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.
only 100 sites (Score:4, Insightful)
It's OK (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't blame google for this (Score:5, Insightful)
If the laws are wrong both Germany and France are fairly democratic countries so advocate to change the laws instead. Make it legal to spread nazi-propaganda i Germany etc...
Not as Bad as it sounds (Score:2, Insightful)
If these people want to search for these sites, they can still fire up google.com.
Guess it does seem a little pointless like that but they are complying with local laws for countries they are operating in which i think is fair.
And as another poster pointed out, they probably checked each site individually to insure that they were offending sites and not just done automatically.
France should know better (Score:4, Insightful)
Ineffective? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's OK (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely agree with you. It's unfortunate, then, that the U.S. tries to extend its DMCA to other countries. [thefreeworld.net]
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, we get a chance to see their freedom of the press in action--let's see if any French or German newspapers cover this blatant act of censorship.
OT: Kids and drugs (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you seriously believe that rubish?
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.
Just because somone's a kid, isn't going to make them a rebel against all law.
Anti-Abortion?!?!? (Score:2, Insightful)
Pro-Nazism, white supremacy and anti-Semitism are all hate-driven egocentric nationalistic racial biases. How the heck does the Pro-Life movement fit in with these groups?
joel
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that it's a problematic issue. Note that freedom of the press is not the same as freedom of speech, by the way. You can report all you want about Nazis who want to gas jews, but as soon as you advocate it yourself, then you're in deep trouble, and in my humble opinion rightfully so.
Nice gesture (Score:1, Insightful)
The rules are changing for publication and we are lucky enough to be at the frontier. Let's use this responsibility carefully and appreciate a gesture for what it is. We know that we can find nazi or white supremacist stuff by using google.com rather than google.fr, at least that have made the gesture. In this environment all rules are temporary, let us relish this and enjoy the dichotomies that are raised as each nation's law struggles to keep up.
Censorship... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anti-Abortion sites? (Score:2, Insightful)
Need global playing rules (Score:3, Insightful)
It's really a French and German issue rather than a Google issue."
Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl (Score:5, Insightful)
The list of what's censored is in an of itself controversial. For example, pro-Fascist sites are censored... what about pro-Communist sites? After all, Stalin killed 20M or more of his own people in his purges compared with 6M in the Holocaust. Anti-abortion sites are censored, what about pro-Catholic? After all, Catholics oppose abortion.
Note that I'm not claiming to be pro or anti anything in this post, I'm merely pointing our some gaping inconsistencies that render the policy meaningless, and hence probably mere cheap political point-scoring rather than a serious attempt to suppress hate-crime or make the world a better place. Assuming you believe in hate-crime; my personal opinion is that it matters little to the victim what the criminal's motivation was.
Even more meaningless than it would be if French and German users couldn't simply point their browsers at google.ca [google.ca].
This is a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
It saddens me when I see white supremacists in the USA campaigning outside schools for the removal of black teachers and children etc. If we need laws to stop that kind of abuse, then we have no other option. Your freedom to speech stops when it promotes violence and hatred towards other people. Don't forget that even in the USA theres no such thing as freedom of speech - try writing an "ANTHRAX-HOWTO" or setting up a pro-terrorism website and see how long it lasts. Its just a matter of drawing the line somewhere, and in Europe we draw the line closer at protecting personal freedoms - the freedom to live in peace is more important than the freedom to kill/promote killing.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
He was acquitted thankfully, but that he even went to trial for that is very suspect.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
When? Americans make a big thing about it but Europeans dont tend to.
What was that about European nations scoring higher on freedom of the press, when they are asking google at the same time to censor data they deem to be 'racist'?
Exactly what data is being censored? Exactly what speech is being removed?
Google isn't 'censoring' the sites, it is merely removing them from its indices. That has not impinged on the 'rights' (whatever they are) of the originating sites in the first place.
The index is Google's. Google's 'right to free speech' allows it to remove entries in its own index.
Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
Only yours, mixed with stupidity.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it kinda ridiculous that every time one of these stories happens, the largely American audience takes the opportunity to ridicule other country's approaches to these issues. Fine, so America things freedom of speech is the way to go. They also have quite a large faction of white supremicists, holocaust deniers, and violent anti-abortionists. Some European countries go for outlawing very extremists groups, and are largely successful at this, in exchange is a loss of a limited amount of speech.
