GOOGLE SILENCES DISSENT

[1John2_26]

Should Google silence freedom of speech when it is critical of a religion or people?

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Google dumps news sites
that criticize radical Islam
Search giant axes another news page,
calls terrorism discussion 'hate content'

Posted: May 23, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

2006 WorldNetDaily.com



Search engine giant Google has cut off its news relationship with a number of online news publications that include frank discussions of radical Islam the New Media Journal becoming the latest termination, as its owner just discovered.

Frank Salvato, who began the agreement with Google News last September, said he received a reply from the company's help desk Friday indicating there had been complaints of "hate speech" on his site, as first reported by media watchdog Newsbusters.org.


The e-mail, which cited three articles that dealt with radical Islam and its relationship to terrorism, read:


Hi Frank,
Thanks for writing. We received numerous reports about hate content on your site, and after reviewing these reports, decided to remove your site from Google News. 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).

For example, a number of the complaints we looked at on your site were found to be hate content:

http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/peck/05102006.htm
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/stock/05082006.htm
http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/imani/04222006.htm

We hope this helps you understand our position.

Regards,
The Google Team

Newsbusters says it has observed a pattern of intolerance toward conservative sites that deal with radical Islam and terrorism.

Rusty Shackleford, owner of The Jawa Report, received a similar e-mail message March 29 informing him: "Upon recent review, we've found that your site contains hate speech, and we will no longer be including it in Google News."

Two weeks later, Jim Sesi's MichNews.com was cut off, with Google providing three examples of "hate speech" by conservative writer J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Newsbusters commented: "At first blush, one can easily ignore such business decisions by the most powerful company on the Internet as being routine. However, on closer examination, such behavior could give one relatively small technological corporation (when measured by the size of its workforce) a degree of political might that frankly dwarfs its current financial prowess."

The media watchdog noted columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin wrote in February 2005 her difficulties in becoming part of Google News. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs had a similar complaint.

When Google News launched its beta site in April 2002, it said its mission was to construct an unbiased news engine free of human intervention using new methods of aggregating news from sources worldwide.

According to the April Nielsen/NetRatings report, 49 percent of all searches conducted in the U.S. in March 2006 were carried out on Google.

Along with the dropping of conservative news providers, Google has received other complaints of liberal bias.

Last June, a conservative book publisher said Google rejected his ad for a book critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton while continuing to accept anti-Bush themes.

Eric Jackson, CEO of World Ahead, said his ads for "Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine" were rejected, without further explanation, due to "unacceptable content."

As WND reported, 98 percent of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats.

CEO Eric Schmidt gave the maximum legal limit of donations to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and to primary candidate Howard Dean.

Schmidt also contributed the maximum amount to Sen. Clinton, whose role in helping her husband intimidate his female accusers is addressed in the new book.

In May 2005, Google rejected an attempt by the conservative activist group RightMarch.com to run ads critical of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., while continuing to run attack ads against besieged House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Also, Google agreed to allow the communist Chinese government to have the search engine block "objectionable" search terms such as "democracy."

In addition, the company came under fire for an editorial decision to rank news articles in search results by "quality," giving preferential placement to large and predominately liberal media outlets such as CNN and the BBC over conservative news sources, even if they are more recent or pertinent.

[Shamgar]

The real question is will they cave to the jews and the "Christian" zionists to cleanse google of anti-ziionist info?

Therefore, anti-Zionism is not a politically legitimate point of view but rather an expression of bigotry and hatred.

Abraham H. Foxman, "Never Again?: The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism," (New York: 2003) Page 18.

Destructive Consequences of Christian Zionism, Figure #10: 3. "Encouragement of religious intolerance and Islamaphobia."

Stephen Sizer, "Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?" (Leicester: 2004), Page 258.

