Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Complies with Law, Excludes 'controversial' Sites

Hemos posted about 12 years ago | from the mmmm-dumb-laws dept.

Censorship 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 and, 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 original story which has more links then the ZDNet UK one.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

only 100 sites (4, Insightful)

mirko (198274) | about 12 years ago | (#4520794)

OK, there'd be a lot to say about the reason a site should be considered as controversial but their light quantity just sounds like to me they actually visited these to ensure they would not blacklist a legitimate site...

It's OK (3, Insightful)

Gabrill (556503) | about 12 years ago | (#4520798)

as long as they only remove the sites from France and Germany's Google sites. We can't have them dictating OUR right to speech in the US, now can we?

Re:It's OK (5, Insightful)

RobinH (124750) | about 12 years ago | (#4520835)

We can't have them dictating OUR right to speech in the US, now can we?

I completely agree with you. It's unfortunate, then, that the U.S. tries to extend its DMCA to other countries. []

Re:It's OK (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520883)

Aslong YOU dont try to influence there google indexes..

Serious if you removed stuff they want out, and they removed stuff you want out.. its fair isnt it?

And if we drag Cuba or any other cute country into this (did I hear anyone say China) we wouldnt have much more then teddybears in the indexes.. wouldnt that be good for the children so say?

What? Im unrealistic ... Noooo

Re:It's OK (1)

mirko (198274) | about 12 years ago | (#4520930)

> we wouldnt have much more then teddybears in the indexes..

So, this [] would actually also include Visual Basic "Programming" [] (the web site is owned by the VB "specialist")...

Re:It's OK (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520888)

Parent post is hardly insightful - the laws in each of those countries is different. The US allows that content, France and Germany do not. Pretending we're being hypocritical about it is just dumb.

And what the fuck does the US have to do with it? The only 'fault' you can lay at the feet of the US is helping to destroy Nazi Germany, thereby making it possible for France to exist and for both France and Germany to ban Nazi content.

Should we have left Nazi Germany in place? Then this particular act of censorship wouldn't have happened... does that make it better? No, it doesn't.

Re:It's OK (1)

Marc2k (221814) | about 12 years ago | (#4520907)

Censorship in Nazi Germany in the late 30's and 40's was MUCH worse than the censorship of today's France, Germany, and China combined (of course, I can say that because censoship isn't really a quantifiable entity, but it's still roughly the case).

Re:It's OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4521032)

No shit. Way to figure out the bleeding obvious.

Read the post again, Einstein. You might actually learn something this time.

of COURSE we should have left Nazi Germany (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520915)

then we wouldn't have the problems we have with palestine.

Re:It's OK (0)

danbeck (5706) | about 12 years ago | (#4520920)

Who do you mean by "they"? Google? How could they possibly dictate your right to free speech?

Don't blame google for this (5, Insightful)

Laglorden (87845) | about 12 years ago | (#4520800)

My guess is that there will be many here who will moan over Google being stupid, but of course they are doing the right thing following the law of each country in this case.

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...

Re:Don't blame google for this (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520839)

good point, but unfortunately the crowd at slashdot is more interrested in blame w/o cause then having a definable cause with which to speak their minds, though many hide it well

and I know where each of you live ...We will have an old fassion jamacian stick fight

and I will win

Re:Don't blame google for this (3, Funny)

BlueGecko (109058) | about 12 years ago | (#4520922)

Make it legal to spread nazi-propaganda i Germany etc...

Problem: even if a majority of Germans wanted greater freedom of speech, try to imagine the public outcry if a candidate campaigned on the platform:

Candidate: Und eef I am electet, I vill also leat a coalition to repeal ze anti-Nazi censorship rules in ze constitution, ja?

Even in Germany I have trouble seeing that flying with the voters or the press.

Re:Don't blame google for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520980)

If we ban Nazi propaganda in Germany, then maybe we of all people know what we're doing.

Wow (2, Interesting)

dj28 (212815) | about 12 years ago | (#4520805)

Those European countries sure do like to talk about their free speech. 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'? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Re:Wow (3, Insightful)

McCart42 (207315) | about 12 years ago | (#4520837)

What blows me away is not the racist speech blocking, but the fact that they're blocking anti-abortion websites from google's listings--racist speech could be construed as "hate speech" and thus I can maybe see how they'd not want their children to see it, but anti-abortion (AKA pro-life, depending on whether you support it or not) speech?! How is that worthy of censorship? Oh, does it not agree with what their government believes?
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.

Re:Wow (2)

Bartmoss (16109) | about 12 years ago | (#4521011)

Remember there are anti-abortion sites that advocate murder of doctors who perform abortions.

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

ponxx (193567) | about 12 years ago | (#4521021)

Have a look at the site. If that is not hate-speech, i don't know what is. Some things I read on extremist christian sites (have a look at made me feel actually sick, including suggesting the murder of all non-believers as a solution to world hunger, implicitly or explicitly condoning murder of doctors, homosexuals etc. not even speaking of generally insulting individuals and groups or religions that happen not to share their views. In my view this is hate-speech and asks people to commit crimes.

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 / ... particularly when it includes calls to direct action.

Anyway, different countries have different standards, 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.

I don't condone it, but.. (1)

Marc2k (221814) | about 12 years ago | (#4521023)

Well, often times anti-abortion groups are quite hateful and mob-ruled.

When's the last time a doctor who performed a birth after the mother decided against abortion was sniped? Many US doctors have been shot, or their offices been burned and/or pillaged for performing abortions after the mother decided against childbirth. A year or so ago, I took a good friend of mine to get an abortion, and we had to identify ourselves through an armored door thicker than some banks to get in, and they literally have to do that to protect themselves. If that's not hate, McCart42, what is?

Again, I don't condone silencing free speech, but where do you draw the line? I don't see how the blind hatred of people for their skin color is different than blind hatred for those that make decisions that do not concern yourself.

Re:Wow (5, Interesting)

CaVi (37216) | about 12 years ago | (#4520860)

I haven't seen the suppressed sites, but there has been anti-abortion sites giving names of the doctors practising abortion and saying "Here are the adresses of murderers to kill".

A site which makes it easier to kill somebody by giving private information like home adress,... should be banned IMHO. Of course, some fanatics will dig the web and find that information anyway, but it is no reason to allow to publish it anyway.

If the site is hosted in a country which doesn't ban it, then it is IMHO perfectly legitimate to try to ban it from other countries, even if it is not 100% effective. Removing it from Google is not 100% effective, but it makes it a bit less accessible.

Being about anti-abortion, pro-terrorism or anything else doesn't change the fact: there are some sites which should be banned. But they should not be banned too lightly, and there should be ways to defend oneself against being banned,...

Re:Wow (1)

jhunsake (81920) | about 12 years ago | (#4520985)

Because the murderers couldn't get it anyways... these are zealots that won't let such difficulty dissuade them. We're not talking about a guy that's discouraged from killing someone because he has to wait for his gun permit to come through.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4521030)

I haven't seen the suppressed sites, but there has been anti-abortion sites giving names of the doctors practising abortion and saying "Here are the adresses of murderers to kill".

Considering that all you need is a name and (if the name is really common) a city and you can find almost any address in the US, I don't see this to be much of a problem. Anyone who wants to kill doctors (or anyone else) just needs to go to an online phonebook to find em.

I'm from America though, so obviously I don't know anything about other countries.

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

Bartmoss (16109) | about 12 years ago | (#4520872)

Yeah well freedom of speech ends where you step on other people's rights, like those anti-abortion sites inciting people to kill abortion doctors or Nazis who want to gas the jews.

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.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520897)

Do I need to mention your new laws.. after 9/11 ?

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520946)

Yeah, and Germany & France = Europe, right?

By the way, why are all americans mormons? 'Cause Utah = USA, right?


Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4521002)

Germany & France ~= Europe. Central Bank and Security Council come to mind.

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

FeloniousPunk (591389) | about 12 years ago | (#4520949)

In the case of France, we are talking about a country where a major novelist (Houellebecq) faced a jail term for calling Islam "the dumbest religion" in a magazine interview.
He was acquitted thankfully, but that he even went to trial for that is very suspect.

Re:Wow (3, Informative)

Bartmoss (16109) | about 12 years ago | (#4521029)

So, he was sued by islamist organizations if I remember correctly. That can easily happen in the USA as well.

Re:Wow (1)

Firlefanz (30367) | about 12 years ago | (#4520962)

Those laws are hardly new. Germany scored high on the freedom of press index despite of them. This means other countries are even worse than Germany in censoring free speech (the U.S. come to my mind, being ranked #17 [] ).

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

WhyteRabbyt (85754) | about 12 years ago | (#4520987)

Those European countries sure do like to talk about their free speech.