These are *different approaches* guys, and have different pros and cons. The American approach is certainly not terribly successful (it was YESTERDAY that there was a report that put America as ***17th*** in terms of free journalism) - whilst in principle people have freedom of speech, the American media is very narrow in its scope, moderately to radically right-wing. Whilst America guarantees the right to abortion, practically in many states it might as well be illegal.
So get off your supposed moral high-ground, which the rest of the world currently sees as sheep all readying for a war that will kill millions of innocents with barely a world of dissention amongst the beautiful free speech.
Sorry if that's rambling, but my point is that this issue is very wide. Don't look at a single issue, view it in context. It's part of a whole different approach, and one that I think probably works at least as well as the American one.
Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!? (Score:1, Insightful)
If a doctor held up a newly born baby and slit it's throat, He'd probably get the death penalty.
If a doctor, just a few months earlier uses a tool to scrape pieces of that same child out of the womb it's a celebrated action of individual choice?
Now, which action is hate. To wish a human baby has the same rights you do, or to celebrate the fact that a woman can murder her own child? WHICH IS REALLY THE HATE HERE?
Selfish, self-adsorbed, tunnel-vision, people like you who truly do hateful things to other people make me angry.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Some countries have different definitions of where the right to free speech ends, for example when it urges people to commit crimes.
In germany there would be not much controversy about censoring a magazine or group that wanted to glorify and re-instate a nazi-regime / get rid of all non-christians / foreigners /
Anyway, different countries have different standards, google.de is registered in Germany, so it has to comply with its laws, Germany is a democracy, so if people get upset, they can vote in a new government that will repeal them.
If only it was possible! (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, I absolutely agree with you. Censorship is never the right way to go after ideologies of debatable morality. The only thing it's gonna achieve is make its proponents feel persecuted, and as such, it legitimates their views.
Thing is, you absolutely CAN'T touch those anti-racism/antisemitism/whatever laws. It's a very, very touchy issue over here, and some organisations [uejf.org] will scream bloody murder if you ever even want to open the debate about it. (Note that it's the same organisation -- *not* the government -- that had the Yahoo auctions censored, for example). If you want to open the debate then you're obviously a racist antisemitic extreme-right wing nazi and should be dragged out and shot. So the debate is never opened. Heck, Sharon called Chirac an antisemite when France stopped supporting his attacks on Palestine.
And it is growing into a REAL problem. People are so afraid of being thought of the extreme-right that they'll never speak up, but brood in their corner instead, and then (other) people act all dumbfounded when the extreme-right candidate suddenly makes it to the second turn of the presidential elections.
While opening the debate will allow to laugh the extreme-right into oblivion in a matter of minutes, to everyone's benefit. Sigh.
Oh well. Now you can mod me (-1, Flamebait) for obviously being an antisemitic nazi bastard.
(Posted anonymously, for obvious reasons -- I dared open the debate, so now I'm gonna play it safe and hide.)
Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
In which case they pretty much amount to terrorist sites...
They can't possibly be terrorists. You have to be an Arab to be a terrorist. If you are white, you get called militas, militants, activists or the DC sniper.
What does this imply? (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, nobody controls the free speech (supposedly) of US entities. Secondly, who decided that Anti-abortion, Pro-nazi propaganda is offensive? Are the french people that weak that their government decides whats offensive to them?
I happen to find pro-abortion sites offensive, but I don't rally for google to block those sites from their index! My respect of free speech and other people's opinions to be far more important that the content of their views.
So, lets think about the implications of this for a moment. The French government has the power to remove listsing from the internet's most popular search engine. Ok, so there are a couple hundred governments in the world that could do the same. [sarcasm]Wouldn't it be great if other governments hopped on the bandwagon and reduced the quality and accuracy of search results for the entire world? [/sarcasm]
What if another country decides that chickens are offensive? Do they now have the "right" to lobby Google for removal of chicken websites from the index?
Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Which one of these things. . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it just me, or does anti-abortion stick out as being rather unlike pro-nazism and anti-semetism?
I hope that the sites in question were militant anti-abortion sites--otherwise this is the most illogical grouping I've seen in a long time.
Re:only 100 sites (Score:4, Insightful)
So, what number of sites does it have to be before it becomes wrong?
Frankly I find it rather interesting that Germany is censoring and banning pro-Nazi sites and literature that it doesn't agree with. Gee, sounds rather familiar to a Germany of the past...
Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
How the heck did that get lumped together in the same group with pro-Nazi, white supremacist and anti-semitic sites?!?!? Pro-Nazism, white supremacy and anti-Semitism are all hate-driven egocentric nationalistic racial biases. How the heck does the Pro-Life movement fit in with these groups?
