
Google Agrees to Censor Encyclopedia Dramatica Entry in Australia - stakent
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2010-01-17-n25.html
======
jonny_noog
I just don't know what to say anymore. As an Australian, I am ashamed and
baffled at the way my government has been handling Internet policy lately.

Their treatment of the issues betrays a astounding naivety that I find of
increasing concern. On the face of it, it's always for a good cause... won't
somebody think of the children! We need to censor all the bad sites on the
Internet! Some guy feels slighted by a racial slur on some website that no one
takes seriously! We must ban it from Google! We can't be seen to be endorsing
racism!

The sentiment is always admirable but the reaction betrays an complete
misunderstanding of both the online culture and the technological
infrastructure that supports it.

The sad thing is I know first hand that there are people in the Australian
Government who can and do give better advice that should ostensibly lead to
better government decisions in the online space. It just seems like their
voices are being disregarded. I suspect the main reasons for this are:

a) Certain politicians refusal to accept that the reality of the Internet does
not fit their limited understanding of it.

b) Politician's desire to use the Internet as a political football.

Perhaps it really is time to move to Estonia.

~~~
illumen
hello,

I do agree with you mostly, and in general I think that censorship is hardly
ever good. In this particular case censorship was a force for good.

As an aside, Google was running 'used aborigines' adverts from ebay for quite
a while. Do you think these adverts should also be allowed to run?

Australian society mostly takes a very dim view of racism, and especially
racism towards the aborigines. Our elected representatives and the people of
australia put in place laws such that this type of thing does not happen.

However the government and politicians did not make this particular case of
censorship happen - the courts of law made it happen. I think most of society
agree that it is a shit thing that google was doing in this instance.

Google has in place limits to stop things like pornography showing up, with
it's safe search feature. This is already a form of censorship based on the
values of countries like the USA.

Where do we draw the line? Obviously sociopaths shouldn't be able to say
whatever they like to millions of people if their words will cause harm. How
about spammers bent on selling their products? Google already blocks some of
the spammers. As do they block malware serving sites, and sites that don't
play by googles rules of what constitutes a good web page. Make a website more
google friendly, and google will reward you with higher rankings. Put more
google messages (adverts) on your pages, and get more people to see them, and
google will pay you more money. How about companies abusing trademarks or
abusing copyright? Are those censorship too?

Do we take the values of a multi national corporations(ie google)? Isn't that
a form of cultural imperialism? What is to stop the courts abusing their
power? There are many processes in place to try and let all sides of society
have their input into what the courts do. What is to stop google from abusing
their power and imposing their views on people who do not want them? ...
glibly, I guess the answer to that is adblock.

I don't think you can have a 'censorship is always wrong' approach, or a
'totally abusing censorship in terrible ways' approach either. Reasoned
arguments by courts of law are an answer - to find out where censorship is
appropriate and where it is not.

The people who made that site should get a dog up em.

~~~
jonny_noog
Well dude, if it were up to me, I would have a "censorship is always wrong"
approach. No exceptions. I realise this will never come to pass, but that's
none the less how it would be if it were up to me. Censorship is never a force
for good in my opinion.

 _As an aside, Google was running 'used aborigines' adverts from ebay for
quite a while. Do you think these adverts should also be allowed to run?_

I had not heard about this, but honestly I could not care less. If people just
ignored this shit rather than pandering to the trolls, maybe there'd be no
incentive for them to keep doing it.

 _Google has in place limits to stop things like pornography showing up, with
it's safe search feature. This is already a form of censorship based on the
values of countries like the USA._

And this censorship would be gone too, if it were - once again - up to me.

I think you must see where I draw the line now, i.e. I don't draw it. I can
imagine that many people may think my view extreme, what about the children
and all that? Well, that's what parents are for.

Whether a sociopath is able to say whatever they like on the Internet or not
doesn't bother me in the slightest. Because I am an independent person who
thinks for myself and feels quite comfortable judging for myself whether I
wish to read the writings of a sociopath.

But more than anything else, I was actually commenting on the technological
naivety of the people involved in this particular situation. Were I inclined
to get a bee in my bonnet about satirical racism on the Internet, would I
think having the offending material removed from Google is really any kind of
satisfactory outcome? Can people still get to the offending content?
Certainly. Do more people know about it now than could have ever possibly
known about it previously? Yes.