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4521001)

Barring this sites may not just be a free-speech issue. Incitement to violence (racially motivated or otherwise AFAIK) is a criminal offence in the UK. It is one thing to express a view: inciting violence and providing information that might endanger a group of individuals is a very different issue.

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

SmileyBen (56580) | about 12 years ago | (#4521010)

Erm, no they don't. For one thing, Europeans talk about freedom of *expression*, not freedom of speech, which is a totally different thing. But that's kinda beside the point.

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:Wow (1)

chl (247840) | about 12 years ago | (#4521014)

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'? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Maybe we (in Germany) perceive racism and kill-all-abortion-doctors-callings as criminal behaviour that deserves to be punished when done in Germany and banished when done from outside. That being said, I wonder why google had to remove the links at all. Usually people just include a disclaimer that they are not responsible for anything they link to. This was established after a member of parliament linked to an issue of "Radikal", hosted in the Netherlands, that explained how to sabotage the railway system to prevent atomic waste transports. Telling people to commit crimes is a crime itself in Germany.

BTW: does not seem to be delisted And I can also find when searching for stormfront+pro-white.

Move along. No free speech debacle to see. Move along.

Google.. and Free Speech. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520815)

Hey I thought the German press had more free speech than the US.. Oh wait, I understand. The country isn't more free, just the press.

Yeah right..

Let's see:
French: Surrender Monkeys.
Germany: Never had a democratic government that wasn't imposed by an outside force.

Why am I not surprised.

Re:Google.. and Free Speech. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520912)

Um, I believe that Hitler was ELECTED by the German people. Not long after that he got rid of all election stuff so he couldn't be contested for power. But the Germans did have a fairly democratic government before then that I don't think was imposed by any outside force.

Re:Google.. and Free Speech. (1)

Perl-Pusher (555592) | about 12 years ago | (#4521005)

You seem to forget, the goverment in place before Hitler was the one setup after World War I. It was the fact the Treaty of Versailles made Germany pay restitution to the rest of Europe that made their economy a shambles. What got Hitler in power was that he stated he would scrap the treaty which is exactly what he did.

Re:Google.. and Free Speech. (0)

danbeck (5706) | about 12 years ago | (#4520963)

Haha, nice point you made there. To those who might not have understood the "Surrender Monkeys" comment. He means the French people are cowards and will surrender at the first sign of a solder with as small of a weapon as a swiss army knife.

They're all ready slipping down the slippery slope (4, Interesting)

Mantrid (250133) | about 12 years ago | (#4520818)

So it probably sounded like a good idea to filter out Nazis...everyone hates Nazis right? (except the Nazis) While we're at it let's censor White Supremicists, cause we all hate them too.

Yay censorship! Oh wait while we're at it, let's censor everyone who has a different point of view on abortion from the state view...well at least half the people will be happy...

What's next? Oh we don't like this site, it says unkind words about Jacques Chirac...ban it please...

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520884)

As you obviously chose to ignore:
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?

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl (5, Insightful)

sql*kitten (1359) | about 12 years ago | (#4520911)

So it probably sounded like a good idea to filter out Nazis...everyone hates Nazis right? (except the Nazis) While we're at it let's censor White Supremicists, cause we all hate them too.

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 [] .

Re:They're all ready slipping down the slippery sl (1)

mike_mgo (589966) | about 12 years ago | (#4520919)

The situation is not quite that simple. First off, I think that this only applies to French and German versions of Google.

The important difference though is that white supremacists have never been anything more than a fringe group in the US. In Germany, the reason they are banned is not just that everybody finds Nazis distasteful but that there is an obvious history of them in power.

I'm not sure if banning all of their activities and publications is the best way to limit their appeal, but it is not as simple as it is in the US where the ideas of these fringe groups find traction with only a small percentage of the population.

Not as Bad as it sounds (2, Insightful)

osiris (30004) | about 12 years ago | (#4520825)

I dont think that this is as bad as it sounds. Its not like they have removed the indexes completely from their databases. Only their .fr and .de sites. That would be complying with local laws as .de and .fr TLDs are specific to those countries unlike .com/net/org which are considered worldwide.

If these people want to search for these sites, they can still fire up

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 (4, Insightful)

techstar25 (556988) | about 12 years ago | (#4520831)

Maybe the French should try re-reading the works of French, postmodern writer/philosopher Michel Foucault, who wrote that repression of ideas and restriction of speech leads to discourse. France should know better. Now, Germany on the other hand . . .

Ineffective? (5, Insightful)

A non moose cow (610391) | about 12 years ago | (#4520832)

What prevents French people from just using ?

Re:Ineffective? (4, Interesting)

Glanz (306204) | about 12 years ago | (#4520850)

They are using a "redirect" in Frogland...., much as they do here in Quebec, Canada. I can't get to I am always redirected to no matter what I do.

Re:Ineffective? (1)

hopbine (618442) | about 12 years ago | (#4520945)

Strange, next door in Ontario I always get I just checked and I can reach and

Re:Ineffective? (2, Informative)

lovebyte (81275) | about 12 years ago | (#4520961)

In France, I use this:

Re:Ineffective? (5, Informative)

the bluebrain (443451) | about 12 years ago | (#4520967)

YMMV, but try this:

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 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.

Re:Ineffective? (1)

FeloniousPunk (591389) | about 12 years ago | (#4520969)

Here in Germany, the first time I tried to go to I got redirected to But there was an option on the page there to go to instead.

Re:Ineffective? (1)

koh (124962) | about 12 years ago | (#4520882) works for me (I hate seeing french on web pages).

Isn't it true... (1)

Drunken Coward (574991) | about 12 years ago | (#4520833)

By engaging in this limited censorship they are opening themselves up as being liable for not censoring other "controversial" sites? IIRC, that's one of the reasons universities choose traffic shaping over outright blocking- to avoid legal complications.

Lots more on the report (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520838)

Professor Jonathan Zittrain [] and Ben Edelman [] of Harvard's Berkman Center [] are studying exclusions from Google [] and have so far found some 113 sites excluded [] , in whole or in part, from the French and German Learn more about the situation and context [] , test the exclusions for yourself [] , and submit further sites suspected to be excluded [] . LawMeme [] and C|Net [] have more info.

OT: Kids and drugs (3, Insightful)

Ted_Green (205549) | about 12 years ago | (#4520843)

"And drugs being illegal makes it less attractive for kids too, right? *sigh* "

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.

Re:OT: Kids and drugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520918)

And then you grew up and found the shocking truth that pretty much everyone smokes weed at one time or another despite prohibition...

Re:OT: Kids and drugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520983)

I sure didnt puff everything there was, some couse I got brain, and some.. guess what, couse its unleagal!

Re:OT: Kids and drugs (1)

fruey (563914) | about 12 years ago | (#4520994)

Ummm... the problem is that drugs are illegal to everyone, not just those under the age of "majority". There are lots of problems with drug laws, and let us not forget that while you all whine about freedom of speech and gun laws and so on in America, YOUR country pushed drug laws on Europe. You could buy cocaine over the counter in France for a significant part of the 20th century until the USA got their way.

See History of the American Drug War []

And of course, from The History of Cannabis []
The USA unsuccessfully proposed that cannabis be discussed at the Hague Conference on opiates in 1912. Their enthusiasm for drug control was a mix of moralism and self-interest, both tending to boost America's developing international influence. Most medical drugs were imported, so controlling them made little difference to US domestic policy, but gave the US a moral and economic lever against their producers, mostly Britain and Germany.

Of course, there are harder drugs. But making them illegal doesn't make the problem go away, and it has been argued that it makes the problem worse. Methadone is often used to wean heroin addicts, a substance which is proven to be more addictive than heroin itself. Oh well.

Re:OT: Kids and drugs (1)

aborchers (471342) | about 12 years ago | (#4521004)

The statistics I've seen from year to year seem to show use of various drugs up and down with little correlation to the increasingly draconian drug policy that is the rule. This would suggest that drug laws seem to have little to do with the attractiveness of drugs to "kids" either way.

If anything, I would say that sound education (by which I don't mean D.A.R.E. propaganda but real, unbiased information) has been the most effective measure against drug abuse. Back in the 70s, there was a very effective campaign about the dangers of PCP - which unlike many drugs commonly demonized in the US - is quite demonstrably dangerous. When was the last time you heard about someone on a PCP rampage? Of course, this doesn't explain why crack took hold, but that is more of a social engineering issue IMO, and best left for another topic.

The bottom line is that (1) drugs satisfy primitive impulses by satisfying pleasure centers and (2) kids can smell disinformation. When they aren't communicated with honestly, they give little credence to the message. They then do their own risk-reward analysis and make up their own damn minds.

