Planetary Rescue Operations [Filtered & blocked by Google!]

Google Conspiracy Against the Public

Posted by msrb on July 31, 2008

UPDATED January 23, 2010 [MSRB]

Google Censorship is a Major Threat to Freedom and Democracy!

There are only two ways in which Google censorship and anti-social corporate activities can be viewed:

1. Google is an information terrorist and therefore a threat to democracy and freedom.

2. Google is the world information police. As a large corporation, and a constituent of the cabal that dictate policy to the US government, Google is also a major component of the de facto US [and ‘world’] government.

Either way, Google’s censorship and suppression of information poses a serious threat to democracy, the rule of law and our individual freedoms.

A major component of the de facto “over-government” in the United States, Google is still bound by the US Constitution. It MUST therefore uphold the First Amendment.

However, Google is abridging the freedom of speech and therefore suppressing democracy instead, thus denying the public their individual freedoms.

What is Freedom of Speech?

Freedom of speech is being able to speak freely without censorship. The United States Constitution protects opinions under inalienable 1st Amendment free speech rights.

The right to freedom of speech is also guaranteed under international law through numerous human-rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

How much longer is Google allowed to continue its censorship in violation of the United States Constitution and the international law?

A Conspiracy Against the Public

The Moderators at the public information blogs listed below condemn Google in the strongest possible terms for content censorship. Google search engines filter, block and bury blog posts that contains contents or information that it deems uncomplimentary to its corporate partners, thereby abridging the bloggers’ freedom of speech, and preventing the  public from knowing the truth!

Google Inc poses a clear and present danger to democracy, individual freedoms and therefore the security of the United States and the rest of the ‘free world’ countries that are currently enshackled. To minimize Google threat, we urge those of the lawmakers who still believe in the Constitution to break up Google into much smaller, less harmful units.

See Also:

12 Responses to “Google Conspiracy Against the Public”

  1. r2streu said

    Actually, as a private entity, Google is well within its rights to abridge or disallow any speech it wants. It’s a crappy business decision, and (frankly)unethical, to boot, but the appropriate action is to boycott Google.

    The First Amendment and most Human Rights laws are focused on government, not private action. To say Google is violating the law by choosing to disallow certain sites, you’d also have to say that a privately-owned blog site or forum cannot deny publishing of a comment or ban a user.

    Just to be clear, by the way, the public Right To Know doesn’t exist in a legal context (that I’m aware of), excepting what pertains to FOIA laws.

  2. msrb said

    The following reply was submitted by a Member.

    The facts are that:

    1. Dissemination and flow of information today play a much more critical role in the society than at any time past. Dissemination and flow of information are no longer “commercial considerations,” but vital matters of public health and safety, ergo Human Rights issues.

    2. Google has a dominant position [near monopoly] in the Internet information sector and is using its weight to abuse the dissemination and flow of information. [Antitrust law]

    3. By restricting the flow of information Google is harming the “consumer” welfare, which may include, but not limited to “free trading and competition.” [Antitrust law]

    4. Google’s domination of the information sector should at least be subject to “remedies,” an obligation to offer access to facilities that would allow both volunteer organizations [like us] and small commercial entities to “compete.” [Antitrust law]

    5. Google is expanding its power base, increasingly manipulating the flow of information and it is now more prominent in the control of information than the US govt.; therefore, it could be argued that Google is effectively operating as a “virtual government within a government,” thus Human Rights laws should apply.

    6. By selectively censoring and blocking information, Google is denying the individuals and organizations their “Freedom of Press,” therefore creating an “information apartheid” that breaches terms of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treaty among other treaty violations.

    You say, “… as a private entity, Google is well within its rights to abridge or disallow any speech it wants.”

    That would be true, only if (i) Google was one of MANY organizations that provided similar services, AND (ii) Google did not command a monopoly or near-monopoly status.

    “To say Google is violating the law by choosing to disallow certain sites, you’d also have to say that a privately-owned blog site or forum cannot deny publishing of a comment or ban a user.”

    Would it be acceptable for a privately-owned organization that had established an effective monopoly on, say, weather information [no national weather service available] to allow access only to selected individuals? [If not, could vital weather information be classed as a “public Right to Know?”]

