Censorship by Google

[TjHong]

Jump to: navigation, search
Censorship by Google refers to Google Inc.'s removal or omission of information from its services or subsidiary companies, such as YouTube, in order to comply with its company policies, legal demands, or various government censorship laws.[1]

Contents
1 Web search
1.1 USA
1.2 United Kingdom
1.3 Germany and France
1.4 China
1.5 Global Search Suggestions
2 News search
2.1 Sites critical of Islam
3 YouTube
4 Google Maps
5 Advertising
6 Shareholder initiatives
7 See also
8 References
9 External links


[edit] Web search
[edit] USA
Google commonly censors search results to comply with Digital Millennium Copyright Act-related legal complaints.[2]

In 2002 Google was found to have censored websites that provided information critical of Scientology, in compliance with the United States' DMCA legislation.[3][4] Google replaced the banned results with links to the DMCA complaint that caused the site to be removed. The DMCA complaint contains the site to be removed, and the organizations that requested the removal. The publicity stemming from this incident was the impetus for Google's making public of the DMCA notices on the Chilling Effects archive, which archives legal threats made against Internet users and Internet sites.[5]

[edit] United Kingdom
On 21 September 2006,[6] it was reported that Google had 'delisted' Inquisition 21st Century, a website which claims to challenge moral authoritarian and sexually absolutist ideas in the United Kingdom. According to Inquisition 21, Google was acting "in support of a campaign by law enforcement agencies in the US and UK to suppress emerging information about their involvement in major malpractice", allegedly exposed by their own investigation of and legal action against those who carried out Operation Ore, a far reaching and much criticized law enforcement campaign against the viewers of child pornography.[7] Google released a press statement suggesting Inquisition 21 had attempted to manipulate search results.[6]

[edit] Germany and France
On October 22, 2002, a study reported that approximately 113 Internet sites had been removed from the German and French versions of Google.[8] This censorship mainly affected White Nationalist, Nazi, anti-semitic, radical Islamic websites and at least one fundamentalist Christian[9] website. Under French and German law, hate speech and Holocaust denial are illegal. In the case of Germany, violent or sex-related sites such as YouPorn and BME that the Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien deems harmful to youth are also censored.

Google has complied with these laws by not including sites containing such material in its search results. However, Google does list the number of excluded results at the bottom of the search result page and links to Chilling Effects for explanation.[1]

[edit] China
See also: Google China
Google adhered to the Internet censorship policies of China,[10] enforced by means of filters colloquially known as "The Great Firewall of China" until March 2010. Google.cn search results were filtered so as not to bring up any results concerning the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, sites supporting the independence movements of Tibet and Taiwan, the Falun Gong movement, and other information perceived to be harmful to the People's Republic of China (PRC).

The Chinese government has restricted citizens to popular search engines such as Altavista, Yahoo!, and Google in the past. This complete ban has since been lifted[when?]. However, the government remains active in filtering Internet content. In October 2005, Blogger and access to the Google Cache were made available in mainland China; however, in December 2005, some mainland Chinese users of Blogger reported that their access to the site was once again restricted[who?].

In January 2006, Google confirmed its intent to filter certain keywords given to it by the government of the China. The restrictions apply to thousands of terms and websites.[11] Google has claimed that some censorship is necessary in order to keep the Chinese government from blocking Google entirely, as occurred in 2002.[12] The company claims it does not plan to give the government information about users who search for blocked content, and will inform users that content has been restricted if they attempt to search for it. Searchers may encounter a message which states: "In accordance with local laws and policies, some of the results have not been displayed." [13] As of 2009, Google is the only major China-based search engine to explicitly inform the user when search results are blocked or hidden.

Some Chinese Internet users have been critical of Google for assisting the Chinese government in repressing its own citizens, particularly those dissenting against the government and advocating for human rights [14].

Google has been denounced and called hypocritical by Reporters Without Borders for agreeing to China's demands while simultaneously fighting the United States government's requests for similar information.[15]

On February 14, 2006, protesters organized in a "mass breakup with Google" whereby users agreed to boycott Google on Valentine's Day to show their disapproval of the Google China policy.[16][17]

In June 2009, Google was ordered by the Chinese government to block various overseas websites, including some with sexually explicit content. Google was criticized by the China Illegal Information Reporting Center(CIIRC) for allowing search results that included content that was sexual in nature, claiming the company was a dissemination channel for a “huge amount of porn and lewd content”.[18]

On January 12, 2010, in response to an apparent hacking of Google's servers in an attempt to access information about Chinese dissidents, Google announced that “we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all.”[19]