** Take your finger off that offtopic mod, the writer invited this discussion with his snide aside! **

Well the french are offensive... (4, Funny)

phunhippy (86447) | about 12 years ago | (#4520848)

Well since the french are offensive in general.. maybe we should simply ban all references to the french on :) except for the links to the "French WWII rifle, never fired, only dropped once"

Re:Well the french are offensive... (0, Flamebait)

curiuz (587795) | about 12 years ago | (#4520940)

Wow, this actually got a score. Then maybe this gets a score too... Are you serious? What's up with that WWII crap? How many times did YOU fire your rifle? And perhaps if the US fired their rifles a little less in general it might not be all bad.

Easy work-around (3, Informative)

paul.dunne (5922) | about 12 years ago | (#4520849)

Just use -- they've only removed the stuff from the French and German versions of the database, as I understand it.

Anti-Abortion?!?!? (2, Insightful)

joel_mac (575677) | about 12 years ago | (#4520851)

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?


Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520891)

Anti-choice activism is all about hate. Duh.

Re:Anti-Abortion?!?!? (1, Insightful)

danbeck (5706) | about 12 years ago | (#4521015)

It's not anti-choice. Pro-life people think that it's wrong to murder a human baby. Pro-choice people think that a womans choice overrides the human baby's right to life.

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:Anti-Abortion?!?!? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520937)

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:Anti-Abortion?!?!? (1)

6Yankee (597075) | about 12 years ago | (#4520957)

How the heck does the Pro-Life movement fit in with these groups?

A hard-core group within each makes somebody fear for his/her life? (and others) to be affect soon too (2)

Cyclops (1852) | about 12 years ago | (#4520854)

Legislation is being prepared in the background that will force them to comply, as well, in Portugal. Freedom of Speech _does_not_ exist in Portugal either (even though the constitutios says it does), which makes laws like this very dangerous.

protesting abortion banned? (2, Interesting)

Fuzion (261632) | about 12 years ago | (#4520857)

I can understand (even I don't agree with) their reasons for blocking anti-semitic, and white supremacist speech, because it's hate literature. I can find similarities between them and anti-slander laws. But why are anti-abortion sites banned? Isn't that going a little too far? There are enough people on both sides of the issue, and I can't see the justification for censoring people opposed to abortion.

Re:protesting abortion banned? (1)

Qender (318699) | about 12 years ago | (#4520902)

It might be because some anti-abortion sites feature photographs of aborted fetuses as well as encourage terrorist acts against some places that perform abortions. I don't like abortion, but I think that many people who would agree with me get a bit violent about that. I've heard about websites giving out home addresses of doctors who perform abortions, people have used information in that context to personally assault these doctors. This could be why the sites were banned.

I can't say for sure though.

1st Ammendment (-1, Flamebait)

Doom Ihl' Varia (315338) | about 12 years ago | (#4520861)

Freedom of speech is great isn't it? Don't you love being able to talk about the former German national socialist party in a positive light without fear of persecution or censorship? Oh what's that you say? I can't anymore? *packs his bags and moves to Sweden*

Re:1st Ammendment (1)

Doom Ihl' Varia (315338) | about 12 years ago | (#4520877)

Pardon not realizing it's to comply with French and German law. I haven't had my coffee this morning.

nice (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520863)

What a great way to silence critics of israel!

Just call em anti-semitic and get em banned from google!


Way to get your censor on you zionist bastards!

What you said bulldozing peoples houses and dropping 1-ton bombs on apartment buildings is cruel? You must be anti-semitic!

What you don't think every palestinian is a terrorist? You anti-semitic!

What you don't believe that god personally gave that land to the jews so they can kill whoever they want in order to steal it? You must be an anti-semite!

Woohoo go censor squad!

essay of the weak (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520864)

What about the French? It is claimed that Caesar had this to say about them.. "The infirmity of the Gauls is, that they are fickle in their resolves, fond of show, but extremely inconstant, the fruit of excessive vanity." Ol' Caesar might have had them pegged a couple of thousand years ago! by nightdriver

The Victimcrat Mentality
posted by Victoria Delsoul

I generally don't pay attention to the Aztlan/La Raza crowd. I haven't been to their website, but I'd wager it's the same old Marxist whine under a new Chicano flavor. I could be wrong, but my guess is the noise they make is more a function of the empty barrel phenomenon than a serious threat to our sovereignty. Like the black civil rights "leaders" and reparations crowd and the Puerto Rican separatists, they strike me a similar crowd of opportunistic race hustlers who represent a miniscule constituency of left-wing radical malcontents and provide crude entertainment for those with a victimcrat mentality.

However, the idea that if enough illegal warm bodies cross the border somehow they will take over California and/or Texas strikes me as far-fetched as the absurd notion of black reparations. Puerto Rico has a much higher percentage of Hispanic citizens than California, yet in every referendum, the Puerto Rican people overwhelmingly reject calls for separatism. Why would the average Mexican vote to make California part of Mexico, when he voted with his feet to leave Mexico in the first place? I don't understand it.

As I see it, the victimcrat mentality is fundamentally antagonistic to the ideals that inspire people to come here in the first place. Immigrants come to America from every race and every part of the globe. They are unified by a yearning for freedom and equal opportunity. Like Tocqueville, they see America as a land of equal opportunity where everyone has a chance to succeed. Like Reagan, they see America as a shining city on a hill and a beacon of hope to captive peoples everywhere. The immigrant ethos is fundamentally hostile to the victimcrat mentality.

The Democrats realize this, so what they have done most effectively under Clinton and Gore is to corrupt and polarize the immigration issue. The Democrats are openly hostile to political refugees from Communist countries who risk their lives to come to America and historically have been the most patriotic, hard-working and successful immigrants. They succeeded in triangulating conservatives in the Elian case, where we witnessed the remarkable phenomenon of self-described conservatives doing the exact opposite of what Ronald Reagan would have done and bashing the ones who stood for freedom.

The Democrat corruption of immigration involves bribing the lazy and shiftless to come here, not for the opportunity to work hard and succeed, but with promises of living on welfare at the expense of others. It's no coincidence that illegal immigration didn't become such a huge problem until the liberals made welfare an entitlement even for illegals. It's the same impetus behind schemes like motor voter registration. Confer the privileges of citizenship on those who are manifestly undeserving of them.

The unfortunate part is that many conservatives are duped into working with the Democrats on this issue. Their understandable rage over the consequences of uncontrolled illegal immigration often translates into a general anti-immigrant hostility. This plays right into the Democrat hands because making immigration illegal means only illegals will immigrate. Further, the ugly animus toward immigrants guarantees that the only place they are made to feel welcome is on the Democrat plantation.

Like I said, there's a lot of truth in the adage about them being the evil party and us being the stupid party.

posted by Victoria Delsoul

My First Training in Politics
posted by Common Tator

My first training in Politics came in 1948. I attended a training class for Democrat politicans conducted by the Veep. The man known as the Veep was Harry Truman's Vice President Alben Barkley of Kentucky. He certainly knew how to win elections.

Alben made the point over and over that elections are won on just two questions asked by the middle ground voters. And make no mistake middle ground voters decide all elections.

Those two questions that decide all elections are, "What will the candidate do to me if elected?" And "What will the candidate do for me if elected?" If the answer to the first question is nothing. And the answer to the second is a lot, then there will be a landslide win for that candidate. Tip O'Neil said the same thing in different words when he said all elections ar local.

Voters don't give a damn about high taxes or rights unless they are put in personal terms. Reagan was the master at it. His question of, "Why is it better for government to take YOUR money and spend it the way it wants than it is for you to keep YOUR money and spend it the way YOU want." Reagan made taxes about YOU. When the Democrats said they were only going to tax the rich," Reagan said, "The Democrats say they are only going to tax the rich. They define Rich as anyone who has a JOB." Again he put things on a personal basis. The Democrats were going to TAX YOU.

Over and over I have posted these simple truths. Yet people in both parties think scandals that do not directly effect voters will destory candidates or parties. Yet nothing in our history shows that to have ever happened. Clinton getting away with Monica is not the exception it is the rule. Jefferson, Cleveland, Harding and Clinton all faced sexual charges made against them. It hurt none of them at the polls. As far as money scandals there have been many of them in our history. They do not hurt a president or party. The Teapot Dome, the war profiteers in both the Civil and WWII, and the Vicuna coat scandal to name a couple caused no problems for the party or candidate.

Foreign policy problems even treason don't resonate. Alger Hiss and the other traiters caused Harry Truman no problems. Iran/Contra did not hurt Reagan.

It all comes back to the voter and what is in it for him. Democrats contantly focus on what is in it for the voter as an individual. Republicans focus on what is in it for the nation or society at large.