Blowing up Womens Clinics, then planting more bombs in the dumpsters outside to kill Policemen and Firemen are acts of Terrorism. Assassinating Doctors is Terrorism. Advocating political change through violence against a civilian population is advocating Terrorism. Checkout The Nuremberg Files [christiangallery.com], this is pretty clearly a website supported by a hate group and inspite of its Christian trappings, has nothing what so ever to do with the teachings of Christ.
Mind you, I do not advocate suppressing these sites, these people, as sick as they are, have the right to say whatever they want. However, Google is a private company, they recieve no government funding and is therefore within thier rights to de-list any site it feels is objectionable. It is no more censorship than a TV broadcasting company refusing to show full frontal nudity during prime time.
USA is only 17th on "freedom of the press" index! (Score:2, Insightful)
Please people before commenting on how bad is the situation of "freedom" in the US look at your own countries first!
(note: I am FRENCH)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
BASIC violations of free speech. (Score:3, Insightful)
These are the people who we're worried about offending with a conflict with Iraq?
This isn't some quirky "Can I block an intersection/burn a flag/show porn in public" free speech issue, this is "This book contains material we don't like, and it reminds us of something we'd rather forget. Ban it."
We can discuss the erosion of civil rights in the United States after 9/11, while the readers from overseas loudly criticize the president, but I suppose if this was Europe, we'd be banning terrorist literature and shutting down Islamic web sites.
Re:Don't blame google for this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Taking nazi, etc. content offline does not stop the proliferation of the actual practice of it. All it does is hide it from the public. Why should people not be allowed to look up information about something that they are curious about?
It seems that it would be much better for curious people to be able to read about these things in the safety of their own home, rather than having to attend a fan-club meeting about it. Generally I believe that people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves about ideas like anti-semitism, because the fools that believe in such ideas tend to represent themselves poorly. Apparently Germany and France do not think their citizens are smart enough to make their own decisions.
Personally, I occasionally visit Communist and Socialist web sites. I don't do this because I believe in either philosophy, but because I am curious about why other people believe in them. What this typically ends up doing is re-affirming my notion that these ideas are inherently flawed (I'm not trying to start a debate, this is just my opinion). If I could not reach web information about these ideas because my government prevented me from doing so, what am I supposed to think? Is the government hiding these sites from me because there is some merit in their ideas?
Now, this workaround is interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
I am using Opera 6.03 uner Linux.
Entering "Stormfront" in the "Internet Search" field gives me [hit n.1] "stormfront.org -- Stormfront White Pride" neo-nazi web site we all love to hate.
If I enter "http://www.google.com", I get re-directed to "http://www.google.fr" and "Stormfront" does not appear in the results anymore. Screenshots available upon request.
On the other hand, I can always go through my main (US) ISP and browse google.com without redirection.
What's the moral of the story? If you are a [French|German] neo-nazi, and you have a [French|German] ISP use Opera to go around the google limitations. Or get a USA-based ISP.
What's the moral of this moral? Geolocation does not work!!!!. Moronic solution such as this one are simply to easy to avoid. And, yes, UEJF, that one is for you.
Whether neo-nazi opinions are worth defending is left as an exercise to the reader...
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
hiding jews == illegal.
Legal does not equal right.
My personal belief is
killing doctors == wrong
Abortion == wrong
Speaking your mind on the subject == right
Re:only 100 sites (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the world is not American, but what is the UN's position on censorship, especially of historical facts?
The resctrictions on (neo-)Nazi material is especially puzzeling: don't you want to know what the "enemy" is up to, what misinformation they may be spreading? I understand how both France and Germany can be embarassed by their past, but not talking about doesn't make it not happen, and forcing it underground makes it that much harder to keep track of what's going on.
Re:only 100 sites (Score:5, Insightful)
As we speak, the UK government is attempting to take out a gagging order (on the grounds of "National Security") to surpress the reporting of a trial where evidence that claims to prove that the UK government paid Al Qaeda to attempt to assassinate Gaddafi for them in 1986 will be discussed. Of course you can find some of the details on the internet [theage.com.au], but if the goverment could enforce the banning of access to web pages, then I suspect I would not be able to read about it anywhere.
Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!? (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course interestingly you would have to add the Animal Liberation Front in the UK too if censorship were similarly applied.
Some of the ALF members have such fanatical views that they try and kill people who are involved in various kinds of research involving the use of animals.
You could say that the groups involved in this ban might be deffined collectively as organisations known to be or suspected to be engaged in terroist activities.
