read "[...].com[...]" (instead of "[...].ca[...]"). This should not cause a redirect.
4) Click the "Save Preferences" button. You get the "Changes Saved" JavaScript popup.
Any subsequent access to google.com should no longer cause a redirect. If you track the cookies, BTW, you should see a brand-new one created by points 1-4 above, which overrides any existing one you have.
Clarification on the Anti-Abortion stuff. (Score:1, Informative)
I don't like censorship of anything either, but its not like the site was picked out just for being anti-abortion. It's violently anti-almost everything.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)
Read the article for God's sake (Score:2, Informative)
I haven't read the page just looked around, abortion seems not to be the main topic (there's a number of pictures which put rotten.com to shame though) of the page it's more like an "Anti-*" page against anyone and everyone. Probably they violated hate-speech laws somewhere in one of their texts, wouldn't surprise me
Re:Not as Bad as it sounds (Score:4, Informative)
As a matter of fact they can't. Access to google.com is restricted. I am in Austria and can go to google France, Germany or Belgium. But if I try to go to google.com I am automatically sent to google.at. And this can not be circumvented by changing the Language settings of your browser.
Re:OT: Kids and drugs (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, drugs being illegal makes them more attractive to "some" but I wager it makes it that it also makes it that much less attractive for the majority.
I live in the Netherlands. Cannabis is basically legal here (well, have to be 18+ to buy it, and the "coffee shops" have to buy it in secret, but it's practically legal). The theory is that cannabis isn't very harmful by itself (less than alcohol or even tobacco), and making cannabis legal prevents users from coming into contact with dealers of heavier drugs. Plus of course, if you can't beat it, tax it - aka Dutch pragmatism :-)
According to a recent study [eu.int] by the EU anti-drug organization, see also this newspaper report [independent.co.uk], cannabis use in the Netherlands is average, with 20% of adults having tried it at least once (the UK and Denmark, which stricter laws, are at 30%).
Also, Britian, Luxembourg, Italy and Portugal have the most problem users, with 6 to 8 cases per 1000. Austria, Germany and the Netherlands, which all have more liberal laws, have 3 per 1000 problem cases.
So it does seem that legal cannabis does not lead to more use, but might prevent problem use (of more potent drugs, usually).
Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl (Score:3, Informative)
Nazism killed a lot of people, the wish to eradicate groups of the population being an integral part of the nazi ideas.
Stalin might have done the same, but communism itself is not about killing or suppressing people.
My point is that people have wronged other people in the name of some ideal or other for as long as we know. What makes nazism different from the others you mention is that it tells people to wrong other people. That can never be right in my book and might even be reason to censor.
So a site that is against abortion is ok, a site telling you to kill doctors who perform abortions is not.
Re:is it possible ... (Score:2, Informative)
Why don't you just click on the "Google.com [English]" link on the "google.de" web page, it will bring you straight to google.com!
Re:Don't blame google for this (Score:3, Informative)
It says, basically, that whoever produces, offers or advertises "hate speech", which is defined as material "which incites to hate or violence against parts of the population or which violates their human dignity". A later addition also bans material "which denies or plays down crimes committed during the reign of national socialism".
Anti-abortionist speech is not banned at all, but it could be that it also falls under this law if it calls for acts of violence against e.g. physicians.
Re:not only France and Germany (Score:1, Informative)
in France figth against Fascists is not over ! (Score:2, Informative)
Some facts that you don't seem to be aware of
France is not a democracy, there are political prisonners. Germany and US are not democratic also !
If you feel that we should enforce freedom of speech for the fascist, no problem, just give the a green card !
The problem is elsewhere (Score:4, Informative)
There are laws on what you can write in a publication, laws on what kind of foreigns publications you can distribute on the french territory, and so on. And they don't fit the internet.
Instead of building from the ground up new better laws, they try to enforce those laws, a process which require brutal force and a lot of resistance to stand being ridiculous, since they don't fit the internet.
Did I mention that they don't fit the internet?
The real problem has nothing to do with speech freedom. A lowering in speech freedom is just a consequence, even if a bad one. The description of this problem is better explained in the famous text of John Perry barrow "The Economy of Ideas". Seing the origine of this text and famous US laws I read about in
Now on the anti nazi issue: 2 things.
1/ We did suffer a lot from our own behaviour during those years and do not trust us anymore on this subject. Good luck to you in being better. (sorry, I doubt it)
2/ This laws are actually a part of a vast protection scheme against real existing threats. The use of publications is at the core of the extreme right wing movements in Europe. This movements are extremly well organised, dedicated in seizing the power by all means necessary. They succeeded once and are not to be let loose again.