Republicans preach the benifits of individual freedom as if it were only a gain for the nation as a whole. Democrats push government control and regulation as if it were a benefit of individual freedom.

Until we learn to pitch our views in a way that the middle ground voters will buy, the Democrats will win. The first rule of sales is to always make your pitch in terms the buyer will accept. We tend to make our pitches in terms we accept.

The Right is never about winning, it is about being right. The Left is never about being right, it is always about winning. Can you wager a guess as to which side usually wins?

posted by Common Tator

Why NBC Must Ruin The Olympics
posted by innocentbystander

If you watched the Opening Ceremonies for the Olympics last night, and have a brain in your head, you must have come to the same conclusion that the only thing wrong with the program was the announcers, and their constant silly interruptions, bad timing, inane observations, along with a under-excited tone; especially when our President was before the cameras.

I'm going to explain why what we heard from the people presenting the Olympics to us over the airwaves was no accident, and why NBC, not will but, MUST ruin, these Olympic Games for America.

There are two issues that NBC will attempt to snuff out during their coverage; which will clearly reflect and display what America is up against from Liberals in this nation. Those issues are Love of Country, and Individual Achievement. As dutiful Liberals, the NBC script will seek to push these issues to the rear, while they attempt to push forward their socialistic, "Everyone is Equal" agenda, and don't forget that they will also try to keep patriotic fervor to a minimum. I believe that from what I heard last night, that there will be an attempt to play down patriotism at these games, and to promote a message of "teamwork" even in the individual sports victories. You will hear NBC stressing family, coaching, mentoring, etc, the whole "It takes a village message," in an attempt to drown out any notion that a person can succeed without help from "the COMMUNity."

Successful American athletes will be treated to "up close and personal" stories slanted to make them appear "just like us" instead of the highly trained, highly skilled, highly disciplined individuals that are becoming more and more rare in this nation of fat, dumb and happy worker-peasants living from paycheck to paycheck, hoping for a huge 3% wage increase and a vacation in Branson MO, or Disneyland. (how the liberals see you)

They don't want you to think that these athletes are any different from you and me, but that they were LUCKY to receive the help and goodwill of others that ALLOWED them to succeed. You, as you sit back with a Bud are NOT lazy, slow and uncoordinated; you just didn't get the proper assistance in your quest at the gold. Your self-esteem will not be damaged, so sit back, and pay particular attention to the commercials, safe in the knowledge that it coulda-woulda-shouda been you out there getting the gold, if only the Republicans hadn't cut Head-Start in your community when you had Olympic aspirations. Have another Bud and relax.

Watch for a plethora of stories about athletes who have no chance to win, but will be honored for their "participation, spirit, courage, and other nonsense. These will be the heroes, ladies and gentlemen; not the bigger, stronger, faster dude or dudette standing atop the podium with their nation's anthem blaring in the background.

There will be all kinds of praise for "the brave ice skater from Zimbabwe," who couldn't afford skates or an Ice Rink for that matter, because Conservatives didn't give enough of our GNP to poorer nations. She is a hero, for the attempt, you see, not the winner who's parents likely mortgaged their house to pay for lessons for their little darlin' for her short lifetime. Even more praise for the Tahitian Ski Jumper who doesn't get to practice at all, due of course to Global Warming preventing snow from falling in his country. Bad Conservative policies spoiled his dream, you see.

Don't expect to hear OUR anthem much during these Games. It will be PLAYED, but don't expect to hear it much across the satellites of NBC, my friends. As the host nation, it is our duty to keep our jingoism (their word), our pride in Red, White & Blue, from spoiling this monument to One World Government.

This is NOT the time to stick out our American chests, and strut around like we own the place (we do, but don't tell) less we hurt the feelings of some Bahaman bob-sledder who can't get Air Jordan's duty free. No we are supposed to sit down, shut up, and let these lesser nations athletes feel good, my friends. Let them be treated to a couple of weeks free of the restrictions on freedoms from the countries from which they came.

You won't be hearing much about all the athletes who will use this opportunity to attempt to defect from their own country in a quest for freedom, Better for NBC to focus on the wonderful athletic advances coming out of Greenland.

So, fellow Freeper, try to understand that NBC has a duty here. They can't make these games good for you and me; this is an opportunity for them to display all the goodness and caring that Liberals can provide in these Olympics. They are NOT for you, they are for everyone BUT you. This is their shot at showing the world, just what good little socialists we have become in this nation, and why we shouldn't be hated so, just because we happen to have all the damn food and money.

NBC must ruin the Olympics for us, so that the rest of the world will love us.

posted by innocentbystander

Why Dems are Dogs and Reps are Wolves
posted by WileyC

Some number of years ago, I was fuming at how unfair it was that the leftist media (as defined by nearly everyone except themselves) would hound a Republican to death over the slightest misdeed, imagined or real, but would almost always give a pass on a story about a Democrat. It seemed, to my eye, that on average not only was your typical conservative more right on more issues, but they tended to be better people in general.

Around this time, I was also reading a book about evolution (The Selfish Gene), so I was also thinking about evolutionary pressures. It occurred to me that the political 'environment' shared many characteristics with the one we, the Spotted Owl and Sucker Fish live in.

At first, I took the tack that media and public opinion defined the environment. Sleep with the wrong person and the resulting publicity would make (political) survival unlikely. Voters would turn away and a more fit candidate would come into office.

Of course, I immediately hit a snag with this theory due to the vast number of sleazy Democrats that continue to hold office. I'm sure everyone reading this knows the party affiliation of the only KKK member (oops, former KKK member!) in Congress. Hint: it begins with a 'D'. I must also note that it was a member of this same party that was yelling racial slurs about a black man and is still in office.

Then came a moment of realization: The press wasn't part of the environment (which is where they should reside), they were the owners of the Left, removing them from environmental pressures!

The more I thought, the more the pieces fell into place. Democrats and other leftists are cosseted like pampered pets. The pit-bulls are fiercely protected by their owners as much as the Chihuahuas and toy poodles. Sure, some are useful tools for advancing media goals (the Shepherds and hunting dogs), but some are kept around because they are pretty or know how to do tricks. Only in extreme cases does one have to be put down (Condit) when they are suspected of killing someone (though Kennedy managed to miss his turn at the animal shelter).

Under the loving eye of the media, and out of the weather, strange breeds began to spawn. Race-mongers and ultra-feminists. Big government Saint Bernards and war hawk killing bird dogs. The environment was carefully kept out and was, apparently, well.

In stark contrast, the wolves had to fight to get ahead. Even then, they were subjected to media-organized killing sprees to 'keep their numbers down'. The slightest flaw was exposed to the elements and conservatives fell in droves.

However, an interesting thing seems to have occurred. Just as with all environment pressures that don't simply kill a species, conservatives have gotten (on average) tougher, more clear-sighted and more ethical. The constant negative scrutiny has forced Reps to keep their noses clean and stick to core values while the bizarre new species being bred among the Dems has gotten, well, less so in nearly every regard. Sure, they've gotten very specialized to fill the niches laid out by their masters, and they do this quite well, but you can't keep out the world forever.

In recent memory, Republicans and Libertarians of all stripes seem to be gaining ground in the public consciousness as not just 'right wing' but truly mainstream. Years of competitive pressures have given those not on the Left a lot of survival skills and they are finding the scrutiny of the public (the environment) an easier place to live.

On the other hand, the comfortable niches the liberals were living in have gotten smaller and smaller. Just as a species can be bred until it cannot survive in any but a carefully controlled enclosure, they have been forced into smaller and more constrictive boxes. Watch a democratic presidential candidate squirm as they try to appease EVERY liberal special interest group while simultaneously trying not to annoy every centrist and conservative voter and you will understand what I mean.

Case in point: Al Gore, the man from Tennessee you might recall, was pro-life, pro-guns, pro-tobacco, and pro-defense... until he was forced to toe the line of the Liberal owners. He was a Husky, pretending to be a wolf, until his owners commanded that he sit up and beg. He did so and it got him a vice-presidency and almost a presidency. Yet he lost despite a fabulous economy, the haphazard support of a still-popular president and thousands of felons and illegally registered illegal immigrants. Why? I contend that the environment had changed so much, he couldn't survive.

Neutral media (Fox) and conservative talk shows gave the wolves a haven to dodge the guns of the dog owners. Sure, some poaching still goes on; and, yes, you can see a lapdog poke its head out of the purse of an ABC executive or sit by the fire of the New York Times president. But I think the day of keeping the environment completely out might be coming to an end. Perhaps the media can go back to being part of the environment and give up their ownership of the formerly 'wild' animals.