The main reason why everything to do with them isnt banned - appart from the weak outrage that might be generated over "government thought control" amongst the general population - is that if they are in the open, then they are easy to catch.
Drive seriously antisocial people underground and you cant catch them when they step out of line and start killing people. We can all wonder what wacky group the Washington sniper either belongs to or would belong to if it was legal - and if a member of that group might give the sod away if the pile of dead children gets too high...
The ban in Germany and France on Nazi propaganda is a slightly different local issue which recognises a historical problem that many people have fond memories of the Nazi party and it is not the political policy of the majority to allow that view to be passed on to new generations. This is sadly part of modern life - it used to be called "thought control" in the time of the cold war, but we now recognise it as a necessary social evil and call it "political correctness" - reinforcing an intellectualy acceptable idea which society is moving towards but has not yet accepted universally.
Whatever, almost no one in Europe has any time for the Nazi party. After all whatever the validity of Nazi policy, in the end they were proved complete arseholes who failed and destroyed europe in the process. So we dont want them back thankyou very much. Or the websites of their misguided fans who could pick someone more politically acceptible like Alexander the Great, to hero worship - who incidentaly suceeded.
Its interesting to reflect that the Pro Life people are now being seen as very little different to Osma Bin Ladins Al Quaida. It used to be a topic of conversation that the far right were very little different to the far left though I dont hear that debate much these days.
Sounds like the major political issue of our time is not about how we are Govern'ed. Now its about what tolerance and accomodations are made for differences within societies and between societies.
What's Google got to do with free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
not being able to talk about it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
i'm german, and i'd like to drop a few words about the comment on i paraphrased in the subject line.
first off, it is entirely possible and legal to speak about such things as national socialism, antisemitics or whatnot in germany. in fact, judging by personal experience, about a third of the history lessons in school involve discussing said subjects. so much for that not being legal.
what google does goes back to our constituion. laws in germany are not so much set by precedence as is the case in the usa or the uk, so while some laws are plain stupid, this thing here is based on a very thoroughly discussed law from the time when the federal republic of german was founded.
under the pressure of the allies, and in view of the recent history, two important laws made their way into this constitution:
the first declares that the dignity of every human being, regardless of religion, political views, race, whatever is inviolable, and all are equal before the law.
the second declares that it is a crime to spread lies about the third reich.
both are clearly intended to ensure that germans learn from their own history and to prevent a fourth reich or some such from coming into existence. in the light of how fundamental those laws are to germany, there simply is no other way websites propagating anti-semitism or nazi paroles can be treated. and, yes, i wholeheartedly agree with that treatment.
what bothers me is that sites that are anti-muslim, anti-american, anti-whatnot... are less strictly treated.
let me again remind you that it is in no way forbidden to discuss these things, not even publicly. freedom of speech is a highly valued law in germany, and, judging by this [slashdot.org] article on slashdot, americans are not necessarily in a position to judge (no offense intended, your comment suggests that you're not entirely happy about the 17th place either).
the trouble is that nazi sites tend to distort history as to make nazi germany reasonable and attractive, thereby coming close to flat-out lies about it. forbidding such material to be spread is not a bad idea, as long as it does not get out of hand, and so far i'm not aware that it has.
censorship is never a pleasant thing, and not a tool that a state should become used to using. nevertheless, the internet being the pool of useful and harmful opinions that it is, i'm not opposed to some slight moderation - it is still entirely possible for people to reach those sites. i'd protest vehemently, for example, if german providers dns servers would filter sites.
the pro-semitical standpoint that germany is taking is part historical guilt and part international pressure - don't judge modern germany on that.
i've met quite a few germans, from certain social groups, among whom it is almost fashionable to use the word 'jew' in an insulting way - with a careful, joking, guilty tone of voice. germans of my generation (give or take a few years) have been so much exposed to nazi history during school that quite a few have probably begun to resent jews again - not for what they are, but for being exposed to too many discussions about their plight, when in fact most don't know any jews, and would instinctively treat them as any other person - thus the joking but careful way of breaking a taboo, i.e. using 'jew' as a swearword. that, at least, is my interpretation of their reaction, might be wrong.
in fact, if i were to meet a person that i know is jewish, i'd be uncomfortable. not because of any religious resentment, but because jews are commonly regarded (oooh, stereotype, i know) as rather sensitive about their history (understandable) and it is extremely easy to be called anti-semitic in germany, due to the general, acquired guilt of the german population. does that make me antisemitic? i hope not! i'd try to treat any jew as any other person i know.