    [Note: Try the above argument with other criteria, e.g., “immunization,” “toxic pollution,” “water safety” … in addition to “weather information.”]

    7. If the current laws cannot adequately deal with the censorship of public information, thus failing to protect the society and the individual, clearly, new, effective laws are desperately needed!

  3. […] Google’s Conspiracy Against the Public […]

  4. terres said

    r2streu – we’ve received your comment and will publish it when the Member who replied to your original comment is available to respond.

    To put this into some perspective, please let us know your affiliation. Are you a legal expert, or otherwise a law practitioner in any capacity?

  5. r2streu said

    I’m a little confused as to why you’re holding my comment until the original responder is around to answer… but it’s your blog to do what you like.

    To answer the question, my affiliation and credentials are irrelevant to the discussion (and, frankly a smokescreen — I asked about facts and evidence and the response appears to be asking for my credentials). Suffice to say I am not on any legal team working with, for, or against Google, and have no stake in any litigation regarding Google. I work with a Conservative think-tank, along with my own activist group, and my interest is in defending liberty — even for those with whom I may personally disagree. I believe that the defense of liberty for one is the defense of liberty for all. That is my interest in this discussion.

  6. msrb said

    The moderators appreciate your interest “in defending liberty — even for those with whom [you] may personally disagree.”

    To publish your 2nd comment would be tantamount to an Internet “trial” [c.f., the “O’Reilly Factor”] with the obvious twist that Google alone would be the beneficiary, regardless of who “wins” the argument.

    If the moderators were to respond in any detail to the questions you have raised, they would have to reveal the result of their research as well as strategy. If, on the other hand, they didn’t respond, your comment could be construed as “authority” on the issue, which might deter others from challenging Google.

    Based on the above, it has been decided not to publish your 2nd comment at this time.

  7. te2ataria said

    Google censoring web content

    by Bill Thompson

    Should Google decide what counts as an unacceptable website? Technology consultant Bill Thompson doesn’t think so.

    Since its creation in 1998 Google – at, as you probably know already – has become the world’s best search engine and the starting point of choice for almost all my web queries.

    It has even generated its own verb – to do some googling around means sitting there playing with queries and exploring the obscure parts of the Web that are revealed by looking for odd or even improperly spelled phrases.

    Nobody expects Google, or any index, to be perfect, since the Web is growing and changing so fast and many parts of it are generated from databases and therefore essentially impossible for a search engine to find or classify.

    However, researchers at the highly-respected Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University have found that the company is actively removing sites from its database, and that this censorship is going unnoticed.

    Regional differences

    Jonathan Zittrain and Benjamin Edelman have built up a reputation for their careful analysis of the ways in which web content is filtered, censored and controlled.

    They have looked in detail at the practices of national governments, specifically China and Saudi Arabia, and provided lots of useful information for those of us who want to promote freedom of speech both online and offline.

    The censorship of the French and German versions of the Google database is a clear demonstration of just what is wrong with internet regulation today – Bill Thompson

    Their latest paper deals with the differences between the results returned when searching, the US/world version of the site, the French site at and the German site at

    They have discovered over one hundred sites which can be found by searchers in the US but not by those in Germany or France.

    They are mostly sites that feature racist material or that deny the existence of the Holocaust, such as Stormfront, a white pride site filled with white nationalist essays by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

    Legal battles

    Responding to the discovery, Google spokesman Nate Tyler said on tech news programme ZDNN that the sites were removed to avoid the possibility of legal action being taken against the company, and that each site was removed only after a specific complaint from the government of the country concerned.

    On first sight this seems perfectly reasonable – after all, Google isn’t a public service but a private company trying to make money out of its technology and database, and it has no obligation to index everything.

    It certainly has a duty to its owners (it’s a privately held company) to stay out of legal battles with governments, since they can be pretty expensive.

    Unfortunately things are not that simple, and the censorship of the French and German versions of the Google database is a clear demonstration of just what is wrong with internet regulation today.

    What is happening is that a government is saying to Google: ‘we don’t like that website – so drop it from your database’ and the company is acquiescing.