The Dogs have had their day... long live the Wolves!

posted by WileyC

Saving The National Pastime
Dispatches From The American Front
February 11, 2002 | James Benton
posted by Master Zinja

Dispatches From The American Front
Vol. 2 No. 6 February 11, 2002

Saving The National Pastime
By James Benton

While spring is still more than a month away in the rest of the country, it officially begins this week in Florida and Arizona as a seriously troubled Major League Baseball organization returns 30 teams to the field when they only expected 28 for spring training and their first war season since 1945.

The American people will be ready for the return of baseball, which harkens back to days gone by, when the game was truly our pastime and we loved our country as we do once again. No sport or event can quite evoke our sense of patriotism like baseball. It is a living touchstone to our history and heritage.

However, no one can quite ruin baseball like Baseball, and Bud Selig, resplendent with a new five-year term as Chief Destroyer, seems determined to continue his attitude of contempt for the game and its fans. Baseball continues despite Selig's best efforts to kill it, but it is a sick existence, barely moving into the 20th century as we soldier forward into the 21st.

Contraction is an ugly word in sports, occasionally inevitable and even healthy when done right, which seems to be mostly beyond Baseball's grasp. Contraction has been necessary for a while now in baseball, as 30 teams have spread the talent pool almost to the breaking point. The loss of the Expos will barely cause a ripple in the minds of most, even in Canada, but Selig and his cronies could've done much better than dropping Minnesota, a team with a rich recent history and two World Series titles. Surely another American League team (hint: Tampa Bay) would be better off dead than the Twins.

It is the arrogance of the owners, as constant as the rise in player's salaries, which is leading baseball down the path of destruction. It is time for something drastic to be done for the good of all.

Here's a novel concept: how about a REAL commissioner?

Remember Bart Giamatti? We fans still remember his love of baseball, his ability to be objective and not take bull from anyone, no matter how great or revered. We need someone like him again, not a former owner or player, but someone wanting the best for ALL of baseball.

It's been said before, but I'll say it again: the answer is Bob Costas.

Few have more love for the game these days; fewer still would also have a sense of fair play, of doing what's right for the players as well as the owners and, as a result, repairing baseball and bringing it up to the present. Costas would have the equal respect of all three parties concerned: players, owners and fans.

If you don't believe me, pick up his book, Fair Ball. Read his proposals for fixing baseball, then ask yourself if this doesn't seem like a ton of common sense to you.

Costas' proposals - a better revenue-sharing formula, a salary cap, eliminating two teams, moving the Houston Astros to the American League West and eliminating the wild card, among others - are at least a good start toward fixing the baseball problem. If Costas is not made commissioner, which would be a miracle, he should at least be hired as an advisor to the League Office and given the courtesy of being taken seriously by the owners.

In this new age of war, when another attack could be expected here or abroad any time, baseball seems such a minor thing to quibble about, but now more than ever, diversions are a necessity. Preserving the game is no trivial matter, and should never be taken lightly.

It is the job of the United States military to make sure we are protected. It is the job of Baseball, the commissioner, owners and players, to make sure we are allowed a familiar escape and to protect the game for future generations. It is a trust they took on voluntarily, one they are honor-bound to keep, even if it requires some, such as Bud Selig, to see the bigger picture, to admit to the hard truth of what must be done, and step aside.

God Bless America.

Opinions and comments always welcome

Master Zinja

posted by Master Zinja

Urban Legend
posted by LantzALot

Back when I was a Hoosier, and even had thoughts of attending what was then called "Ball State Teachers' College," we had a story of urban legend status (i.e., in Indiana, interpret the word "urban" freely) that the founding Ball family had put up a picture of our 16th President. The school newspaper's headline trumpeted:

"Lincoln Hung By Balls In Library."

Sounds like they still put as much thought into what they write.

posted by LantzALot

Hooters Calendar:
Outspokenly Conservative?!
posted by TheBigB

Okay, I meant to post about this a while back, but I never got around to it. I have the 2002 HOOTERS restaurant swimsuit calendar. And interspersed all throughout it are boxes titled "YOU MIGHT BE A LIBERAL IF..." And man, some of these are great!! There are no, repeat, NO digs at conservatives at all. Here's a sample:


You think taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

You think that we can have a strong military without spending any money on it.

You stay informed by watching MTV news.

You think businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

You think that the NRA's bad because it quotes the Constitution, and the ACLU is good because it quotes the Constitution.

You abhor censorship unless it's censoring religion or conservatism.

You think Dan Rather represents media impartiality.

You think that there was no art before federal funding.

In the overall scheme, I guess this isn't that important. But I was impressed. :) Three cheers for HOOTERS!

posted by TheBigB

Are We Doing Just What Bin Laden Wants?
| 02/15/02 | Me
posted by patriot31u

Now that the Taliban have been wiped out and it seems Bin Laden is on the run. I have to ask the question, Is this what he wanted? Now before we go here, I want everyone to know that I support the war 500% and couldn't be more content with the way Bush is handling it.

I post this simply to pose a question and get the old gears turning. Bin Laden is not a stupid person. However much I would love to believe the contrary this man is not. So I can't see why he would of done what he did without first knowing the consequences. Did he not realize that America would strike back with a terrible resolve. Maybe he thought Bush like Clinton would not do much except fire a couple of Cruise Missiles and call it a day.

He should of realized that the American public however would never stand for that weak of a response. So it makes me wonder if we are being baited into another attack that we somehow cannot see coming. I guess everyone's confidence is rattled since 9/11.

My take is that Bin Laden and the crazy Taliban were so warped into the idea that their God would bring them victory no matter the odds, that they fought this anyway. Maybe their religious beliefs blinded them to the reality that they could not beat such an overpowering opponent with spit wads.

Another theory is that they are still high on the fact they defeated the Soviets and they can do the same to the Americans. Could this have blinded them to the fact that, that war was over a decade ago and that without the United States help they would have been run over like a steamroller over grapes. Not to mention the fact that the technology advances since then have been remarkable.

This is my take on why Bin Laden would do what he did. But if there was one thing my military service taught me. Do not under any circumstances underestimate your opponent, and always be prepared for the worst. Certainly we were not prepared for the worst on 9/11 but on 9/12 I believe we were. I just wonder if there is another master plan brewing that maybe we haven't thought of yet?

OK Freepers get the gears turning and give me your takes.

posted by patriot31u

Already Yesterday's News
posted by goldstategop

Our freedom comes from God and inheres in each and every one of us. Its a birthright that can't be taken away permanently by even the most odious tyrant or by death. Its like a river you can temporarily dam up but sooner or later it breaks through and we're free again. It is a permanent part of man's condition and whether he realizes it or not, the desire to throw of the yoke of oppression will always brew within him. That's what escapes the notice of petty tyrants like Tommy Daschund and Comrades Shays and McLame. The popularity of their legislation be damned and nothing they can do can ever extinguish American freedom. They are already yesterday's news.

posted by goldstategop

Why Rush Limbaugh and the Conservatives
Are Wrong to Oppose Campaign Funding Reform
Grande _Jimbo
posted by _Jim

I see the following reasons as being sufficient to limit free speech and in the manner that congress has now chosen, that is, the opportunity to change The Constitution is ripe *without* the usual long and arduous process that is normally necessary for the purpose of ensuring that incumbents are re-elected from now on:

* This country needs an aristocracy, a royal ruling class. We are practically begging for one - McCain can finally be King - let's do it!
* Congressman (and all elected officials for that matter) DON'T really need accountability! They'll do much better on their own, without someone continually looking over their shoulders and threatening their grip on power each election cycle. We need to give them freedom to act and make decisions that entail no consequences - let's do it!
* A 'Free Press' and 'Freedom of Speech' are MUCH overrated. Inventing the printing press was a mistake and education should ONLY be meted out to the select few that are destined to be elected and their soon-to-be noble offspring. Let's set the clock bank now - and enact that CFR legislation!
* We don't really need ANY freedom at all. As the song says: "Freedom's just another word for nothing else to do!"

Let's do it!

Let's take that bold step back into the past - the sooner the better!

posted by _Jim

Our Lawsuit Happy Society
posted by cuz_it_aint_their_money

Here are but a few examples of our lawsuit happy society. (clipped from various internet news sources.)

In January, 2002, the brother of one of the seven people killed in October when a deranged man attacked the driver of a Greyhound bus in Tennessee filed a lawsuit against Greyhound and the driver.

Apparently, the brother believes that the company should have hired a driver who could safely drive 60 mph while fending off a knife-wielding psychopath (or else trained drivers better to do that).