On March 22, 2010, after talks with Chinese authorities failed to reach an agreement, the company redirect its censor-complying Google China service to its Google Hong Kong service, which is outside the jurisdiction of Chinese censorship laws .”[20][21][22]

[edit] Global Search Suggestions
In January 2010, Google was reported to have stopped providing automatic suggestions for any search beginning with the term "Islam is", while it continued to do so for other major religions. [23] According to Wired.com, an unnamed Google spokesman stated, “this is a bug and we’re working to fix it as quickly as we can.” [24] Suggestions for "Islam is" were available later that month. The word "Bilderberg" and the family name "Buchanan" were also reportedly censored in the auto-complete results,[25][26] but were available by February of 2010 as well.[citation needed] Certain terms continue to be censored, such as those with entries that yield potentially offensive search suggestions, like those including sexual profanity or racial slurs.[citation needed]

[edit] News search
[edit] Sites critical of Islam
In early 2006 Google removed several news sites from its news search engine because complaints were received about various articles that were critical of Islam.[27][28] These included the The New Media Journal, which contained phrasing such as, "[in the] world of Islam ... it is common for the men to have multiple wives, and harvest many children with each of his wives to train for martyrdom." MichNews and The Jawa Report were among the other sites removed from Google News. These sites do remain accessible from Google's main search page as normal. Google responded to the change by stating, "We do not allow articles and sources expressly promoting hate speech viewpoints in Google News, although referencing hate speech for commentary and analysis is acceptable".

[edit] YouTube
Further information: Blocking of YouTube
YouTube--a video sharing website and subsidiary of Google--in its Terms of Service prohibits the posting of videos which violate copyrights or depict pornography, illegal acts, gratuitous violence, or hate speech .[29] User-posted videos that violate such terms may be removed and replaced with a message stating: "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation".

YouTube blocked the account of Wael Abbas, an activist who posted videos of police brutality, voting irregularities and anti-government demonstrations[when?].[30] His account was subsequently restored[when?]. YouTube also removed a video produced by the American Life League which is critical of Planned Parenthood. It has since been restored[when?].[31]

In 2006, Thailand blocked access to YouTube for users with Thai IP addresses. Thai authorities identified 20 offensive videos and demanded that Google remove them before it would unblock any YouTube content.[1] In 2007 a Turkish judge ordered access to YouTube blocked because of content that insulted Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, a crime under Turkish law.[1] On February 22, 2008, Pakistan Telecommunications attempted to block regional access to YouTube following a government order. The attempt subsequently caused a worldwide YouTube blackout that took 2 hours to correct. Four days later, Pakistan Telecom lifted the ban after YouTube removed controversial religious comments made by a Dutch government official[32] concerning Islam.[33]

In October 2008, YouTube removed a video by Pat Condell titled Welcome to Saudi Britain; in response his fans re-uploaded the video themselves and the National Secular Society wrote to YouTube in protest.[34] The video was eventually restored.[35] During the December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes, YouTube removed videos of air strikes against Hamas that were posted by the IDF.[36] During the 2008-2009 Gaza airstrikes, many videos that were criticizing Israel's actions in Gaza were being removed by Pro-Israeli groups such as The JIDF.

On November 5, 2009 YouTube cancelled the account and all videos from Michael Patton of dogtv.com after Patton uploaded a short documentary style video [37] on his experience over the years with dogs, two of whom were fighting to the death until they were trained not to do so by Patton. In another blocked video, the camera caught a spontaneous dog attack on another dog. The fight is quickly stopped before any harm is done and instructions are given on how to break up dog fights which inevitably occur in multiple dog households.

[edit] Google Maps
In March 2007, allegedly lower resolution satellite imagery on Google Maps showing post-Hurricane Katrina damage in the U.S. state of Louisiana was replaced with higher resolution images from before the storm.[38] Google's official blog of April revealed that the imagery was still available in KML format on Google Earth or Google Maps.[39][40] In March 2008, Google removed street view and 360 degree images of military bases per the Pentagon's request.[41]

[edit] Advertising
In February 2003, Google stopped showing the adverts of Oceana, a non-profit organization protesting a major cruise ship operation's sewage treatment practices. Google cited its editorial policy at the time, stating "Google does not accept advertising if the ad or site advocates against other individuals, groups, or organizations."[42] The policy was later changed.[43]

In April 2008, Google refused to run ads for a UK Christian group opposed to abortion, explaining that "At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion-related content.'"[44]

[edit] Shareholder initiatives
On May 10, 2007, shareholders of Google voted down an anti-censorship proposal for the company. The text of the failed proposal stated that:

Data that can identify individual users should not be hosted in Internet-restricting countries, where political speech can be treated as a crime by the legal system.
The company will not engage in pro-active censorship.
The company will use all legal means to resist demands for censorship. The company will only comply with such demands if required to do so through legally binding procedures.
Users will be clearly informed when the company has acceded to legally binding government requests to filter or otherwise censor content that the user is trying to access.
Users should be informed about the company's data retention practices, and the ways in which their data is shared with third parties.
The company will document all cases where legally binding censorship requests have been complied with, and that information will be publicly available.
David Drummond, senior vice president for corporate development, said "Pulling out of China, shutting down Google.cn, is just not the right thing to do at this point... but that's exactly what this proposal would do."[45]

CEO Eric Schmidt and founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal. Together they hold 66.2 percent of Google's total shareholder voting power, meaning that they could themselves have declined the anti-censorship proposal.[46]

[edit] See also
Internet censorship

[TjHong]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article's tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (December 2007)
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2008)

Part of a series on
Censorship

By country
Algeria
Australia
Belarus
Bhutan
Brazil
Burma
Canada
China
Cuba
Denmark
France
Finland
Germany
India
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Jamaica
Malaysia
Mexico
New Zealand
North Korea
Pakistan
Peru
Portugal
Russia
Samoa
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
South Asia
South Korea
Sweden
Taiwan
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Venezuela


See also
Freedom of speech by country
v • d • e
In Canada the principles of community standards and public interests are the primary adjudicants of what may be published or broadcast by the media. In most respects, Canadian law takes a relatively liberal interpretation of community standards, although sometimes the existence of competing interpretations results in controversy.

Over the twentieth century, standards shifted from a "strong state-centred practice" done to protect the community for perceived social degradation, to a more decentralised censorship practiced by societal groups invoking state support to restrict the free speech abilities of political and ideological opponents.[1] Subsequently, Canada is believed to have more hate crime legislation forbidding certain ideas from being promulgated than any other country in the world.[2]

Contents
1 Broadcasting
2 Movies
3 Print
4 Internet
5 Human Rights Commissions
6 See also
7 Notes


[edit] Broadcasting
The main body monitoring and regulating broadcast content in Canada is the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, the self-governing association of radio and television broadcasters. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), while popularly believed to be the primary enforcer of broadcast standards, in fact intervenes only in the most serious and controversial cases.

For matters involving sex, nudity, and coarse language, Canadian radio and television standards are relatively lenient. Canadian standards regarding violence are relatively liberal. Many Canadian broadcast stations broadcast sexually explicit or violent programming under certain circumstances, albeit with viewer discretion advisories and at adult-oriented times on the schedule. CTV, for example, has aired controversial series such as The Sopranos, Nip/Tuck and The Osbournes in prime time without editing, and some Canadian television broadcasters, such as Citytv (Baby Blue Movies), have aired softcore pornography after midnight Eastern time. (Canadian subscribers to satellite and cable services located west of Ontario are therefore able to view this pornography as early as 9:00 p.m.)

The Code of Ethics of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters[3] defines the "late viewing period" as the hours from 9:00 PM through 6:00 AM. Outside this period (i.e. from 6:00 AM through 9:00 PM), the Code of Ethics prohibits programming containing sexually explicit material or coarse or offensive language.

The Canadian Association of Broadcasters also has a "Voluntary Code Regarding Violence in Television Programming".[4]

In enforcing these two Codes, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (a non-governmental industry organization) permits nudity to be broadcast during the day as long as it is considered non-sexual. For example, the CBSC permitted a 4:00 PM broadcast of the movie Wildcats containing male frontal nudity in a locker-room scene and female nudity in a bathtub.[5] The CBSC even permitted the Demi Moore film Strip Tease to be shown at 8:00 PM, with scenes of bare female breasts during strip-tease performances.[6]

The CBSC has summarized its policy on sexual activity as follows:

Before the Watershed (9:00 pm – 6:00 am), the CBSC considers that it is inappropriate to show sexual activity that is intended for adult eyes and minds. There is, in the pre-Watershed period, a run of 15 hours (a strong majority of the broadcast day and about 90% of our customary waking hours), during which broadcasters offer their audiences a safe haven, namely, a period in which their television viewing can be free of adult-oriented material, whether sexual or otherwise. There may still, in that time frame, be programming that some parents will not wish their families to see (all adults should make the effort to weigh the appropriateness of all kinds of programming for themselves and their children) but it will not be due to its exclusively adult orientation. And even in the pre-Watershed period, broadcasters advise their audiences of the nature of what is to come.[7]
The CBSC considers that the word "****" and its derivatives cannot be broadcast in the period from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM. After 9:00 PM the word can be broadcast if there are suitable viewer advisories.[7] Canadian radio hosts are generally not permitted to use swear words on the air. Even the satellite radio network CBC Radio 3, for example, normally refers to the band Holy **** on air as "Holy F". Conversely, however, many radio stations do not bleep or edit songs which contain swear words in their lyrics, although such songs are normally restricted to airplay late in the evening.[clarification needed]