With the rise of Arab nationalism and especially Palestinian aspirations towards self-determination, the polemics against Arabs has grown. Comparisons between Hitler and Arabs are now frequent in the writings of contemporary Christian Zionists. (129) Van der Hoeven of the ICEJ is typical: 'Just as there was a definite ideology behind hatred and atrocities of Hitler and the Nazis, there is one behind the hatred and wars by the Arabs against the Jews and people of Israel.'(130)

Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? (Leicester: 2004) p. 242.

Grace Halsell, who regards the movement as a cult, asks: "What is the message of the Christian Zionist? Simply stated it is this: every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.' (17)

Stephen Sizer, "Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?" (Leicester: 2004), Page 21.

The Middle East Council of Churches (MECC), drawing together the historic as well as evangelical churches of the Holy Land, rejects, Christian Zionism 'as representing a heretical interpretation of Holy Scriptures',(19) while John Stott has described it as 'biblical anathema'. (20)

Stephen Sizer, "Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?" (Leicester: 2004), Page 22.

The distinction between Israel and the church and the literalist hermeneutic upon which it is based, inexorably leads to a reductionist eschatology in which Jesus is devalued, salvation and judgment redefined, and Israel sacralized.

Stephen Sizer, "Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?" (Leicester: 2004), Page 201.

He [Edward Irving (1792-1834)]insisted that missionary work especially in Southern Europe, where the Continental Society concentrated its ministry, was futile because God's judgment was about to fall on the lands of the former Roman Empire who would align themselves with the Antichrist. Some walked out of the meeting in protest while the leaders of the society accused Irving of undermining their ministry. (52)

Stephen Sizer, "Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?" (Leicester: 2004), Page 42.

[Benjamin] Newton eventually came to recognize Darby's elevation of Israel above the church as heresy, and repudiated the idea that the Jews could be blessed apart from the faith in Jesus Christ. It was 'virtually to say there are two kinds of Christianity, two Gospels, two ways, and two ends of salvation'.(96)

Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? (Leicester: 2004) p. 53.

There is a new religious cult in America. It's not composed of so-called "crazies" so much as mainstream, middle to upper-middle class Americans. They listen-and give millions of dollars each week-to the TV evangelists who expound the fundamentals of the cult. They read Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye. They have one goal: to facilitate God's hand to waft them up to heaven free from all trouble, from where they will watch Armageddon and the destruction of Planet Earth. This doctrine pervades Assemblies of God, Pentacostal, and other charismatic churches, as well as Southern Baptist, independent Baptist and countless so-called Bible churches and mega-churches. At least one out of every 10 Americans is a devotee' of this cult. It is the fastest growing religious movement in Christianity today. - Dale Crowley Jr., religious broadcaster, Washington D.C.

Grace Halsell, "Forcing God's Hand: Why Millions Pray For A Quick Rapture - - - And Destruction Of Planet Earth" (Beltsville: 2003) Page 5.

While Calvin and Luther understood the word "Israel" in Romans 11:25 to refer to the church of Jewish and Gentile believers, as had the Roman Catholic Church, Theodore Beza and Martin Bucer preferred to apply the word to unbelieving Jews and Judaism. The various editors of the Geneva Bible, influenced both by Calvin and Beza, increasingly favoured this interpretation. In the 1557 and 1560 editions, a short note on Romans 11 defined 'Israel' as the 'nation of the Jews'. In later editions, this was amplified to suggest a future conversion of the whole nation of the Jews, though not everyone particularly, shall be joined to the church of Christ.'(4) Through the notes accompanying this translation, which became the most widely read translation in England and Scotland prior to the Authorized Version of 1611, together with the writings of Puritans such as William Perkins and Hugh Broughton, the idea of the conversion of the Jewish people spread in Britain and the American Colonies. (5)

Stephen Sizer, "Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?" (Leicester: 2004), Page 27-28.