In October, 2001, the family of Paul Waymant filed lawsuits for more than $1 million in Salt Lake City against the searchers who failed to find Waymant's 2-year-old son before he froze to death on a hunting trip in October 2000. Waymant had left the boy alone in his truck for a few minutes, which allowed the boy to get out and wander off, and he eventually froze to death. Waymant was convicted for leaving the boy unattended, but in July 2001, rather than serve his 30-day sentence, Waymant committed suicide. Now, Waymant's family believes this tragic chain of events was all the fault of inept county search-and-rescue teams and their dogs, who did not find the boy in time.

In November, 2001, Lynn Rubin sued the school district in Union City, Calif., for $1.5 million because his son Jawaan was improperly assigned to his high school's junior varsity basketball team after failing a tryout for the varsity. Rubin said the family had already made logistical plans to accommodate the varsity practice schedule and that he, as Jawaan's father, was not consulted by the coach before Jawaan was sent back to the JV.

According to witnesses, Kevin Rodriguez, 11, choked to death in January 2000 in his Broward County, Fla.,(Why am I not surprised by this?!?) school cafeteria after a hey-watch-this exhibition in which he shoved a large part of a hot dog into his mouth. In December 2001, Rodriguez's family filed a lawsuit against the school board because cafeteria and other personnel were not able to save Kevin's life and because hot dogs are too dangerous to serve 11-year-old kids.

Howard Strumph filed a lawsuit in September against the Voorhes, Pa., Police Department, claiming that they were responsible for his wife's death in 1999 because they failed to enter the family home quickly enough to save her. The reason the police were reluctant to enter was because Strumph had just shot Mrs. Strumph, along with a handyman the couple employed, and police thought they might be in a standoff with a homicidal man. (Strumph later showed he intended only to shoot the handyman, whom he saw attacking his wife, but he was unsteady when he fired from his wheelchair and accidentally hit his wife.)

Dionne French filed a lawsuit in federal court in New Mexico in October, 2001, over a 1998 incident, charging the Santa Fe Southern Railway and a conductor and brakeman with negligence in not stopping a train in time to avoid hitting her. French, who was homeless at the time and living near Santa Fe, admitted that she was lying on the tracks asleep, and with a brown blanket over her, but said the railroad still had the obligation to detect her presence and stop.

Scott Bender filed a lawsuit against U.S. Airways in October, 2001, charging that a crew on a February flight from North Carolina had closed up the plane that was parked at a gate in Birmingham, Ala., and left him sleeping in his seat. Bender said he deserves some money from the airline because when he woke up, it was pitch black, and he thought for a few seconds that he was dead.

And just in case anyone thinks that frivolous lawsuits are limited to the United States:

Kane Rundle, 22, filed a lawsuit for $1 million (Aus.) against the New South Wales State Rail company in Australia, based on his severe injuries from a 1994 incident. Rundle is brain-damaged because he hit his head while leaning out of a moving train, spraying graffiti. Rundle's lawyers believe the company knew that some passengers were spraying graffiti out of train windows and thus should have done more to prevent them from doing so.

Katherine Norfolk, 19, and her parents filed a lawsuit in September, 2001, for about $250,000 against Hurstpierpoint College (West Sussex, England), claiming it did not instruct her well enough in Latin, causing her to score too low on exams to get accepted at Oxford, thus ruining her career and diluting the "earning power" that comes with a degree in Latin.

posted by cuz_it_aint_their_money

French Judge Thoughts
(The French Ice Skating Judge Speaks Out)
Laissez Faire Electronic Times
| February 25, 2002 | The French Ice Skating Judge
(Channeled By P.J. Gladnick)
posted by PJ-Comix


I spit on the grave of your simplistic bourgeois notions of fairness! You North Americans are so primitive in your philosophical outlook. Do you not have the sophistication to understand that there are no absolutes in ethics? Ethics are strictly a matter of the specific situation at hand . . . situational ethics. It takes the sophisticated Gallic mind to truly appreciate this state of moral fluctuation.

Yes! I admit that the Canadian figure skating team were deserving of a gold medal. Jamie Sale and David Pelletier were absolutely perfect. I have never before seen such a superb performance on the ice. Their skating was awe inspiring and flawless.

The Russian figure skating team, by contrast, while delivering a technically proficient presentation, had little emotion and was marked by several errors.

This is why my vote for the Russian team was such a wonderful example of performance art. Did you not appreciate the exquisite pain on the faces of the Canadian skaters when, despite their initial certainty, they saw the gold medal denied them by my vote? The performance on the ice was but one small part of the competition. With my vote it is I who have created a much greater performance . . . . A Grand Tragedy.

Those who believe I engaged in a craven act of cowardice fail to understand the true nature of the situation. Contrary to what you believe, what I did took great courage. Yes! It would have been all too easy to have voted for the obvious winners from Canada. Instead I too the unpopular route by voting for the less qualified pair to win the gold.

True, I was pressured to vote for the Russians but I was also following the law of inevitability, a concept of which you North Americans are completely ignorant. Did you not realize that the outcome was pre-ordained? The Russian teams have won the gold for the past four decades and so it was decided to bow before the fact of this status quo despite what was actually performed on the ice. Yes, yes! I can understand your outrage at this concept but at the same time I disdain it. You merely have to look at French history to fully appreciate how we have incorporated this law of inevitability into our culture in a most harmonious way.

The premier example of this was what you call our surrender to the Germans in June, 1940. You may have called it a surrender but to us it was merely bowing to the law of inevitability. To continue resisting the Germans would have been futile so in our genius we converted this event into a VICTORY for peace. A conqueror was converted into our partner in the development of a New Order in Europe merely by accepting the inevitability of the situation. A few years later, when the Allied victory over the Germans became inevitable we developed a new reality---the myth of the Resistance. I say myth because there was no real Resistance movement in France until almost 1944.

Remember the disastrous landing at Dieppe by the Canadians in 1942? Where was the French Resistance then? It almost didn't exist. Why? Because it was too early. But by the time of the Normandy invasion in 1944 the Resistance was in full force because we had realized the inevitability of Germany's defeat. Forty million French judges have awarded the Resistance first place as the reason for Germany's defeat. As to the aid given to the Resistance by the North Americans and the British . . . PFFFFFFFT! I spit on your feeble efforts in comparison to our mythological Resistance.

And now the International Olympic Committee dares to countermand my decision by awarding gold medals to the Canadian figure skating team. Not only have they impugned my integrity but they have insulted the honor of France. Whether or not I traded votes with the Russian judge is of little consequence. The important issue here is the slap in the face of the French nation.

Think back to the Dreyfus Affair. Captain Alfred Dreyfus was judged guilty of treason by a military court-martial and sent to Devil's Island. Later, facts were discovered that showed that a great error had occurred and that Captain Dreyfus was innocent. However, the guilty judgment could not be overturned because the honor of the French army had to be preserved at all costs.

Shame on Captain Dreyfus for questioning the verdict of the court despite his innocence! Shame on the Canadians for seeking to question my judgment despite their clearly superior performance on the ice!

So enjoy your gold medals, Canada, which you have won at the expense of the honor of France. I spit on your gold!


The French Ice Skating Judge explains her motivations.

The French Ice Skating Judge explains her motivations.

posted by PJ-Comix

posted by First_Salute


The ususal from the mindset of some of the U.C.L.A. Bruin student newspaper community. In public, they fall over each other in a pissing contest, using (/exploiting) expressions of political correctness, but out of the public eye, they denigrate "whatever" for the most part, because they do not know what they are saying.

"Retard" comes from the same linguistic calumny, there, which also recently produced: "African American South Africans." Malice toward the language, in these instances, not people ... but then again, from their mutilation of the language, how can we be sure of these fruits of socialism?

posted by First_Salute

This Level of Foolishness is Why
We Can't Lay Off Clinton
the web | 2-9-02 | dfu
posted by doug from upland

I enjoy reading the words of the opposition, whether it is a world class Kneepad Knight such as Joe Conason or just a regular RAT voter. If we are to defeat the opposition, we have to understand them.

In addition, I have to collect material to name the next MORON OF THE MONTH on my FReeper radio show. Fortunately, gathering info for MORON consideration is very, very easy to do.

While perusing one of the many areas on the web in which the RATS hide, I came across something so foolish that I had to share it with you. This statement is the epitome of the uninformed fool who believes in style over substance and who had apparently been in a coma for eight years. I think you will enjoy this.

"The Legend of Bill Clinton"
Once upon a time, a Savior of America was born. His name was Bill Clinton. The Evil Ones, the GOP, saw the birth of this remarkable person, and sent their minions scouring the earth to kill him. They knew that if they did not destroy Clinton, then Clinton would one day unite the fractured people of the Democratic party, and rid the world of the evil that is the GOP. Thru 8 years of criminial conduct, the GOP inflicted deep wounds in Clinton. But Clinton is the Savior, and thus destined not to die so easily. We, and all freedom loving peoples, must rally around Bill Clinton, who is a once in a generation man gifted with both the skill and desire to make America a better country. We must not only defend Clinton, but protect him. This means destroying all those who would destroy Clinton. Never forget that the last Savior, JFK, was cut down by forces rooted in the GOP. We're with you, Bill.