now consider someone less able to reflect on that feeling of being uncomfortable than i am, meeting jews. then meeting lots of people who use 'jew' in the above described way... wouldn't that enhance the feeling that something is wrong with the word, that it is stigmatized? it is human nature to try and remove things that jeopardize you, and something that makes you feel uncomfortable without you being entirely able to put your finger on it surely irritates. now suppose such a person types 'jew' into google and finding sites that 'prove' that jews are the reason for many troubles in the world... i find that situation _by far_ more frightenting than the state trying to make it a little more difficult to find such 'proof'.
so give google a break here. the laws that convinced google to take those steps may not be perfect, but they sure are sensible - until someone comes up with a better idea, which i haven't heard so far.
let me remind you again, a last time, that it is entirely possible for german citizens to find sites via google that state the facts about the third reich and jews, and also sites that voice opinions about that, unless those opinions are distorted or amplified to the point that they become lies or demagogic in nature.
that said, i would prefer google not to be censoring sites. i would prefer a world where all people of all religions live in peace and harmony, where crime and war are unknown, and every expression of your opinion is taken only as such, and not stigmatized. that, though, is a goal difficult to reach, but the laws in discussion here are at least trying to help with that.
Censorship etc. (Score:2, Insightful)
To say that their censorship of such material is wrong is to say that the efforts of Germans to learn from their past mistakes has been in vain.
Let me remind those in the US that there has been much self-censorship since September 11th -- for example the film Spider-Man (the film was recut to remove references to the Twin Towers). Currently, there are arguments being made that a film featuring a sniper should be banned.
I am a strong supporter of freedom (including free speech). But I also recognise that there are times when, in the cause of the common good, censoship is important. For example, giving out the names and addresses of those suspected of working in abortion clinics, and advocating their assasination, is clearly wrong.
Some may argue that abortion is wrong, but either way, change must be brought about peacefully by following the legal channels.
History is rife with examples of successful peaceful protest. American history is particularly rich in such respect.
Personal freedom is hugely important, but I believe that community freedom is far more important. Americans have the right to bear arms, but this personal freedom results in thousands of deaths in the US each year. In countries where it is illegal to own firearms, death rates from gun-related incidents are almost zero.
Saying that the French or German government's laws banning pro-nazi propaganda is wrong is xenophobic and naive -- there is a rich history behind those laws, designed to protect the community and its way of life. Both countries have functioning democracies, have good education, healthcare, standards of life and are important players on the world stage.
Perhaps the US should look at itself in a new light -- how many of its freedoms are harming it?
Consership is only oppressive when it is used by a powerful government to pull the wool over the eyes of its citizens. As a non-US citizen, I am always amazed at how one-sided US and pro-administration US news-sources are, compared to the rest of the world, who tend to get a far more balanced picture of world events.
So, is the US really the nirvana of free speech its citizens think it is?
Godwin's Law (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl (Score:3, Insightful)
Well said.
I've been involved in combatting Holocaust-denial on the net for ten years. I work with The Holocaust History Project [holocaust-history.org], have transcribed and helped translate documents [holocaust-history.org], including those about gas chambers [holocaust-history.org], and have prepared information on deniers [holocaust-history.org]. I've even co-authored a lengthy and highly technical paper on chemistry of the Auschwitz gas chambers [holocaust-history.org].
I think it's deplorable that Google has bent its knee to the German government in this way. Practically speaking, it's unfortunate because this gets the neo-Nazis and Holocaust-deniers more press (unintended consequences). And they do love this kind of attention, there is nothing they love more than being censored [holocaust-history.org].
But more importantly, morally, it's wrong that these people are being censored. What they say is despicable. But until they start making credible threats against people, or telling harmful lies about individuals, instead of simply telling lies about a group of people, they should be allowed to have their say. Fairness demands that. And just because they would refuse to treat us with basic fairness, is no reason for us to be so afraid that we stoop to their level.
labeling as "hate speech" = censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
[1984]Let's introduce a new term, boys and girls: "hate speech". Yes, that's right, these are thoughts and ideas that are too terrible for you to contemplate, so we will censor them from your tender minds. What? No, you are not sensible enough to arrive at your own conclusions, so we must ensure that you are never exposed to these evil ideas.[/1984]
One of the consequences of truly "free" speech is that you have to hear a lot of crap from people you strongly disagree with. These are the "idiots" that we "love to hate", but if their speech isn't free, then nobody's is. That's the idea of free exchange of ideas in a free society. But then again, there's no such thing, because every attempt at a free society has ended by a centralization into a totalitarian state. [© 2002 jazzbotley the cynic] Ah, the rub. (Thanks, G.W.!)