Similarly, the music video station MuchMusic has banned or declined to play many notable rock and pop videos with content that was deemed disturbing or inappropriate. In the early 1990s, however, the station began to engage the issue of censorship by airing a special series, Too Much 4 Much, which would play the banned videos and then follow up with audience and panel discussions about the issues raised by the clips.

Though Canadians do file complaints with the Broadcast Standards Council over sexuality, language and violence on television programs, it is topics concerning discrimination such as racial and sexual stereotyping in broadcast content which often receives nation-wide coverage. For example, the council received very few complaints about the violence or harsh language in The Sopranos, as it was aired on CTV during the watershed period and had several "viewer discretion advised" warnings. They did however, receive a significant number of complaints about the potential stereotyping of Italians as being connected to the mafia.

Similarly, after the 2004 Super Bowl, the council received more complaints about an allegedly sexist beer commercial than it did about the controversial halftime show incident involving the uncovering of Janet Jackson's breast. And in one of the most famous recent complaints to the Broadcast Standards Council, the Looney Tunes cartoon Bewitched Bunny featured as part of The Bugs Bunny & Tweety Show was criticized—not for its violence, but for a sexist comment made by Bugs Bunny ("Aw, sure, I know! But aren't they all witches inside?").

One of the most notable broadcast censorship issues in recent years has been the broadcast of Howard Stern's radio show in Canada. The show was first broadcast on CILQ in Toronto and CHOM in Montreal in 1997, and complaints were filed with the Broadcast Standards Council—again, these related primarily to the alleged broadcast of ethnic and gender stereotypes. Both stations were forced by the Broadcast Standards Council to monitor the show for offensive content through the use of broadcast delays, and both had cancelled Stern's show by 2001. When Stern subsequently moved to Sirius Satellite Radio in 2005, many Canadians erroneously believed that the CRTC had banned Stern's broadcast on Sirius Canada. In fact, the CRTC made no such ruling—Sirius Canada voluntarily chose not to risk provoking an issue with the broadcast regulator. However, on February 1, 2006, Sirius Canada announced that Stern's show would in fact be made available in Canada as of February 6, 2006.

In another recent controversy, the CRTC revoked the broadcast license of CHOI-FM, a radio station in Quebec City which had been the subject of 27 listener complaints to the Broadcast Standards Council and the CRTC. The decision was appealed, unsuccessfully. The station currently on the air with CHOI-FM's frequency and callsign is under new ownership and a new license, with significant amounts of the original content removed.

Canadian superior courts possess a considerable degree of latitude over the mass media, especially when the content in question relates to an ongoing case or inquiry. In Dagenais v. CBC, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned an injunction by the Ontario Court of Appeal that forbade the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from broadcasting a documentary loosely based on an ongoing priestly sexual abuse trial. Nonetheless, the fact that the injunction and many others similar to it point to a court system that invokes a greater degree of protection for the subjects of its trials. However, the controversy over whether bans like the one in Dagenais v. CBC represent undue trammeling of freedom of expression is a hotly debated topic.

[edit] Movies
In the 1920s, the Canadian film board removed American patriotism from imported films, citing their damage to a pro-British sentiment.[1]

Most Canadian provinces still have ratings boards that have the power to order cuts to movies and may even ban the showing of films if they violate Canada's Criminal Code sanctions against depicting sexualized violence and sex acts involving people under the age of 18. Movies formerly banned in some Canadian provinces include Deep Throat and Pretty Baby.

One particularly famous censorship controversy involved the award-winning German film The Tin Drum, which was banned as pornographic by Ontario's film review board in 1980.[8]

The romantic comedy Young People ****ing prompted the Harper government to introduce Bill C-10, to allow revoking government funds from films the government deemed offensive. Strong public backlash lead to the bill dying on the order paper[9].