It is clear that Jesus was often misunderstood by those who took his words too literally. John's Gospel contains several instances. For example after he had cleansed the temple and was asked by the Pharisees for a sign, Jesus replied, 'Destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days' (John 2:19). They thought he meant their temple, but Jesus does not correct their error. In the next few chapters, Nicodemus wonders how he can enter his mother's womb again (John 3:4), the Samaritan woman believes Jesus is offering her water on tap (4:15), and the religious leaders fear Jesus is advocating cannibalism by insisting they must eat his body and drink his blood (6:51-52). It is ironic therefore, that one of the most common mistakes made by people in the Gospels, who erroneously deduced a literal interpretation when Jesus intended a spiritual one is repeated today.

Stephen Sizer, "Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?" (Leicester: 2004), Page 123.

The distinction between Israel and the church and the literalist hermeneutic upon which it is based, inexorably leads to a reductionist eschatology in which Jesus is devalued, salvation and judgment redefined, and Israel sacralized.

Stephen Sizer, "Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?" (Leicester: 2004), Page 201.

Walter Riggans interprets the term [Christian Zionist] in an overtly political sense as 'any Christian who supports the Zionist aim of the sovereign State of Israel, its army, government, education etc., but it can be describe a Christian who claims to support the State of Israel'. (7)

Stephen Sizer, "Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?" (Leicester: 2004), Page 21.

[theleftone]

Shamgar,

Thank you for the completely irrelevant off-topic post.

[Shamgar]

Shamgar,

Thank you for the completely irrelevant off-topic post.

. . . .more droning from the islamaphobic and literalist "Christian" zionist cult. . . . .are you trying to impose your will upon me and censor me? Why do you enjoy being so intolerant?

As we have already said, they cannot endure to hear or to see that we accursed Goyim should glory in the Messiah as our chemdath, and that we are as good as they are or as they think they are. Therefore, dear Christian, be advised and do not doubt that next to the devil, you have no more bitter, venomous, and vehement foe than a real Jew who earnestly seeks to be a Jew.

Luther's Works: The Christian In Society IV. Vol 47. American Edition. Edited by Franklin Sherman. (Philadelphia: 1981) ISBN: 0-8006-0347-8. Page 217.

Another major dispensationalist figure who promoted the Protocols [Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion] in the 30s was William Bell Riley, the Baptist leader from Minnesota. He first came across the Protocols in the 1920s and rejected it as fanciful and far-fetched. But a few years later he read it again and was struck by how accurately it explained what was happening all over the world.(24) In 1934 Riley [William Bell Riley] published The Protocols and Communism, in which he argued that the same plot that had turned Russia communist was now at work in FDR's New Deal. "Today in our land many of the biggest trusts, banks, and manufacturing interests are controlled by Jews . . . Most of our department stores they own. . . The motion pictures, the most vicious of all immoral, educational and communistic influences, is their creation."(25) Visitors to Riley's First Baptist Church in Minneapolis got a steady dose of similar sentiments from the pulpit, so much that Jewish leaders identified the church as one of the most important sources of anti-Semitism in the Twin Cities.(26)

Timothy P. Weber, "On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend" (Grand Rapids: 2004) Page 136.

[McCulloch]

I think that the headline, GOOGLE SILENCES DISSENT, is a hyperbole. Google is not and cannot silence dissent. Regardless of what Google does or does not do, dissenters are free to publish. Google's web search can be used to find all of the dissenting information sources cited.

The problem seems to be with Google's news service. In offering a news search, the folks at Google must exercise subjective judgement. Not all web sites are news sources. So, the people at Google have to set some kind of criterion to decide which sites are news sources (obvious ones like AP and the most cities' daily newspapers) and which sites are not news sources (this one for instance). It seems as if Google operates on the quite reasonable principle that sites which display a significant religious or partisan bias are not news.

Google is a private company not a public service. If it chooses to present biased information, that is their right under freedom of speech. They may choose not to since to display an obvious bias might damage their reputation for trustworthiness, but it would be their right if they so chose.

[Shamgar]

I think that the headline, GOOGLE SILENCES DISSENT, is a hyperbole. Google is not and cannot silence dissent. Regardless of what Google does or does not do, dissenters are free to publish. Google's web search can be used to find all of the dissenting information sources cited.