Law? Bah! (Score:2, Insightful)
I am certainly not advocating the killing of anyone (hell the anti-abortion movement was about preserving life last time I checked) but disputing what is moral and what isn't possibly to the point of suggesting breaking laws is part of free speech.
I don't think there are many NAZI advocates here so I will use them as an example.Back when they were in control it was illegal to be a jew. Does that mean that anyone that broke that law and escaped the haulocaust alive was moraly corrupt?
By shutting down these sites one side of the debate is silenced and this must be considered a kick in the teeth to free speech.
By the way, in Ireland for example aborting fetus = bloody illegal, linching doctor that performs abortions = technically illegal but no one gives a damn (at least not as heavily punished as aborting a feotus). Does this mean it is right to linch abortionists? Should the anti-linching sites be banned?
Of course not, linching people is murder and just because the lincher does not think it is wrong doesn't make it right for them to do.
Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I contrasted fascism and communism, not nazism ("Hitlerism", if you will) and Stalinism.
The modern-day Left would have you believe that Hitler and Stalin were ideological enemies, but it would be far more accurate to describe them as rivals. They both ran totalitarian police states with absolute power concentrated in a single leader, both believed that the only purpose of the citizen should be to serve the state (and hence the maximum leader), both ran command economies, both had expansionist foreign policies, both persecuted ethnic minorities. The only real way to differentiate between them is that Stalin's purges killed 3-4x what Hitler's did. It is also worth noting that other self-described Communists (China, Cambodia, etc) have similar records to Stalin's.
But mysteriously, modern-day Fascists are shunned and modern-day Communists are tolerated. In fact, the same attitude should apply to them both; neither has a place in the modern world.
maybe we should all reread locke (Score:2, Insightful)
eventually, all governments, whether democratic or not so, will attempt to seek power and control through various and sundry ways. whether by resrictions on freedom or by doling out public monies, they acquire ever greater power.
look at the us tax code. why is reform so hard. hell, EVERYONE stands to lose something if you reform it. so, we leave it unchanged and only add to its complexity.
Re:in France figth against Fascists is not over ! (Score:1, Insightful)
Yesterday, all over the country, someone was killed by a crackhead. What's your point? Murder is illegal, unless they talked him to death, banning speech doesn't matter.
A month before in Isreal a buttload of jews was killed by a palestinian with a bomb. Again, what's your point?
Okay... yet again, what's your point? Would it be better if he stabbed him because of some policy he didn't agree with?
A fan of Jodie Foster tried to kill Ronald Reagan when he was in office. Quick, we'd better ban Jodie Foster!
Why is that a threat? Maybe it'd be good for you to change governmental systems. The fact is, you can't improve your government if you aren't allowed to suggest improvements/alternatives.
Every week? No, you don't.
France is not a democracy, there are political prisonners. Germany and US are not democratic also !
How does having "political" prisoners prevent a country from being a democracy?
If you feel that we should enforce freedom of speech for the fascist, no problem, just give the a green card !
I'd be perfectly happy letting a few proud white people into my country. What I don't want is to let some dothead in. It feels good to know that I'm allowed to say that, and you are not.
Re:Germanies Free Press (Score:3, Insightful)
Obvious this poster doesn't read the New York Times, watch network TV or in general partake of the dominant media in the US, which has a long history of critizing presidents during war - especially republican presidents.
The journalists arrested for failing to reveal their sources simply highlights the natural conflict between freedom of the press and the need of the people to be protected from criminals. None of these people have been imprisoned for refusing to reveal *political* sources.
So where will it end? (Score:2, Insightful)
As an aside, I think it's pretty bizzare to censor "anti-abortion" (self-identified "pro-life") sites. Yeah, there are some crazies out there. But most anti-abortion sites I've seen are just people peacefully expressing their opinions.
I'd like to see international law exempting search engines from this sort of censorship.
Re:only 100 sites (Score:4, Insightful)
Please distinguish: It is not forbidden to discuss it, it is even encouraged to discuss it. It is forbidden to use the symbol of "criminal organisations" (SS, NSDAP, Swastika) without appropiate context. I discussed Nazism in my oral exam (a theme i selected) in my final high school year and it scored the best mark in oral exams that year ;-).
Examples:
There is even a logic behind it, even if i do not agree with it. The main reasoning is: the constituion does not protect action which aim at the abolition of the constitution. As the Nazism was the breakdown of constitutionalism, the uncritical showup their symbols is considered as action against the consitutuion.
