
Controversial content and free expression on the web: a refresher - ashishbharthi
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/controversial-content-and-free.html
======
CWuestefeld
_Some democratically-elected governments in Europe and elsewhere do have
national laws that prohibit certain types of content. Our policy is to comply
with the laws of these democratic governments_

It seems that they draw the line on where they're willing to censor search
results based on the type of government imposing the censorship.

------
maxklein
This is the epitome of hypocrisy. Google censors Nazi stuff in Germany but
refuses to censor Tianamen Square? Nazis have a right to free speech as much
as any chinese person does. If you obey the law in Germany, then obey the law
in China. Be consistent - either make information free or don't make
information free.

But don't go selecting what you want to censor and what not. Google is not
supposed to decide what we get to see or what not. Google is supposed to
follow the laws of the country they are operating in. Let the government
decide what we get to see or what not - and we can choose to bypass it.

If google had censored nothing anywhere, at least that would be a fine and
consistent approach.

But they cannot go censoring Attaturk insults or Nazis, and then refuse to
follow the law in China. That's nonsense and hypocrisy.

~~~
gojomo
Corporations can't generally be scofflaws or practice principled civil
disobedience. Google has adopted a standard -- complying with the censorship
laws of democratic governments, withdrawing from other places -- that takes
these limitations into account. Your alternative standard is just a macho
pose, that would cost Google a bunch before being run out of many mostly-free
societies. (I don't blame them for choosing battles they can win.)

You can argue that respecting Germany's Nazi taboo and Turkey's Ataturk taboo
begins a slippery slope that results in more and more censorship over time,
and I might agree. (In particular, it rewards the fabrication of new taboos --
new poses of victimhood and danger -- to control speech and thought.) But you
haven't suggested a workable alternative for a legally-chartered organization
that must yield to the laws of local authorities where it has a presence.