My point is that no matter how tightly the Conroys of this world try to clamp
down, there will always be cracks that are exploited. No matter how "clean"
the feed, there's always going to something on the Internet that offends
someone. Instead of worrying about where the line is drawn, we could start
worrying about taking personal responsibility for ourselves and our children
and leave everyone else free to do the same.

~~~
camccann
_I had not heard about this, but honestly I could not care less. If people
just ignored this shit rather than pandering to the trolls, maybe there'd be
no incentive for them to keep doing it._

eBay has (or had?) a habit of spamming ads in Google searches that said things
like "Looking for ${WHAT_YOU_SEARCHED_FOR}? Buy it new or used on eBay!", no
matter what you'd searched for.

So of course people would search for all kinds of
imaginary/dangerous/illegal/offensive/etc. things just to see if it would
spawn any "hilarious" auto-generated eBay ads.

~~~
jonny_noog
Well there you go, didn't know that either. if this is the mechanism that the
story is based on, it's even less to be kicking up a fuss about IMO.

------
camccann
I find it deeply worrying that something can be censored based on the
complaints of someone who would take Encyclopaedia Dramatica seriously.

~~~
ratsbane
I agree. And by censoring part of ED the Australian government will give the
impression of having implicitly approved of all of the parts they haven't
censored.

~~~
beamso
ED is on the ACMA blacklist apparently.

------
mhansen
_Mr Hodder-Watt then undertook legal action, that resulted in Google
acknowledging its legal responsibility to remove the offensive site._

How does Google have a legal responsibility to remove a site from search
results?

~~~
randomwalker
Because laws are different from country to country. Of course, I share the
view that it is a retarded law in this case, but it is a law nonetheless, and
one that Google must obey if they want to play in Australia. I believe the
legal term is 'intermediary liability.'

This issue has been popping up in different countries all over the world in
the last few months. Most notably in China, of course, but also in India,
France and Italy, where Google executives are in fact facing the possibility
of jail time. See
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jan/13/google-
china-western-internet-freedom) and
[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h-40ArK-e...](http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h-40ArK-
eMbvpRDJJSojvopz60Vw).

The role of Internet middlemen in enforcing copyright was a key legal issue in
the last decade. It appears that censorship will be the analogous issue for
the next decade. We seem to have reached a relatively happy middle ground with
copyright—middlemen have some responsibility, but a strong form of copyright
protection has proved unenforceable, forcing many industries to innovate or
die. We can hope that a similar thing will happen with censorship, with
oppressive governments either collapsing or being forced to allow free speech.

------
barredo
I wonder when will Australian Gov Hackers try to hack some australians gmail
account and Google threatens to leave Australia.

~~~
pmorici
Since the censoring in question is the result of legal action by an individual
and not a government the appropriate thing to do would be to just block all
Google access from the complainer.

~~~
apower
And where do you think the LEGAL basis coming from? Thin air? It's backed by
and enforced by the Aus government.

~~~
artichokeheart
The legal basis, though, are racial vilification laws. Welcome to the
censorship/freedom of speech grey area.

~~~
pwmanagerdied
There is no gray area. If you support laws against hate crime or hate speech,
you're against freedom of speech.

~~~
EricBurnett
I'm sorry, but no issue is black and white like that. There is a gray area
because two human rights are in conflict on issues such as these: freedom of
speech and freedom from discrimination. In most countries, including
Australia, limitations are put on freedom of speech specifically to address
this issue.

You can support laws such as these without being 'against freedom of speech'.
After all, the very first article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
says "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are
endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a
spirit of brotherhood." Both this and article 19 (freedom of opinion and
expression) must be supported, and when they are in conflict, a balance must
be found.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights)

~~~
pwmanagerdied
We all know that the UN is retarded. By increasing the penalties for crimes
motivated by discrimination against selected groups, you imply that crimes
motivated by discrimination against groups that haven't been so selected are
less severe. If someone went around and started killing geeks because they
hated us collectively, they'd be less heavily punished than if they were
targeting a protected group, such as Christians. Is that fair?

~~~
gjm11
The point of hate speech / hate crime laws isn't that crimes motivated by
discrimination are worse. It's that they affect the whole group. If I kill you
because I want your money, then you and your friends and family suffer the
consequences. If I kill you because you're gay, Christian, black, Jewish,
female, or whatever, then _in addition to the effects on you and your friends
and family_ everyone else who's part of the same group feels just that bit
more afraid and that bit less able to be themselves; and everyone else who
hates that same group gets just that bit more inspiration to go out and do
likewise.

Unless you give this _zero_ weight and think every reasonable person should do
otherwise, then I do not think you have any excuse for saying that approving
of hate-crime laws means being "against freedom of speech".

(Unless by "you are against freedom of speech" you mean "you think that there
might be other considerations that sometimes justify limiting freedom of
speech". In which case every reasonable person is "against" just about
everything.)

There is no hate-crime legislation making it extra-bad to kill geeks because
there aren't a bunch of malefactors out there killing geeks. It's arguable
that hate-crime laws should be written in a more general way, instead of
calling out particular discriminated-against groups, but if you'd accept
_that_ then congratulations, you're "against freedom of speech" in your own
terms.

------
Evgeny
Great. I have never heard about this Encyclopedia Dramatica before but now
I'll definitely have a read.

~~~
EricBurnett
I'm not sure I even want to mention it, but I highly recommend you stay away
from the article called 'offended' if you find it linked anywhere, unless you
are the kind of person who likes visiting shock sites. Consider yourself
warned.

~~~
RevRal
Please heed this advice. And don't allow yourself to get tricked into clicking
an innocent link that leads to the ED offended page.

For every link on ED, roll over it and take a look at its URL at the bottom of
your browser. This'll keep you from being trolled into the offended page.
Also, the contrast between URL and hyperlink text is one of ED's sources of
irony.

For example, hyperlink text that says "actual news" might lead to ED's
"serious business" page.

------
daniel-cussen
link to offensive article: <http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Aboriginal>

Warning: extremely racist.

~~~
pwmanagerdied
Who gives a damn if it's racist, the entire site is a joke!

~~~
artichokeheart
Well, for one, me. Racism even on a joke site is still racist. As far as I'm
concerned, and I know I'm not alone, racism is not acceptable in any form.

~~~
pwmanagerdied
Well, I'm afraid I have to be the one to inform you that you are both pathetic
and an idiot.

~~~
jon_dahl
Calm down, man. The previous poster expressed a reasonable opinion. Disagree
if you want, but don't resort to ad hominem.

------
beamso
I couldn't find the chillingeffects mention through google.com.au, nor the
article through google.com. Looks like it was buried by the news stories.

~~~
whatusername
<http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=17460>

If you search for Aboriginal Encyclopedia on google.com.au it shows up down
the bottom.

------
philk
From the article:

 _"It portrays indigenous Australians in the most unsavoury light possible,
and you wouldn't want a child stumbling across it," he told ABC Radio._

I'm getting really sick of people playing the "won't somebody think of the
children" card.

~~~
vaksel
children were probably the ones who created that content in the first place

~~~
philk
Never let reality get in the way of a good moral panic.

------
nfnaaron
1\. Wouldn't it be better/safer/something if it were easy to find such sites,
so that nicer people can know just what they're up against? If I wanted to do
something about cockroaches in my house, I'd like to be able to find the
cockroaches.

2\. karzeem, in another comment, says that the site is within the bounds of
free speech. Sincere question from a non-Australian: does Australia have
constitutional or otherwise legally protected free speech? In other words, is
free speech a strong legal argument in Australia?

~~~
zmimon
> does Australia have constitutional or otherwise legally protected free
> speech

No. Australians have no direct freedoms at all. What rights they have are
"implied" indirectly from other things such as that the federal government
shall not restrict trade between the states (it's hard to trade if you can't
talk ...). People talk from time to time about strengthening individual
rights, but most Aussies couldn't care less and due to mandatory voting those
that don't care will vote down just about any constitutional amendment making
it extremely difficult for such reform to ever happen.

~~~
EricBurnett
Not entirely correct. Australia ratified the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and is part of the United Nations.

From Wikipedia: "While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly
adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental
freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is
binding on all member states. For this reason, the Universal Declaration is a
fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights)

------
blhack
_When searching Google Australia for [Aboriginal and Encyclopedia], there will
be a disclaimer at the bottom reading “In response to a legal request
submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s)..._

If you go here:
[http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=aboriginal+encyc...](http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=aboriginal+encyclopedia&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=)

You will see no such warning. (At least I didn't)

~~~
EricBurnett
Try
[http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=aboriginal+encyc...](http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=aboriginal+encyclopedia+dramatica)
, which will be more likely to get the link(s) in question. At the bottom I
see that 4 links were removed.