Yours, Martin
Sesame Street Flashbacks (Score:2, Insightful)
Why does that song "one of these things is not like the other" from Sesame Street keeping running through my mind?
Since when is being anti-abortion in the same category as being pro-nazi, a white supremacist, or anti-semitic? This is a scary bit of phraseology on the front page here!
"Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence ineherent in the system!"
Re:only 100 sites (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted we didn't go to war to protect the jews.
Why'd it take an attack on the US by Japan, if the US was really just in the war to free the people... being persecuted by the Nazis?
I would say that with the lend/lease program & flying tigers and our embargo on oil to Japan we were pretty well involved well before Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor happend for a *reason* you know.
I'd be willing to bet you could incite Pat Robertson or Billy Graham into saying the US should have stayed out of the European Theatre until all those social subversive types were eradicated....
What would make you think this? It is fine to oppose the political agenda of the religious right but don't be so blinded by your hatred of them that you become utterly ignorant of history and what they actually believe. Most American evangelicals look to people like Corrie Ten Boom, Deitrich Boenhoffer and Martin Neimoler as their hero's. "The Hiding Place [amazon.com]", "The Cost of Discipleship [amazon.com]" and "Letters and Papers from Prison [amazon.com]" are bestsellers and classics among the religious right. It is not insignificant that the "religious right" in Germany, the biblical literalists - the groups & individuals most closely identified with their American evangelical co-religionists were the ONLY significant *German* opposition to Hitler.
Hogwash (Score:3, Insightful)
If pro-nazi speaches offend you, then don't listen to them. Go somewhere else. Don't read Mein Kampf. No one's forcing you to listen: the right to speak does mean the right to necessarily be heard (though it does mean the right to have the potential to be heard).
That Germany as a nation chooses to ignore and violate the right to freedom of speach proves they haven't learned much from Hitler's era, when human rights were completely ignored. Had they, they would respect these rights. I'm speaking as someone of German descent, in this case. Its even worse in a democracy when human rights violations occur than when they occur in a dictatorship; when they occur in a democracy, that means that a majority of the people must have voted for someone who supports human rights violations.
To those who say that Google's doing the right thing by obeying the laws of Germany and France, I say that's non-sense. Unjust laws should not be obeyed. Just as in Germany during WWII, the right thing to do was ignore orders to kill Jewish people, so is the right thing to do in this case to disobey these laws which violate freedom of speach. This is not such a severe case, but the right thing to do is to violate laws which are wrong.
That said, I wonder why Google bother's to obey these laws. Google is based in the US, and to my knowledge all of their people are in the US, as is all of their finances. If Google chose not to obey these laws, how could the German & French government's possibly coerce or penalize them, since Google is beyond their sovereignty?
Commercialism offends me, they must comply (Score:4, Insightful)
And Christianity violates my moral beliefs, so they must remove those pages too.
Only kidding, but you see my point i hope. This sets a BAD precedent.. a really really bad one.
This will open the flood gates on mass censorship.
And why's not free child pron too ... (Score:2, Insightful)
sed s/drugs/child porn
Because, of course, not being able to talk about something makes it less attractive right? And Child porn being illegal makes it less attractive for pedophile too, right? *sigh*
Oh ok let make the child pron legal
Your comment is stupid.
It isn't the work of a Franco-German political office but the normal complaints expressed by courts and citizens, who asks for the application of laws which were never called into question by citizens, of France and Germany.
If a US hosted site is closed, because it contient illegal stuff, even if it's legal in France or Germany (DeCSS for example), no one slashdot's user will say anything but it is enough that these are another country which face to respect its laws on its Web sites so that it is censure.
If you want really attack the censorship, take a look of the situation in Egypt or in Iran.
gotta love the US (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's Google got to do with free speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
I will.
Google is being 'slagged' because it affects the integrity of Google as an impartial (aside from the programmed rules) producer of search results.
Of course you are right Google can do anything with it's property that it wants, and it will have to suffer the barbs of the consumer in response.
I do appreciate that for the most part they are only complying with the law, however the results are the results, and results don't care about the law.
The results will be tainted by the fact that the dataset has been corrupted and can no longer truely be 'trusted'.
You cannot change the fact that hate groups exist by hiding them. I know this is not Google's intent, it's the laws intent.
Failure to collect the information that these groups exist, the levels they exist at, and the mis-information they are trying to spread will diminish the ability to see them, and hence to fight them.