How good was that? We may mock the person, and certainly it is justifiable, but we have a greater problem. When you study the issues, when you try to be a good citizen, when you read your voter pamphlet, when you pay attention and listen to the candidates words and what the candidate have written, your diligent efforts are diluted. They are diluted because someone as foolish as the person who wrote the words above will cancel out your vote.

The author of the tripe even begins the word "Savior" with a capital letter. The Biblical reference, whether intended, is obvious. There is a reference that the GOP knew of Sinkmaster's birth and went to the ends of the earth to find him. Huh? All they had to do was go to Hot Springs where he was learning his criminal activity from his uncle. The misguided author also refer to JFK as a "Savior" and implies that the GOP is someone responsible for his death.

This is the continuing problem we face. The author's "Savior" is actually a biting rapist, a perjurer, an obstructor of justice, a witness intimidator, a serial sexual predator, a pervert, a man who for money from Bernie Schwartz allowed the Chinese to leap ahead a generation in missile technology, and a self-centered sociopath. Unfortunately, none of those qualities is seen by the airhead.

Until everyone knows the truth about Bill Clinton, AKA Sinkmaster, we will see more foolish people like this writer look at the scum with admiration. Our work is far from finished.

posted by doug from upland

Saddam's Participation
posted by solzhenitsyn

I don't know that overthrowing Saddam will be a cakewalk, but we'd better just go ahead and do it, as soon as it is militarily feasible. There will never be a better time in the future. The time to strike Iraq is while America is still angry enough over the Sep. 11 attacks to back such a war and there is the possibility of some sympathy among our "allies". The longer we delay, the more the political support for it will dissipate, especially if there's no clear proof of Saddam's participation in the Sept. 11 attacks.

The reason we need to liberate Iraq promptly is to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing and using weapons of mass destruction. That should be sufficient reason for sane people, and it's not dependent on his culpability in the 9/11 attacks.

I hope that Pres. Bush will not first give Saddam an ultimatum demanding that they admit UN nuclear weapons inspectors, in the hope that Saddam will refuse, giving us a plausible casus belli. My expectation is that Saddam would just let the inspectors back in (at least temporarily), and our case for going to war would be much weakened. Saddam has had ample past opportunity to comply with the UN inspection regime. We need to just take him out, and if we don't, we will surely regret it.

What if Mohammed Atta had had one or more "suitcase nukes" instead of just a few high-jacked airliners?

posted by solzhenitsyn

Raising Money and Lobbying
posted by justanotherfreeper

Right now the congress people have to spend an inordinate amount of time raising money and selling their souls in order to be elected to office. The little guy, you and I, are sacrificed to these special interests. Am I wrong?

Yes. The reason they have to spend inordinate time raising money is because they have to raise it in such small chunks. If you raise $300,000 (not a lot of money to communicate with an average of 150,000 voters) you have to get 300 people to give you $1,000. (If you think it's easy, try it, especially in a middle class area, and remember those contributions aren't tax deductible and are public information to boot.) PACs can give 5,000, but again you'd have to get 60 PACs to give you the maximum and that doesn't happen.

You also are making an erroneous assumption that politicians change their votes for money. It's the other way around, several studies have shown money follows the votes: i.e., groups support politicians who have supported them, which makes sense. A politician really does care what his constituents think because they vote for him, and he isn't going to cast any vote that gets him unelected. However, too many "astroturf" organizations call congressional offices every day for them to pay much attention to how those calls go. That's why they poll: they don't care about what some paid phone bank calls them about unless polling shows it represents a chunk of the voters. (Caveat: they do care about what unions, prolife, gunners think because they supply volunteers and vote disproportionately to the general population.)

Companies spend three times as much money on lobbying as they do on campaigns. (And you'll note the bill didn't touch lobbying.) Why? Lobbyists are former staffers or members with personal contacts. They get their calls answered because they have a personal relationship with the congressman. So the congressman sits down with Fred who used to be on the committee with him and Fred tells him the Huge Meat Association bill really is a good thing no matter what those lying cows say. So who is the Congressman going to believe: 20 calls from the cows or his good buddy Fred?

Now, if 50% of the district are cows, he just tells Fred I can't do this, the cows won't stand for it. But if cows are only 5% of his district, he figures "Gosh, I know Fred, he's a good guy, I can trust his information" So anybody with the money to hire a lobbyist is going to have a better shot at getting heard, and this bill doesn't change that. Congressman get paid big bucks to lobby, it is a great career for a lot of them after the voters get sick of them, and you won't EVER see a bill to limit lobbying spending. Even McInsane knows the jellyfish he serves with would revolt at anything that really hurt them.

The last thing before I get off my soapbox is that both lobbying and campaign spending track with how big the budget is. The bigger the budget, the more pork, the more folks who want a bit of government largesse and/or don't want the government to regulate their business out of existence, THE MORE THEY SPEND ON CAMPAIGNS AND LOBBYING. If you really want to cut the money in politics, cut the budget and reign in government power.

posted by justanotherfreeper

John Lindh, and My Confusion
Personal Question
posted by AlKipple

Maybe some of my fellow readers can help me through my confusion.

I read in the Washington Post:

ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- John Walker Lindh will likely go on trial in late August on charges that he conspired to kill Americans and aided terrorists while a foot soldier for the Taliban in Afghanistan.

My confusion comes from a number of things.

1. There is no crime defined for serving any foreign power, in civil service or the military. It is not abnormal for Americans to serve in the military of a foreign power, and in fact many are required to do so by the dual nationality and draft laws of many nations. There is a long history of Americans serving foreign powers running from the flying tigers, the Philippines Tigers, the Americans that joined the Canadian military before the US entered WWII to those serving in the service of other nations now.

2. There is a huge difference between the Taliban and al-Qaida,. The Taliban was the legal government of a foreign nation, with normal diplomatic relations with the US. That situation was in place at the time that Lindh joined the Taliban, and remained in place until only a few days before his arrest. Any concept that he had a responsibility to leave on the involvement of the Americans is tempered by the fact that on the first day of their involvement all methods of exit were cut off.

3. Although the charge says that he conspired to kill Americans, there is no claim that he did in fact make any attack or have any authority to make any decisions. In fact the US government has been very outspoken that he was a bottom of the rung soldier, having no rank or authority.

4. He is also charged with aid to a terrorist, under a law that was passed after his arrest. It is also a stretch to apply that law since our government has made it clear that he was not part of al-Qaida, but part of the Taliban, the officially recognized government. The Taliban, as a government was charged was harboring a terrorist, but it would be quite a stretch to apply that to one employee following orders.

5. He is also charged with using a firearm to commit a felony, which is a joke. How do you serve as a part of any military, without a fire arm.

6. The US State Department makes it ever so clear, on their web site, and on material distributed to US citizens, that when in any foreign nation, you are subject to the laws of that nation, not to US law. Exactly what crime was committed in the US. I can not even find a crime committed against the US.

7. The funny part is that under US law, the failure of a member of the Military to follow a legal order is defined as a crime. Please note that citizens of other nations serve in our military, and we place our military under the command of foriegn officers, but the rules still apply.

This is a serious request for comments???

posted by AlKipple

Smart Advice
posted by AAABEST

This article is smart advice. The left learned how to combine resources a long time ago. At their demonstrations you see people from NOW, the unions, the en-virals, gays whatever. Remember that anti-Ashcroft lobby when he was being vetted by the senate? Every left wing goof-org was part of that.

The one thing I would add to this piece is that conservatives/libertarians/constitutionalists need to learn how to PUSH. We've been sitting back in disbelief watching statist and leftist agendas slowly water torture their way into our lives and country.

Our righteous indignation needs to be kicked up a notch. Walking around with a sign or writing letters is OK I suppose, but we're winning a few battles and slowly losing the war.

I used to cringe at the TRTs tactics, but now I'm starting to wonder if those guys aren't on to something. They take the issue directly to the individuals involved. The other night they were in front of some anti-2A dudes house. One could argue that it isn't pretty, or bad PR but one thing is for sure, that a-hole will be deservedly losing some sleep.

Just pulling the lever isn't working. The left and the statists are not going to stop unless they are stopped. I and some of the people I've pinged to this post saw first hand in 2000 what it takes to give them pause at a Jesse Jack-off rally in West Palm.

We literally ran him out of town. Humiliated his thugs with megaphones, shoved his koolaid boys out of the way and took over the street. He never made it to the stage. He had to take his sorry and pathetic ass to some auditorium across town while we had beers and laughed it up.