Would the guard be lowered just a little on the publication issues that there would be massive propaganda denying the Jewish extermination soon followed by massive lies how the nazi regime was great and in fact prevented from doing a righteous governmentship by this terrible coallition. All this followed by flows of trials to prevent real journalists from doing their work. From this on, they would make their base grow. Yes, they would.
3/(yes, I know) Unfortunatly, since the political partis in place learned nothing from history, they continue to play the "security" card to use the "extreme right wing" movements against their opponents. Miterrand(left) used the national front to lower the votes for the righ wing and stay elected 7 years more. Chirac(right) just did the same recently.
Unfortunaly those laws are still needed. Yet they do not fit the internet and result in highly ridiculous trials. (After the yahoo affair, some of the plaintiffs were disappointed because nothing that came out of the trial was about what they were complaining about. Of course since they used laws which were not about their problems. They recognised that, had they known that, they wouldnt have sued in the first place).
Until the day when governments really adress issues of poverty (and people stop electing morronnic puppets), there will be ground for "political" movements based on hatred and laws to hold them.
Re:Not as Bad as it sounds (Score:3, Informative)
Why don't you just click on the "Google.com English" link on the "google.at" web page, it will bring you straight to google.com!
This fixed the problem, (as describe in a previous post), for a user from German with a similar problem. I guess it just google itself, "trying to be helpful" doing the redirecting.
Nazism and abortion (Score:3, Informative)
Swiss people have agreed to such laws (Score:2, Informative)
I voted against them, but being a democratic person, have to accept what the majority decided. Of course this votation took place at the time of highest wave of political correctness and no opinion leader dared publicly express a negative position, for fear of being labelled as a nazi supporter.
Re:anti-abortion? wtf? (Score:4, Informative)
German law (Score:2, Informative)
One possible problem that Google has is that recent German laws make a site's owner responsible (among other things) responsible for all linked content, unless there is some explicit disclaimer of a certain form. It sounds strange, but even if you cannot control the linked site, you are still responsible.
Another peculiarity of German law is that it is very inclusive. It claims to govern (more or less) all actions done by a German, to a German, or in Germany. I.e., it affects Google even if all servers are on the other side of the big lake, simply because the download happens in Germany.
This is very annoying and impractical, but do not expect those who make laws to understand the Net.
Re:only 100 sites (Score:2, Informative)
Well, there is the moral wrong, as in something you dislike and think of as harmful to you and your lifestyle, and there is the ethical wrong, which is not a matter of mere taste, and is rooted on concepts which are considered universal, and sometimes absoulte.
An american saying that a german is wrong for eating, let us say, mayonnaise and fries, is only talking about a matter of personal choice. However an american saying that a nazi is wrong for killing innocent gypsies is is not speaking of a personal preference, but of a universal truth: it is ethically wrong to kill.
Re:Germanies Free Press (Score:4, Informative)
And if you read the original article [www.rsf.fr] (by a french, not german outfit BTW), you will read that:
"The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings."
No mention of actual censorship. Although the american media has a reputation for being good at self-censorship, i.e. 'don't criticise the president while we're "at war"' and all that.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Informative)
Allowing freedom of "expression", i.e. not legislating on moral issues, but clamping down on economic or political issues produces a nation of ignorant, blissful bohemians. As long as you don't stop them from copulating with, shooting, snorting, or smoking anything they want, your little Leftist subjects will be happy.
Re:only 100 sites (Score:3, Informative)
Wired interview with Google on their policy (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ineffective? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Germanies Free Press (Score:3, Informative)
The NYT is and has long been hostile to republicans and conservatives in general. They take every opportunity to hurt the president and his policies. The same is true of the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, the major networks and CNN (perhaps less so since they have lost leadership to FOX).
However, after 9/11 I don't think the NYT felt like self censorship. I think their natural reaction to the attack was to retaliate (although few at that time were talking about bombing Iraq). If your city had just been attacked that way, and you were in the press, you might also be a "war monger" (term normally applied by the left to the right) for a while.
Now it is true that the Guardian, which you cite as some sort of reference, is even more reflexively anti-Bush than the New York Times. But in Britain, unlike the US, the media are at least willing to admit, or brag about their particular editorial biases.
The US press does indeed in self-censorship, in the sense that they select which stories to cover of the myriad of possible subjects. But this selection is based on their editorial biases (which they don't admit to having) rather than some odd idea like "don't criticize the president."
