5 ms·
Google Agrees to Censor Encyclopedia Dramatica Entry in Australia
- beamso 17y agoI couldn't find the chillingeffects mention through google.com.au, nor the article through google.com. Looks like it was buried by the news stories.
- vinutheraj 17y agoYea now you have to try Aboriginal and Encyclopedia Dramatica to get the chillingeffects mention !
- whatusername 17y agohttp://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=17460 http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=17460 If you search for Aboriginal Encyclopedia on google.com.au it shows up down the bottom.
- barredo 17y agoI wonder when will Australian Gov Hackers try to hack some australians gmail account and Google threatens to leave Australia.
- nzmsv 17y agoOr someone pretending to be a government hacker. That would restore the lulz balance :)
- pmorici 17y agoSince the censoring in question is the result of legal action by an individual and not a government the appropriate thing to do would be to just block all Google access from the complainer.
- stakent 17y agoHmm, maybe court sholud not wait for his third action and block his (and his family) access to the internet?
- apower 17y agoAnd where do you think the LEGAL basis coming from? Thin air? It's backed by and enforced by the Aus government.
- artichokeheart 17y agoThe legal basis, though, are racial vilification laws. Welcome to the censorship/freedom of speech grey area.
- pwmanagerdied 17y agoThere is no gray area. If you support laws against hate crime or hate speech, you're against freedom of speech.
- EricBurnett 17y agoI'm sorry, but no issue is black and white like that. There is a gray area because two human rights are in conflict on issues such as these: freedom of speech and freedom from discrimination. In most countries, including Australia, limitations are put on freedom of speech specifically to address this issue. You can support laws such as these without being 'against freedom of speech'. After all, the very first article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Both this and article 19 (freedom of opinion and expression) must be supported, and when they are in conflict, a balance must be found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_...
- 17y ago
- camccann 17y agoI find it deeply worrying that something can be censored based on the complaints of someone who would take Encyclopaedia Dramatica seriously.
- tomjen2 17y agoThe only way this is going to end is if some Australian sue Google for harming his religion by censorship.
- BrentRitterbeck 17y agoHmmm... Google must be the market leader and making a profit in Australia.
- ubernostrum 17y agoOr they're just doing the same thing they've always done in all non-China countries: removing search results when the country's legal process tells them to (they remove results in the US over DMCA requests, for example) and linking to Chilling Effects to show a copy of the complaint.
- BrentRitterbeck 17y agoSo please explain how China's censorship is fundamentally different. Does not a sovereign nation have the right to control things that may be fundamentally destabilizing to the country as a whole? I know I'm playing devil's advocate here, but it is an interesting question. EDIT: Note, I am 100% against censorship.
- ubernostrum 17y agoWell, take the case of the DMCA. Yes, it's a terrible law and should be repealed, but the approach to handling it is fundamentally different from China's censorship. If this were Chinese style, any site which argued that the DMCA is flawed or should be repealed/reformed would get a blanket disappearing imposed by the government. But since it's not Chinese-style you can talk about the DMCA all you want -- the only things that disappear from search results are specific URLs which are claimed to violate the law itself, removed not after a wide-ranging government demand but after a narrowly-targeted civil-law complaint (and there's a counter-filing system which allows maintainers of those URLs to respond and have due process -- I doubt very much that China allows such challenges to its censorship).
- blhack 17y agoWhen searching Google Australia for [Aboriginal and Encyclopedia], there will be a disclaimer at the bottom reading “In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s)... If you go here: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=aboriginal+encyclopedia&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=aboriginal+encyc... You will see no such warning. (At least I didn't)
- EricBurnett 17y agoTry http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=aboriginal+encyclopedia+dramatica http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=aboriginal+encyc... , which will be more likely to get the link(s) in question. At the bottom I see that 4 links were removed. Predicting what links will show up for who is hard, especially now that personalized results are used.
- knorby 17y agoI suppose this is a question for an Australian, but what stops someone from just using google.com instead of the .com.au address? Seems like if I see that warning in the US, the filtering isn't done by origin of the request, at least on this level.
- TeHCrAzY 17y agoNothing at all. Attempting to understand what our politicians and courts are doing at the moment is difficult indeed. I expect people like that to be intelligent and informed. They seem to be lacking in both with re. to the internet.
- tokenadult 17y agoThanks for giving the specific link to the Australian site for Google, which now shows the search you linked to turning up lots of coverage of the controversy mentioned in the submitted article. That too is a better outcome than having someone blunder on a site not meant to have serious information when performing a search that might be expected to turn up reliable information.