"Just cover your eyes and it will all go away." Nope, won't happen.
Re:If only it was possible! (Score:4, Insightful)
Thing is, you absolutely CAN'T touch those anti-racism/antisemitism/whatever laws. It's a very, very touchy issue over here, and some organisations [uejf.org] will scream bloody murder if you ever even want to open the debate about it.
"Over here" I suspect means Europe? We have the same situation in the US. But we have it two-fold. One, if you don't support Israel, then you're anti-semitic. Two, if you don't support the war on terrorism, then you're anti-american.
You can't win with everyone, nor should you try. German and French laws prohibiting Nazi propaganda are derived from fear and hatred of the past. No one in Europe wants another facist, murderer, yet Milosavic (sp) was pretty damn close, and no one did much to stop him. Oh the irony...
If you want to open the debate then you're obviously a racist antisemitic extreme-right wing nazi and should be dragged out and shot.
Pretty much the same attitude here in the states. If you don't support the troops, then you're anti-american. If you don't support Israel then you're a nazi. If you don't support Cuban exiles, then you're a communist. Etc... All of it meaningless rhetoric. Problem is, if you get enough people spewing meaningless rhetoric, then it becomes opinion and soon after, policy.
But then we have great technical sites like
Re:Germanies Free Press (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is something I find far more commendable than pretending to be objective when you are not.
The truth is that every human is biased and our biases affect what we do, even when we make a serious effort to be objective.
More to the point, if you really are trying to be objective, admitting to your own biases has a way of ensuring an extra bit of diligence WRT your efforts at balance.
Total patriotic hypocrites (Score:1, Insightful)
If this story were about the U.S. censoring some search engine, the discussions would be rife with how corrupt, backward, ignorant and repressive Americans and American society is. This sentiment would predictably come from Europeans and Canadians primarily, but a good number of properly self-loathing Americans would join in too.
However, since it's France and Germany, what do we see? Do we see denunciations of this kind of Big Brother style of governing? No, of course not. What I see are subtle defenses of what amounts to censorship and attempted mind control. "We've decided what's best for a civilized society" or "It's Google's fault because they caved" or "Yeah but... Americans set the precedent for this." Blah blah blah.
Fuck that and if that's your attitude, then fuck you too because you're secretly a patriotic hypocrite. This kind of thing happens everywhere in the world and instead of taking up your goddam flag and waving it high enough to distract everyone, you ought to be attacking what appears to be a total lack of responsible and trustworthy leadership in your own countries.
I guess this kind of thing is perfectly okay and reasonable as long as it's not the U.S.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Racism exists in every nation. Censorship is not the answer.
Oh, and the whole, I see white supremacists in the USA campaigning outside schools for the removal of black teachers and children etc thing. That went out of style a long time ago. You'd get laughed out of town in even rural Alabama if you tried that. You should be bitching about white flight, which accomplishes much the same thing. I imagine you would expect the government to ban relocation to the suburbs.
So, ummm, in conclusion, I guess I'm just trying to say that the government cannot and should not be a womb.
Re:only 100 sites (Score:1, Insightful)
I grew up in liberal Southern California, was taught (as were nearly all of us) the usual crap about the "Civil War" being about slavery, etc. (150 years ago my ancestral family lived in Illinois, and all enlisted to fight in the Union army.) Wasn't till my 40s I began really questioning this and other "truths" that "everyone knows." Coincidentally, about then I discovered an excellent book on the subject, "The South was Right" (check Amazon).
Slavery is an evil, to be sure; but if so, then why is it a solution to the evil of slavery to enslave everyone, rather than just the blacks? Which is what Lincoln did by declaring himself Dictator and then using conscript troops to conquer anyone who disagreed - not only the Confederate states, but many dissenters in the North were imprisoned without trial, etc.
Lincoln was America's Caesar: he may have meant to save the Republic, but he actually destroyed it, replacing it with an empire - leading directly to our present troubles with the Imperial Presidency, Washington micromanaging everyone's lives, etc.
I call it the War of Federal Conquest, which is what it was. The Northern states made a bargain with the Devil, and ended in the same subjection suffered by the Confederate states. When New Jersey balked at ratifying the "14th Amendment," which created a new class of Federal citizenship, etc., it was threatened with the same fate - invasion and occupation - as the conquered states to the south.
(BTW, I won't answer to "Anonymous Coward," just don't feel like taking the time to create an account to post one comment. Anyway, the "Create Account" link took me to a Log-In page, which apparently assumed I already had an account. The hell with it.)
Philalethes