Re:only 100 sites (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that banning hate sites etc allows these people a nice convenient possition of "the government is scared of the truth, so they try to ban it", and as non-supporters are not allowed to read the articles either, they are not able to disprove whatever the claims, as they don't know what they are.
Re:only 100 sites (Score:3, Informative)
So, what do you do with a symbol that means different things to different people? Ban it? That just angers the people who see no evil in it...and in the south, that's a sizeable voting bloc. Not ban it? That just angers the people who view the flag as a representation of the repression of their ancestors...and in the south, that's ANOTHER sizeable voting bloc. So who wins?
Personally, I DON'T think that the CSA battle flag should fly on modern state flags, simply because there is little point in it anymore. The CSA is long dead, and it's presence is simply a nostalgic reminder of once was (kinda like the golden bear on the California flag). Some southerners get highly defensive when groups like the NAACP try to take it down, however, because the NAACP tries to paint all southerners with the broad "racist slave owners" brush, and insulting peoples ancestors like that just pisses people off. As a rule, angry people aren't reasonable.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Informative)
Preventing Google from allowing easy access to those web sites that present the pro-life point of view is an attack on free speech and should be condemed
Re:only 100 sites (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you've hit on one of the biggest problems with modern discussions about the U.S. Civil War. Everybody today likes to argue about why the war was fought, and wants to pick ou the ONE reason. The problem with that is there is NO ONE reason that the war was fought. To some extent, everyone is right, and everyone is wrong.
1) Slavery- Yes, large plantation owners with many slaves were afraid of losing them. Some of these people were evil racist bigots, and others were good people who inherited a mess and were desperately trying to keep their businesses operating. These people, as large wealthy business owners, had a lot of influence and loudly supported secession.
2) States rights- Most of the people who fought for the south didn't care much about slavery one way or the other. There was a strong feeling both in the south AND the north, that the states should be "independent", with only a figurehead federal government. These people didn't see themselves as Americans or Confederates, they thought of themselves as Kentuckians, or Georgians, or Alabamans. They had long complained about the northern states domination of the economy, and there was a general feeling that the northerners controlled the federal government.
3)Taxes- Yep, that's right, taxes. The northerners were really big on taxes and tarrifs, which really hurt the import/export dependent south. In fact, 80% of the tarriffs that the north insisted on, were paid by southern states. This fact angered southern industrialists greatly, and was widely viewed as an attempt to stifle business.
4) Immigration- Largely forgotten today, immigration was also a big issue in the 1850's. The northerners, for the most part, were really big on unbridled immigration to "populate the continent". Many southerners didn't care for the idea of allowing immigrants to populate the whole country (and especially the southern states), and wanted more control over who came and went.
5) Indian treaties- Here's a fact that has been almost erased from modern textbooks about the Civil War because it doesn't fit peoples preconceived notions of what the CSA was all about: Many politicians in the southern states were growing tired of the wars with Native Americans, and wanted to begin honoring treaties and make peace with the native Americans, while the northern states insisted on militarily removing them from their lands, irregardless of treaties (yes, I am aware that not all southerners agreed on this point). The Cherokee Nation itself willingly joined the CSA, and blasted the north for ignoring the very freedoms of self determination that it claimed to represent.
I'm sure that there were hundreds of other localized issues that I'm overlooking here that got other communities and regions involved in secession, but I think the point is made. There was no one reason for the Civil War, and no one brush that all secessionists can be painted with. They were not all good people, nor were they all evil. People who try to label all southerners with one label simply display a fundamental lack of understanding on the issue.
Re:France should know better (Score:1, Informative)
What Foucault describes is the incitement to speak about sex in official discourses--which, in common with Bakhtin, he contrasts with folk discourses--, and the loss of sexual freedom that resulted. One example he uses is the confession:
Discourse, therefore, had to trace the meeting line of the body and the soul, following all its meanderings: beneath the surface of the sins, it would lay bare the unbroken nervure of the flesh. Under the authority of a language that had been carefully expurgated so that it was no longer directly named, sex was taken charge of, tracked down as it were, by a discourse that aimed to allow it no obscurity, no respite.
To apply these ideas to the google.fr situation, I might argue that the attempt to constrict discourses about violence is part of a general incitement to talk about violence in official discourses, to redifine the way violence is spoken. These efforts will not protect people from violence or free them from political repression, but on the contrary, will leave them more vulnerable to the depredations of officially sanctioned forms of violence. Somehow, though, I feel the French government understands this implicitly.
14 words and 88 (Score:1, Informative)
88 = Heil Hitler. H is the eight letter of the alphabet, it is illegal to say Heil Hitler in Germany (and many other countries) so Nazis changed it to 88.