« Perhaps He Shouldn’t Refer To Himself As A “Bomb Thrower” | Main | The Culture of Life »

March 29, 2005

Comments

Sphaeron

Differing viewpoints could definitely see different sides of this argument. While I think very few people would argue that hate speech is a good thing, First Amendment rights should definitely still apply to it. On the other hand, I think Google should have every right to restrict its content to whatever it feels is proper for its customers.

For example, eBay (I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't allow the sale of firearms on its site. It states this in black and white and enforces it as best it can. What's considered a firearm isn't exactly up for debate (for the most part) so there isn't much room to argue. What's considered "hate speech" can be pretty subjective, though. Google should (and probably does) have a specific definition of what it considers hate speech and be able to show the violation explicitly.

The specifics of violation would be much more useful in justifying Google's actions. It could be argued, however, that this "evidence" should be between them and the violator. Otherwise they are making the hate speech public (which they did not want to do in the first place) as well as possibly bringing it increased media attention by making a fiasco over it. The old "any attention is useful, good or bad" routine.

pyrrho

a little more research.

there was a comment at dkos on them... basically, they did a story on the Sgrena case... if you recall recently some Italians were shot as they drove their car to the airport after having negotiated the release of an Italian Journalist.

there was a comment asking to notify Google Jawa was not a real news site... here

And another in a different blog post on the same subject... just being incredulous about the story Jawa posted evidently calling it a hoax, here

FYI...

pyrrho

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/070198.php

there is a post linked in one of the comments I just linked, if anyone is curious. It proposes the theory that it's all a hoax but also has updates admitting it was a bit wingnutty to propose the way he does at first. He still thinks the kidnapping was a hoax, but not that people GOT SHOT AND DIED, including the head of Italian Intelligence (correct me on the exact position, I'm going from memory).

I didn't see hate speech, really, although there is some hateful sentiments I guess.

I did notice the tagline of the site this time... "you know, sandpeople". maybe that's it.

I'm curious because I think this issue of hate speech cuts right to the core of the issues of political speech and what can be said... people are sensitive and read between the lines, it's possible to put hateful rhetoric between the lines... but you have to make some attempt at an objective expose of such things.

Add to that that this is not about the legality of the speech but about Google News. Google is private and can build their service as they like, but people should of course demand level standards from them. I tend to like Google, I tend to think they are pretty ethical.

I also think Google should have blogs off in blogsearch or blogged news, not just the regular news. Real news needs to be closer to primary sources than most blogs are. Someone should set up the criteria for journalism vs. blogalism vs. vs. blog analysis vs. personal online journals vs mere rumor, and at the top ought to be the standards of honesty which government statements should exhibit.

pyrrho

the more I think about it, the more I think the real question is why are there blogs in the Google News source in the first place.

pyrrho

elaborations: it's not just for the reader I think that but the blogger... at one point dkos was in the news feed but markos of dkos asked for it to be taken out. At dkos any user can post a dairy (this is a feature of the scoop software, it is the same at redstate.org and tacitus.org) and these were going into the feed.

well, if you are just writing a diary that is not quite news and if it's part of the Google News that somewhat imposes a news-standard that diarists don't intend or want to meet. While some diarists meet at least news columnist standards, many don't. Why should this be piped through a news feed... it either lowers the idea of "news" remarkably low into the field of opinion, rumor, and personal venting, and/or imposes standards on writers that are not really fitting for the kind of writing.

Peace

Hmmm. . . wow! I got lost on the net trying to figure out what is what.

First question: what is hate speech? I honestly don't know. I perused the Jawa Report and was turned off. I found it bigoted and uninformed. Was it hate speech? Can't say, as I have no operational definition. What is the difference between hate and bigotry? Is there one?

Well it was an informative search b/c I learned more about the dailykos. For some reason I was under the impression that dkos was the blog of a radio talkshow host. Now I know differently. In my own defense, I am not a regular reader. I've run across it a few times b/c of links in comments.

I do not read blogs regularly, especially not ones written by one person. I am not even certain of what the precise definition of a blog is. Is Cabal a blog? Is it a forum? Not sure.

I find most blogs to be tedious in that they very quickly run into the nanonanosphere. Just end up being utter nonsense. For instance in trying to track down just what dkos is I came across a reference to Stand Down, so I googled "Stand Down", as I have no idea what the heck it is. Most of the top sites are in the nanonanosphere with reports of 9/11 being a hoax or a "virtual" hijacking. Whatever. So I hope that kos meant the no war blog.

But boy, wether left or right leaning, most political bloggers are out there, IMO. But my search continues as I often find mainstream news to be too limited. I always want more questions asked and I always want biases, connections, links, etc. to be out in the open. But I rarely find that.

I do not like the idea of limiting access to bigotry. I think the best way for bigotry to be combatted is for it to be as accessible and open to public scrutiny as possible. I say let your bias show! The way I see it the individual has a right to be as bigoted as he wants to be. No thought police! That's why I oppose hate crime laws. I've always thought that punishing criminals for having distasteful motives is stupid. What's the flip-side? Greed is an excellent, or at least better motive for a criminal act?

So all of this is to say that I upon reflection, I think you are right that blogs shouldn't be included with news. But that just leads to the whole debate about how biased news reports are. So maybe the solution is to include the blogs but make it clear on Google's results page that you are being directed to a blog and not a traditional news organization. Would that satisfy everyone? I doubt it.

sweetchuck

Peace, I think "hate speech" is saying something mean about a minority. Or maybe about a woman, you know, they are the majoritry minority.

pyrrho

>What is the difference between hate and bigotry? Is there one?

good question. I think a person is bigoted, and speech is hate speech if it's explicit. A bigoted attitude might shine through polite sounding words but hate speech is just an explicit statement of the bigotry. Mind you, I don't know that the idea holds water and I'll have to admit I'm biased against bigotry (must. unwrap. pretzel...) so the idea of trying to create the concept and classification of hate speech is something I think is worthwhile. However, that's for us to use to think about the issue of bigotry, when hate speech is used to make legal decisions then I doubt that hate speech has a very concrete definition, and is an awful lot like pornography... a word to express a subjective idea.

btw, Google still returns the Jawa Report in regular Google searches so they are living by your idea, Peace, that says Jawa should not be censored for it's bigotry, just not endorsed by Google as "news".

as far as political blogs being out there... it's true, and in their defense this is a way to clearly define philosophical positions.

But it creates a problem if your philosophical position is that we should work together and take advantage of our different perspectives to construct higher dimensioned perspectives that join the best of what we all have to offer. When I am at my most glorifying moments this is what I hope Cabal is or can be... a third place where we construct ideas from the best of many perspectives, and I believe this can best be done by policing the type of rhetoric we use in our debates, keeping the honor in debate, and then summarizing the result of debate.

The comments to this entry are closed.