[edit] Print
“ The silence of Canadian officials, their refusal to answer questions...reveals the attitude of Canadian officials on books...if they will ban my book without a hearing, if they will uphold officials who will ban Balzac, Trotsky, Joyce, Lawrence and others, they will be likely to ban still further books. ”
—James T. Farrell, whose 1946 book Bernard Clare was banned[10]

In 1955, the importation of American The Atom Spy Hoax was deemed seditious as it questioned the Canadian government's handling of the Igor Gouzenko affair.[1]

One of the most famous ongoing censorship controversies in Canada has been the dispute between Canada Customs and LGBT retail bookstores such as Little Sister's in Vancouver and Glad Day in Toronto. Through the 1980s and into the 1990s, Canada Customs frequently stopped material being shipped to the two stores on the grounds of "obscenity"—although in many cases the very same material was not considered obscene when being shipped to a mainstream bookseller such as Coles or Chapters.[citation needed] Both stores frequently had to resort to the legal system to challenge the confiscation of their property.

In 2000, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canada Customs did not have the authority to make its own judgments about the permissibility of material being shipped to the stores but was permitted to confiscate only material that had specifically been ruled by the courts to constitute an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Canadians can be disciplined by their employers for writing letters to newspapers. Christine St-Pierre, a television reporter covering federal politics for Radio-Canada, was suspended in September 2006 for writing a letter in support of Canadian troops in Afghanistan[11]. Similarly, the courts have upheld professional sanctions against teachers and school counsellors for writing letters to newspapers that are found to be discriminatory, limiting their freedom of expression and religion on the basis of maintaining "a school system that is free from bias, prejudice and intolerance."[12] (See related articles, Chris Kempling and Status of religious freedom in Canada).

[edit] Internet
Internet content is not specifically regulated in Canada, however local laws do apply to websites hosted in Canada as well as to residents who host sites on servers in other jurisdictions. A well-known example is the case of Ernst Zundel, who was investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for promoting ethnic hatred via his website.

In November 2006, Canadian Internet service providers Bell, Bell Aliant, MTS Allstream, Rogers, Shaw, SaskTel, Telus, and Vidéotron announced "Project Cleanfeed Canada"; the voluntary blocking of access to hundreds of alleged child pornography sites. The list of blocked sites is compiled from reports by Internet users and investigated by the independent organization "cybertip.ca". Although this was a voluntary step with no involvement from the authorities, the Canadian government did express its approval.[13]

[edit] Human Rights Commissions
Main article: Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversies
The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) is charged with enforcing the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) which forbids “hate messages”. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has its national office in Ottawa, Ontario, with regional offices in Alberta, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Quebec, and Toronto, Ontario.

In Canada under the CHRA it is illegal for any citizen to make a statement which “is likely to expose a person or persons to ‘hatred or contempt’ by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”[14]

Although the CHRA is a federal law which forbids ‘hate messages’ only on the telephone or the internet, provinces such as British Columbia and Alberta have extended this prohibition to all publications.[15][16]

The CHRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.

White supremacists James Scott Richardson and Alex Kulbashian, who ran a racist website called "Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team," are currently challenging the constitutionality of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.[17] Neo-Nazis such as Marc Lemire and Paul Fromm have also criticised the constitutionality of the CHRC. The CHRC has been instrumental in prosecuting anti-Semitism and racism.

The Alberta Human Rights Commission launched an investigation into a complaint against former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant, and the CHRC has launched investigations into complaints against Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine for publishing material deemed offensive by Muslims.

Main article: Canadian Islamic Congress human rights complaint against Maclean's Magazine
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, prior to becoming Prime Minister, stated "Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society … It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."[18]

PEN Canada, an organization which assists writers who are persecuted for peaceful expression, has called on "the federal and provincial governments to change human rights commission legislation to ensure commissions can no longer be used to attempt to restrict freedom of expression in Canada."[19]

According to Mary Agnes Welch, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, "[h]uman rights commissions were never intended to act as a form of thought police, but now they're being used to chill freedom of expression on matters that are well beyond accepted Criminal Code restrictions on free speech."[20]

Keith Martin, a Liberal Member of Parliament from British Columbia, introduced a motion that called for the deletion of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, arguing that it is in violation of Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees each citizen’s freedom of expression. Mr. Martin said that hate crimes, slander and libel would still be outlawed under the Criminal Code, while his motion would stop human-rights tribunals imposing restrictions on freedom of speech using taxpayers' money. "We have laws against hate crimes, but nobody has a right not to be offended," he said. "[This provision] is being used in a way that the authors of the Act never envisioned."[21]

A group of several dozen professors from the 7,000-member American Political Science Association contend that recent free speech precedents in Canada put academics at risk of prosecution. The group includes Robert George and Harvey Mansfield, and they have protested holding the scheduled 2009 APSA annual meeting in Canada for this reason.[22] The leadership of APSA selected Toronto as the meeting location.

[edit] See also

[TjHong]

Internet Censorship: Law & policy around the world

http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens3.html