Google is just another kangarroo court proving again that "freedom of speech" and "tolerance" is a lie. . . . since the ones who claim to preserve "freedom of speech" and are "tolerant" are just the opposite. . .

If liberal political ideology lists its ship portside, conservative greed lists its starboard. Jewish interests are secure in neither vessel. The liberal agenda and ours are no longer coincident and at times not even parallel, while, alas, commonality with the conservatives agenda is sound as rhetoric. If here and there, liberals and conservatives areptoential allies, the alliance should evolve ad hoc, when our interests coincide, and ought not make liasions or convenience for lasting marriage. Just as the the liberal agenda has been forming and reforming in response to its ideology and to its political opportunism, and the conservative agenda in response to the self-interests of its business-minded patrons, so must the Jewish agenda look to Jewish interests. Happily, or at least fortuitiously, Jewish interests are in harmony wioth democracy's professions the supremacy of the person rather than his race or class and the security of the deocractic system vis-a-vis totalitarianism. Group rights effectively mean government intercession in behalf of their realization. In popular democracy, that means the courtship by politicians of the largest and/or most leveraged groups. Therein lurks the danger of quotas to minorites.

Nathan Perlmutter and Ruth Ann Perlmutter. "The Real Anti-Semitism In America" (New York: 1982) page 285.

The leverage provided by organizations on the fulcrum that is American democracy has helped Jews all the way from finally-getting-that-office-job-denied-me to the federal government's assistance to harassed Soviet Jews. In a sense our organizations have served as a sectarian government (albeit not elected by popular Jewish vote) within a secular government, that of the popularly elected legislative and executive branches of the American government. In a context concerned with the flow of Jewish history, Albert Memmi held that what really counts for Jews is political sovereignty. He maintained that the Diaspora-rooted Jewish tradition was essentially the product of Jews having been colonialized. Our evolving Jewish behavior, indeed our philosophy for survival, was crafted as a weapon of defense, used by us to survive as colonials. In the unique American democracy it has been our organizations which have converted our individual "colonial" status and made us a "bloc," a "lobby," no longer the lonely and the powerless, pitied but unheeded.

Nathan Perlmutter and Ruth Ann Perlmutter. "The Real Anti-Semitism In America" (New York: 1982) page 69-70.

----------------------------------------------------------
Sectarian n. : 1. An adherent of a sect. 2. a narrow or bigoted person.

Sovereign n: 1. one possessing the supreme power and authority in a state.

Colonialism n: control by one power over a dependent area or people; also : a policy advocating or based on such control.

To be sure, Jews constitute but 2.7% of the U.S. Population. However, our acutal percentage of the total vote approximates 5% and while even 5% is itself a small figure, given our deployment in the major states and the electoral college system, the 1980 Jewish voting distribution augurs well for both Democractic and Republican future attentiveness. At least quadrenally.

Nathan Perlmutter and Ruth Ann Perlmutter. "The Real Anti-Semitism In America" (New York: 1982) page 284.

In short, when a lobby [AIPAC: American Israel Public Affairs Committee] stifles free speech nationally on one controversial topic the Middle East all free speech is threatened.

Paul Findely, (former Republican Congressman of Illinois for 22 years) "They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby," (Westport: 1985) Page 332.

Almost without exception, House and Senate members do its bidding, because most of them consider AIPAC to be the direct Capitol Hill representative of a political force that can make or break their chances at election time.

Paul Findley, "They Dare Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby" (Westport: 1985) p. 25

Most Congressional actions affecting Middle East policy are either approved or inititated by AIPAC. [AIPAC: American Israel Public Affairs Committee]

Paul Findely, (former Republican Congressman of Illinois for 22 years) "They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby," (Westport: 1985) Page 32.

Almost without exception, House and Senate members do its bidding, because most of them consider AIPAC to be the direct Capitol Hill representative of a political force that can make or break their chances at election time.