- tokenadult 17y agoSo a source with no reference value whatsoever no longer appears DIRECTLY as a Google result for certain kinds of searches that might be expected to turn up reliable information. I thought that was a big part of what Page Rank was all about in the first place. Would that the same thing would happen to the many crank pages that turn up in searches on medical topics.
- karzeem 17y agoIt's not really a question of how relevant ED is. The issue is that a government had Google censor something which is well within the bounds of free (albeit offensive) speech.
- tokenadult 17y agoGovernments (courts) also enforce judgments for defamation, but we don't call that censorship either. One way I like to exercise my free speech is to be careful in my use of legal language, and to remind readers here that not every action that keeps something from being Web-indexed or posted, even if it is an action taken by a government, is properly called "censorship." What happened here appears to be Google responding to a citizen complaint under an Australian law that I might indeed disagree with, but which does not constitute a prior restrain on what is published on the Web, and indeed has not stopped the website in question from continuing to be posted. After edit: Google also removes on its own initiative spam links from its search results. No one seems to complain about this except the spammers. I think that is great customer service, except that Google recently needs to do more of that. That too is not censorship. It is simply Google deciding what its business model is for delivering search results. You have the right to operate a website. Google also has the right to operate a website. Google decides whether or not to comply with applicable local law if there is some legal issue raised by its serving up search results in a particular place. If Google really doesn't like local law, it can use its bully pulpit to advocate a different law, or hire lawyers or lobbyists to change the law.
- zck 17y agoGoogle isn't a pure reference site. It exists to show users things they're searching for. If people want to find the Encyclopedia Dramatica article for Aborigines when searching for "Aborigines and encyclopedia", Google should show it.
- Evgeny 17y agoGreat. I have never heard about this Encyclopedia Dramatica before but now I'll definitely have a read.
- potatolicious 17y agoIt's basically a chronicle of everything that has ever happened on 4chan. I too disagree with this censorship, but man, subjecting yourself to torture is not the answer!
- chancho 17y agoDon't miss the article on shitting dick nipples.
- s3graham 17y agoMe either! Parts of it seemed quite funny, but inconsistently so.
- EricBurnett 17y agoI'm not sure I even want to mention it, but I highly recommend you stay away from the article called 'offended' if you find it linked anywhere, unless you are the kind of person who likes visiting shock sites. Consider yourself warned.
- RevRal 17y agoPlease heed this advice. And don't allow yourself to get tricked into clicking an innocent link that leads to the ED offended page. For every link on ED, roll over it and take a look at its URL at the bottom of your browser. This'll keep you from being trolled into the offended page. Also, the contrast between URL and hyperlink text is one of ED's sources of irony. For example, hyperlink text that says "actual news" might lead to ED's "serious business" page.
- jonny_noog 17y agoI just don't know what to say anymore. As an Australian, I am ashamed and baffled at the way my government has been handling Internet policy lately. Their treatment of the issues betrays a astounding naivety that I find of increasing concern. On the face of it, it's always for a good cause... won't somebody think of the children! We need to censor all the bad sites on the Internet! Some guy feels slighted by a racial slur on some website that no one takes seriously! We must ban it from Google! We can't be seen to be endorsing racism! The sentiment is always admirable but the reaction betrays an complete misunderstanding of both the online culture and the technological infrastructure that supports it. The sad thing is I know first hand that there are people in the Australian Government who can and do give better advice that should ostensibly lead to better government decisions in the online space. It just seems like their voices are being disregarded. I suspect the main reasons for this are: a) Certain politicians refusal to accept that the reality of the Internet does not fit their limited understanding of it. b) Politician's desire to use the Internet as a political football. Perhaps it really is time to move to Estonia.
- daniel-cussen 17y agoConsider Chile.
- etherael 17y agoYour last line had me blinking. Is there a mass exodus of Australians to Estonia planned or did you just happen to stumble across my earlier post my plan to do exactly that?
- jonny_noog 17y agoI remembered your earlier post. You made Estonia sound pretty good. :)
- etherael 17y agoApproximately twelve days to launch, I'm quite excited, will be sure to keep the news flowing as the project develops, Nice to know people are listening. :) I don't know if you're a Sydneysider also but I just finished finding an apartment out there, you have to have a look at this; http://www.kv.ee/uurile-anda-uus-kahetoaline-taielikult-sisustatud-954040.html?nr=216&search_key=82832473b55a5f20abd8415b76e57be1&largeimages http://www.kv.ee/uurile-anda-uus-kahetoaline-taielikult-sisu... Link to English version is top right of the page, 7500 Kroons is $747 AUD. That price is monthly, also. I'm not sure if you're from Sydney or not but the difference in real estate prices / bang for the buck is utterly astounding to me. Probably not that big of a deal if you're someplace else here more sane, but, yeah. Also note the included amenities etc (internet, cable, phone) all in the base price.
- mhansen 17y agoMr Hodder-Watt then undertook legal action, that resulted in Google acknowledging its legal responsibility to remove the offensive site. How does Google have a legal responsibility to remove a site from search results?
- randomwalker 17y agoBecause laws are different from country to country. Of course, I share the view that it is a retarded law in this case, but it is a law nonetheless, and one that Google must obey if they want to play in Australia. I believe the legal term is 'intermediary liability.' This issue has been popping up in different countries all over the world in the last few months. Most notably in China, of course, but also in India, France and Italy, where Google executives are in fact facing the possibility of jail time. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jan/13/google-china-western-internet-freedom http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/... and http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h-40ArK-eMbvpRDJJSojvopz60Vw http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h-40ArK-e.... The role of Internet middlemen in enforcing copyright was a key legal issue in the last decade. It appears that censorship will be the analogous issue for the next decade. We seem to have reached a relatively happy middle ground with copyright—middlemen have some responsibility, but a strong form of copyright protection has proved unenforceable, forcing many industries to innovate or die. We can hope that a similar thing will happen with censorship, with oppressive governments either collapsing or being forced to allow free speech.
- daniel-cussen 17y agolink to offensive article: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Aboriginal http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Aboriginal Warning: extremely racist.
- pwmanagerdied 17y agoWho gives a damn if it's racist, the entire site is a joke!
- artichokeheart 17y agoWell, for one, me. Racism even on a joke site is still racist. As far as I'm concerned, and I know I'm not alone, racism is not acceptable in any form.
- viraptor 17y agoAlmost every joke relies on a some social preconception or stereotype... nationality and race are only some of the characteristics you can choose from. What can you find on that site that is worse than what you can see on South Park or any popular movies? It seems like a double standard that a page (which you have to look for) which contains obviously only bad jokes is somehow worse than half-serious stuff on TV (directly advertised and explicitly approved by a local company).
- pwmanagerdied 17y agoWell, I'm afraid I have to be the one to inform you that you are both pathetic and an idiot.
- jon_dahl 17y agoCalm down, man. The previous poster expressed a reasonable opinion. Disagree if you want, but don't resort to ad hominem.
- deleted 17y ago
- philk 17y agoFrom the article: "It portrays indigenous Australians in the most unsavoury light possible, and you wouldn't want a child stumbling across it," he told ABC Radio. I'm getting really sick of people playing the "won't somebody think of the children" card.
- nfnaaron 17y ago1. Wouldn't it be better/safer/something if it were easy to find such sites, so that nicer people can know just what they're up against? If I wanted to do something about cockroaches in my house, I'd like to be able to find the cockroaches. 2. karzeem, in another comment, says that the site is within the bounds of free speech. Sincere question from a non-Australian: does Australia have constitutional or otherwise legally protected free speech? In other words, is free speech a strong legal argument in Australia?
- zmimon 17y ago> does Australia have constitutional or otherwise legally protected free speech No. Australians have no direct freedoms at all. What rights they have are "implied" indirectly from other things such as that the federal government shall not restrict trade between the states (it's hard to trade if you can't talk ...). People talk from time to time about strengthening individual rights, but most Aussies couldn't care less and due to mandatory voting those that don't care will vote down just about any constitutional amendment making it extremely difficult for such reform to ever happen.
- EricBurnett 17y agoNot entirely correct. Australia ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is part of the United Nations. From Wikipedia: "While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states. For this reason, the Universal Declaration is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_...
- vaksel 17y agohere is a question, do people actually have to go to google.co.au, or does Google redirect them there when they go to google.com?
- mahmud 17y agoGoogle redirects you.
- tokenadult 17y agoGoogle redirects you. Are you writing that from Australia? To the contrary, I find that I can search with any country's version of Google, including non-English versions, from here in the United States. Could Australian participants confirm or deny the quoted statement? I thought other comments posted to this thread earlier already stated that Australians can search Google from any of Google's national sites.
- mahmud 17y agoI am in Australia. If I type google.com I end up in google.com.au.
- repsilat 17y agoSearches to google.com aren't redirected, just requests for the front page. If you specifically want google.com (and not google.com.au) you can go to google.com/ncr instead.
- whatusername 17y agoTo agree with mahmud - Just fired up a chrome incognito window: Type in www.google.com Google redirects me to www.google.com.au There's a link on the page to go to www.google.com If I want to type something like www.google.co.nz into the browser I can search NZ fine. But getting to www.google.com is a two step process.
- cousin_it 17y agoSometimes I hope all bleeding-heart activists will eventually see how governments use their actions as a pretext to expand censorship more and more... but then hope goes away and reality sets in.