Nobody should shut us up anymore. Humiliate them, sue them, make fun of them, unelect them, tar and feather them, whatever it takes. Just don't let them win anymore, let them know that we're willing to take it one step higher than they are.


posted by AAABEST

what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4521013)

how in the fuck did you come up with this book of stuff in the *12 minutes* since the first post? /me smells insider trading

Can't quite put my finger on it... (2, Flamebait)

banzai51 (140396) | about 12 years ago | (#4520869)

I remember some Slashdot story. Something about the US being, oh what 17th in the world for free press? France and Germany ranked in the top 10 if memory serves (and I am only going by memory here). Guess I have a different opinion of what free press is than the enlightened lawmakers of France and Germany.

The Clash song Know Your Rights has never been more appropriate.

It's not about 'attractive' (1)

droid_rage (535157) | about 12 years ago | (#4520870)

The concept of more or less attractive ideas doesn't usually have anything to do with the access of the ideas. I believe this is done in an attempt to slow dissemination of ideas to the "impressionable youth", and to keep groups like these from organizing.
Will it work? Not really. There are still plenty of books (remember them?) available on the aformentioned subjects, and hate groups have been forming with large numbers of poorly educated members for years without the aid of the popular media or the internet.

Nice gesture (1, Insightful)

jocks (56885) | about 12 years ago | (#4520873)

We all know that if you want to find something you can. For example the Homosexual poem "The love that dares speak it's name" is not available in print, however 5 minutes on the web and I am sure you will find it (not my choice of reading matter BTW, just to set an example).

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 rather than, 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.

I'd like them to be as upfront about it is possibl (1)

mjj12 (10449) | about 12 years ago | (#4520880)

I'd like them to say on their front page what they have done, and mention there that it is only and

That is, I think that it should (to the extent that the law will allow) make it as clear as possible that people should go to and check there.

This just doesn't work! (5, Funny)

Dr. Spork (142693) | about 12 years ago | (#4520885)

I bet you the pages of these idiots got more visits from all the people whose curiosity was piqued by the bad. They must be thrilled to be banned! I bet you there are some Nazi sites and "Holocaust Never Happened" sites and "Bush is Smart" sites that are like "hey, what a rip! How come we didn't get banned! That's bloody favoritism!"

Censorship... (4, Insightful)

pdboddy (620164) | about 12 years ago | (#4520887)

Google's a target, that's for sure, it's a drawback to being highly successful. But Google has to follow the laws of each nation it is based in. So of course and had to remove the links. It *could* make a stand, and challenge the laws, but does it really want to put the time and effort and money into such a legal challenge? These laws have stood, what, almost 60 years? Take a look at and see how many cease and desists Google has to wade through... for simply having a link to a controversial site.

In response to the submission (2)

photon317 (208409) | about 12 years ago | (#4520892)

There's a difference between supressing *all* speech about a bad topic like those listed, versus just supressing the speech of the active supporting groups. In at least some of these cases I'd be willing to bet they banned (for instance) an anti-semetic hate-group's website, but not another that merely discusses anti-semitism in a rational and moral light.

so they load a different google (1)

tekunokurato (531385) | about 12 years ago | (#4520893)

and get to see whatever they want regardless.

By the way, thanks for the impartial commentary, Hemos ;)

Anti-Abortion sites? (2, Insightful)

goodEvans (112958) | about 12 years ago | (#4520896)

such as this one [] ? Or this [] ?

Need global playing rules (3, Insightful)

jukal (523582) | about 12 years ago | (#4520900)

Otherwise, the final result will be that each country will have it's specifically censored index which will ultimately result into a mess which does not change anything but only makes hypocrites feel good. There is not much you can do by applying local rules, and in the context of internet every corner of the globe is local. Ohh, and this is not a free speech campaign - IMHO, it is just stupid that even at this very exact moment tens or hundreds of people are wasting time & money trying fix the problem with the wrong approach. As the publisher of the site with racist content said:

It's really a French and German issue rather than a Google issue."

Looks like ww2 was all for nothing.... (0, Offtopic)

ChuckMaster (595275) | about 12 years ago | (#4520903)

if europe just falls to oppression again. I want my grandfather back now, thank you!

Wait a second... (1, Redundant)

SamMichaels (213605) | about 12 years ago | (#4520910)

So they removed the sites from DE and FR.......

What's to stop them from loading dot com? Does their country block access to the "American" version of Google?

I think I missed something here..

Re:Wait a second... (1)

deop (611703) | about 12 years ago | (#4521003)

It does appear as if anyone with half a brain (left-half, of course) will not be foiled by these measures. This measure sounds like censor "appeasement". Now where have I heard that before...

Censorship Vs Information (4, Interesting)

Ravenn (580407) | about 12 years ago | (#4520925)

Hypothetical Question:

A [German|French] student needs information on WWII, and the political aftermath. Where can they find information on anti-semitism and white supremacy groups to add to the project?

Same student needs to study the socio-politcal problems facing modern medicine. They know that others are choosing stem cell research or cloning, and want to do something with more information. They choose abortion. Where did all the statistics and one side's propaganda go? They need to offset one point of view with the other side, and can no longer access pro-life sites.

Propaganda is still propaganda, regardless of truth. But politically, propaganda is what the opposition puts out, and must be eradicated.

Not good. Not good at all...


This is a good thing (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520933)

Welcome to democracy, people. France and Germany are both democratic countries that have decided (along with most of Europe) that racist speech is not acceptable in society. The government isn't trying to dictate what people think, or say privately, but in public we expect people to behave in a certain way (eg. masturbation in public is not okay).

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:This is a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520981)

I agree with this. Most important to notice: these governments _were_elected_. Their decision to censor some kind of speech is legitimed by the people who elected them. is one of the sites gone (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520935)

not only France and Germany (5, Interesting)

lovebyte (81275) | about 12 years ago | (#4520936)

According to the Harvard report, some sites that Google does not list include, a "Chinese legal consultation network", and, a discount Web-hosting service and some conservative, anti-abortion religious sites. Those sites do not appear to violate either German or French laws.
This is a particularly surprising move though. The German and French laws against racist speech are well known, but why would google remove sites like the ones mentioned in the article and that I have reproduced above? Certainly not because of pressure of the French or German governements.

Interestingly,, which seems to be just a web-hosting company, is in the following category in google directory:
Society > Issues > Race-Ethnic-Religious Relations > Hate > Hate Groups

Re:not only France and Germany (3, Interesting)

FeloniousPunk (591389) | about 12 years ago | (#4521007)

"14words" is a white supremacist rallying cry. It refers to the number of words in some mission statement that some neo-Nazi came up with. I vaguely remember adding 88 to it had some other significance, but have since forgotten. There was an article in a Der Spiegel issue sometime back about the women in the neo-Nazi movement and how they utilize the internet for their political ends.

What Google ought to do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520978)

is just drop those other domains and put a disclaimer at the bottom of .com saying in effect "citizens of the following countries may not use Google: France, Germany, etc."

Fuck those censorhappy idiots. Wait - is it too late to use Europe as a nuclear testing site?

Actually... (2)

Atzanteol (99067) | about 12 years ago | (#4520982)

"And drugs being illegal makes it less attractive for kids too, right?"

Yes. Not nearly as many kids do drugs now as there would be if they were legal. How many more kids smoke cigarettes? Even that is in decline...

Freedom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4520989)

I thought the internet was all about the freedom of information to flow across all borders, unchecked....

Clarification on the Anti-Abortion stuff. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4521009)

Just so you know. The only "Anti-abortion" site banned is It's a very hate filled site that's extremely biased against catholics, jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus.... basically everyone who is not a born again christian is going to hell according to the site.

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.

anti-abortion? wtf? (4, Interesting)

Ender Ryan (79406) | about 12 years ago | (#4521018)

Is it against the law in fr/de to be against abortion, and speak about it?

is it possible ... (3, Interesting)

beta-tim (555339) | about 12 years ago | (#4521028)

... as i live in germany and use an german ISP i always get redirected to even if i visited language changes to english and it looks like but sitll the name i read is my question now is is it possible for me to go to the .com page and STAY there and search the .com index or will google always redirect me?and if the index has to be censored in germany because doesn't want to be sued in germany, is it then legal for me to search the .com index(that is hopefully not censored) or do i become a criminal then? hopefully someone with some knowledge about laws can help me

'Net law. (4, Interesting)

RPoet (20693) | about 12 years ago | (#4521034)

This is what may result from the internet being evenly accessible from all over the world. You need to comply with a set of laws forming the "lowest common denominator" of all laws in the world, eventually - meaning that the strictest laws is what you comly with. Sad, and dangerous.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?