Predicting what links will show up for who is hard, especially now that
personalized results are used.

~~~
knorby
I suppose this is a question for an Australian, but what stops someone from
just using google.com instead of the .com.au address? Seems like if I see that
warning in the US, the filtering isn't done by origin of the request, at least
on this level.

~~~
TeHCrAzY
Nothing at all. Attempting to understand what our politicians and courts are
doing at the moment is difficult indeed. I expect people like that to be
intelligent and informed. They seem to be lacking in both with re. to the
internet.

------
tokenadult
So a source with no reference value whatsoever no longer appears DIRECTLY as a
Google result for certain kinds of searches that might be expected to turn up
reliable information. I thought that was a big part of what Page Rank was all
about in the first place. Would that the same thing would happen to the many
crank pages that turn up in searches on medical topics.

~~~
karzeem
It's not really a question of how relevant ED is. The issue is that a
government had Google censor something which is well within the bounds of free
(albeit offensive) speech.

~~~
tokenadult
Governments (courts) also enforce judgments for defamation, but we don't call
that censorship either. One way I like to exercise my free speech is to be
careful in my use of legal language, and to remind readers here that not every
action that keeps something from being Web-indexed or posted, even if it is an
action taken by a government, is properly called "censorship." What happened
here appears to be Google responding to a citizen complaint under an
Australian law that I might indeed disagree with, but which does not
constitute a prior restrain on what is published on the Web, and indeed has
not stopped the website in question from continuing to be posted.

After edit: Google also removes on its own initiative spam links from its
search results. No one seems to complain about this except the spammers. I
think that is great customer service, except that Google recently needs to do
more of that. That too is not censorship. It is simply Google deciding what
its business model is for delivering search results. You have the right to
operate a website. Google also has the right to operate a website. Google
decides whether or not to comply with applicable local law if there is some
legal issue raised by its serving up search results in a particular place. If
Google really doesn't like local law, it can use its bully pulpit to advocate
a different law, or hire lawyers or lobbyists to change the law.

------
cousin_it
Sometimes I hope all bleeding-heart activists will eventually see how
governments use their actions as a pretext to expand censorship more and
more... but then hope goes away and reality sets in.

------
vaksel
here is a question, do people actually have to go to google.co.au, or does
Google redirect them there when they go to google.com?

~~~
mahmud
Google redirects you.

~~~
tokenadult
_Google redirects you._

Are you writing that from Australia? To the contrary, I find that I can search
with any country's version of Google, including non-English versions, from
here in the United States.

Could Australian participants confirm or deny the quoted statement? I thought
other comments posted to this thread earlier already stated that Australians
can search Google from any of Google's national sites.

~~~
mahmud
I am in Australia. If I type google.com I end up in google.com.au.

~~~
repsilat
Searches to google.com aren't redirected, just requests for the front page. If
you specifically want google.com (and not google.com.au) you can go to
google.com/ncr instead.

------
BrentRitterbeck
Hmmm... Google must be the market leader and making a profit in Australia.

~~~
ubernostrum
Or they're just doing the same thing they've always done in all non-China
countries: removing search results when the country's legal process tells them
to (they remove results in the US over DMCA requests, for example) and linking
to Chilling Effects to show a copy of the complaint.

~~~
BrentRitterbeck
So please explain how China's censorship is fundamentally different. Does not
a sovereign nation have the right to control things that may be fundamentally
destabilizing to the country as a whole? I know I'm playing devil's advocate
here, but it is an interesting question.

EDIT: Note, I am 100% against censorship.

~~~
ubernostrum
Well, take the case of the DMCA. Yes, it's a terrible law and should be
repealed, but the approach to handling it is fundamentally different from
China's censorship. If this were Chinese style, any site which argued that the
DMCA is flawed or should be repealed/reformed would get a blanket disappearing
imposed by the government.

But since it's not Chinese-style you can talk about the DMCA all you want --
the only things that disappear from search results are specific URLs which are
claimed to violate the law itself, removed not after a wide-ranging government
demand but after a narrowly-targeted civil-law complaint (and there's a
counter-filing system which allows maintainers of those URLs to respond and
have due process -- I doubt very much that China allows such challenges to its
censorship).