    The people running the website aren’t told. The people looking for the website aren’t told – they aren’t even told that this policy exists.

    The rest of us aren’t being told either – Google’s Nate Tyler said clearly that ‘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.’

    No due process

    The result is that one of the web’s most important tools is being deliberately broken at the request of governments, with no publicity, no legal review and no court orders.

    The sites involved may or may not be illegal in France or Germany – we don’t know because the case never comes to court, and is never tested. All we know is that they aren’t wanted.

    I would rather have a net where Google and other search engine providers had a legal obligation to provide full and comprehensive results to the best of their technical ability – Bill Thompson

    The problem is not that content is being censored – that is inevitable and in many cases desirable.

    I agree with our current laws against child pornography and have no difficulty at all endorsing the view that these sites should not be allowed online.

    I’ll support the team at Google if they want to spend their time removing them. In fact, a search for ‘lolita pictures’ finds 291,000 entries in the US index, so this is obviously less of a priority for them.

    The problem is that Google itself is deciding what should be censored and that its motives are entirely commercial, making it possible for government agencies to influence it without having to go through due process or defend their requests in public.

    I believe we need to move towards an internet that is properly regulated, where decisions like this can only be made through the courts.

    I would rather have a net where Google and other search engine providers had a legal obligation to provide full and comprehensive results to the best of their technical ability and to inform searchers of any areas where content had been removed from their index on legal grounds, even if that also gives governments the ability to block certain sites from the index.

    Telling nobody

    As it is, we have private companies like Google deciding what we can and can’t see based on their self-interested readings of poorly-drafted national laws – Bill Thompson

    I know that would give the government of the People’s Republic of China the power to censor what their citizens can see online – but they have that power already and use it, building firewalls and filters around their part of the net.

    At least if the whole internet was properly regulated and brought into the legal framework that governs all other areas of our life we would be able to have a sensible discussion about the limits of regulation and control.

    As it is, we have private companies like Google deciding what we can and can’t see based on their self-interested readings of poorly-drafted national laws, taking advice from unnamed and unaccountable Government agencies and telling nobody what is going on.

    Anything has to be better than that, surely?

    And what happens when someone in the French Ministry of Culture reads this article and decides that, by giving publicity to Stormfront, I am acting against the French public interest?

    Will they dispatch a quick e-mail to Google and ask them to remove this page – or this whole site – from their index?

    Copyright Bill Thompson or the BBC

  8. After receiving sophisticated cyber attacks from within China last year which, were aimed at gaining information about anti-communism activists from within China, Google is considering removing itself altogether from the country.

    Perhaps the criteria for Google’s activities depend on its public image. Certainly if I was aware of a rumour that Google had been supporting hate groups etc. I would want to boycott their service. It would therefore avoid listing minority contraversial sites from within each country as it would be financially unviable to do the opposite.

    One thing that Google have in common with the governments under (or over) which they seem to operate, is the desire for economic stability and continued increases in consumer spending, without which the economies of the first world would surely suffer. With this sites references to the severe ennvironmental consequences of such consumer activities, and the dangers of current energy usage I am not surprised that Google and or the governments of the world may have an interest in censoring it. Especially if it was a highly frequented and well explained blog as this one is.

  9. msrb said

    “One thing that Google have in common with the governments under (or over)…”

    The keyword seems to be “over” the governments.





  12. USAma B.L. said

    The comments and article predictably ignore the 1000 lb gorilla in the living room: Google is not a “private” corporation. It is an extension of the American Empire.

    It’s an open secret that Google was created with support from American spy agencies and that it functions as proxy for the USA to spy on and destabilize other countries–under the standard Anglo Big Lie of “internet freedom.”

    Indeed, Anglo-American freedom is one of the greatest deceptions ever spawned.

    Behind all the “Free Press” propaganda, Anglo-American “freedom” in reality means the freedom to penetrate and invade other countries–and ultimately to “regime change” them with Pro-Anglo puppet states.

    See the Anglo aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan for examples of their vaunted “freedom” in action.

    Google’s Deep CIA Connections

    US Readies Cyberwar, Virtual Flag Terrorism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: