December 01, 2008
A different side of Google
This article (which I have only started, but find interesting) discusses the potentially embarrassing/illegal/scary/disappointing role of Google in defining modern free speech. I hope to see angry, swear-riddled rants (preferably in video form, as it is only fitting) discussing this to be posted soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Not to be outdone the FCC has gotten in on the censorship fun.
ReplyDeleteSaw that. So disappointing.
ReplyDeleteHey, is there anything to all this conservative worry about the revival of the Fairness Doctrine?
Haven't read the Google article yet, but the one pasted below (I know I know I should go back and read the directions from the first time I asked how to post a hyperlink in a comment), about "collective intelligence," is related, interesting, and shorter. I actually found the last paragraph - about English common laws regarding privacy and the privacy vs. common good debate - the most relevant.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30privacy.html?pagewanted=3&em
That FCC news is hugely disappointing but hopefully won't actually happen. Also, judging by the FCC chair's picture, I'm guessing he's never gotten laid.
ReplyDeleteFinally finished the article. Pretty scary, especially the depiction of Google as a monarch.
ReplyDeleteI actually didn't realize that Google is as restrictive as it is, banning sexually explicit videos, graphic violence and hate speech. That's scary too, and seems to violate the very spirit of program like Blogger and YouTube.
I'd really like to start a First Amendment discussion here - issues like child pornography, Nazi memorabilia, and the harm principle, all raised in the article, are interesting and endlessly discuss-able, because there's so much grey area.
Anyone have strong feelings one way or another, to get us started?
I still haven't read the article. I can't remember if I haven't said this here or if I've said it 50 times, but having the CEO of Google as close to President Obama as he is is also discomforting.
ReplyDeleteFirst amendment? Hopefully I'm not in the process of getting fired here, but you bring up child pornography (interesting question posed in one of my high school classes - would virtual child porn be OK? I say no victim, no crime - it's up to the individual to be responsible), Nazi memorabilia (can't say I can think of what you could mean here that I would say people don't have a right to. I also think it's crap that in many European countries Holocaust denial is a crime), and I don't know the harm principle.
My general feeling is to give rights as often as possible. For any instance, I assume that we should have the right first and then see if there are reasonable grounds to take a right away (yelling "fire" in a theatre).
This by the way is the same approach I've taken to whether or not the government should be in charge of a given program. First assume it should not be and then place the burden on showing why it should (if it should). Take education, for example. I am OK with government funds going toward education, but when it comes to actually running it, I don't see why a 21st century government should be doing the actual educating.
Similarly (this is off topic, stay on the free speech thing here) I have thoughts on the Post Office, but I'll make that another entry.
As I re-read my post, I can only assume the harm principle is "no harm no foul" or some variant, in which case I'm redundant. If not let me know.
ReplyDeleteThe harm principle is a John Stuart Mill concept probably only discussed in political science classes. In my understanding, it mean that as long as an individual's actions don't cause any harm to someone else, the government should not be allowed to limit said actions - so yeah, basically "no harm, no foul." it's pretty much the only standard I think the U.S. government should use if they're planning to limit speech.
ReplyDeleteI actually had the exact same discussion of about virtual child porn in an NYU class, and I feel the same way you do. But I don't think possession, or even sale, of real child porn should be illegal either. Molesting (or sexually exploiting) a minor should be against the law, of course, but blaming people for buying the product of an illegal action is a slippery slope. Plus, people who view child porn may be sick, but most of them aren't actually molesting children themselves, so we're just punishing them for their fantasies and tastes (and, I suppose, supporting an illegal industry, but that's a whole different can of worms) - the content of their mind - and that's just wrong.
In terms of Nazi memorabilia, I was referring to the article, which has a section discussing how Google and Yahoo had to remove it from being sold on their sites because it's illegal in some countries. And yes, that's complete crap in my opinion too.
It just kind of scares me that we (or at least I) was under the impression that we live in "the information age," where censorship isn't such a problem because anyone can buy a domain name or change to one of a bajillion channels if they don't like what's on TV, but one of the major "middlemen" between me and all the information out there - Google - is limiting and editing itself.
What's the deal with Post Office?
ah, I see your new post now.
ReplyDelete