Paul Findley, "They Dare Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby" (Westport: 1985) p. 25

[McCulloch]

Google is just another kangarroo court proving again that "freedom of speech" and "tolerance" is a lie. . . . since the ones who claim to preserve "freedom of speech" and are "tolerant" are just the opposite. . .

Google is a private company. You may make assertions to the contrary but you are wrong. Now please abide by the rules and actually address the question for debate.

Should Google silence freedom of speech when it is critical of a religion or people?

Google claims that news sites which contain hate speech have been left out of their news search. Are you arguing that Google should be compelled to include hate speech in its news search (a violation of Google's freedom of speech)? Or are you claiming that the excluded sites are not hate speech? Or maybe there is no such thing as hate speech, except if you disagree with Shamgar!

[Shamgar]

Google is just another kangarroo court proving again that "freedom of speech" and "tolerance" is a lie. . . . since the ones who claim to preserve "freedom of speech" and are "tolerant" are just the opposite. . .

Google is a private company. You may make assertions to the contrary but you are wrong. Now please abide by the rules and actually address the question for debate.

Well the people with all cylinders firing would notice that I have actually addressed the post. . . . .Oh your intolerance to my beliefs are so evident. . . . . but I guess you can arbitrarly decide your interpretation of the rules just as google can arbitrarly decide the definition of "hate" speech. . . which is the nature of a kangaroo court. . .

The sum of this anti-Semitic demonlogy was that Jews, by design or ignorance, had used the movies to undermine traditional American values. As one antagonist put it, "It is only because they [the Hollywood Jews] are outside the moral sphere of American culture that they blunder so badly that they require periodic campaigns such as that of the Legion of Decency [a Catholic reform group] to set them right."

Neal Gabler , "An Empire of Their Own : How the Jews Invented Hollywood" (New York: 1988) page 2.

Gaebelein [Arno C. Gaebelein] believed that Jews were still under a "national blood-guiltiness" for killing Christ, a stigma that could not be wiped away until the second coming and the Jews' repentance for it.(21) Even then, more Jews would be lost than saved. He held out the most hope for the Orthodox. During the great tribulation, after the church had been raptured, "the orthodox Jews who have held on to the faith of their fathers, who pray for the coming of the Messiah King, whose eyes are [now] blinded that they cannot see, from the veil will be removed." They are the prophesied remnant that international Jews, the political-financial schemers, the lawless elements, who ridicule and hate religion of any kind and are atheists . . . these Jews will worship the beast. They reject the true Christ and accept the false Messiah."(22) They are doomed, and rightly so.(23)

Timothy P. Weber, "On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend" (Grand Rapids: 2004) Page 136.

[McCulloch]

Google is just another kangarroo court proving again that "freedom of speech" and "tolerance" is a lie. . . . since the ones who claim to preserve "freedom of speech" and are "tolerant" are just the opposite. . .

Google is a private company. You may make assertions to the contrary but you are wrong. Now please abide by the rules and actually address the question for debate.

Well the people with all cylinders firing would notice that I have actually addressed the post.

Look up the word "ad hominem". Excuse me for being so stupid. Could you please explain to me in simple steps how your post addresses the question?

. . . .Oh your intolerance to my beliefs are so evident. .

I was unaware that I had addressed any of your beliefs. Please show me (and remember that I am stupid so you have to be quite specific) how I have demonstrated intolerance to your beliefs.

. . . but I guess you can arbitrarly decide your interpretation of the rules just as google can arbitrarly decide the definition of "hate" speech. . . which is the nature of a kangaroo court. . .

So, please answer the questions. Do you believe that Google should be forced to include hate speech in its news service? If so, should Google be allowed to use its own definition of hate speech? Does hate speech actually exist?

... Neal Gabler , "An Empire of Their Own : How the Jews Invented Hollywood" (New York: 1988) page 2.

I missed the application of how this quote to the topic at hand. Could you explain how it is relevant to the question being debated?

[Shamgar]

Look up the word "ad hominem". Excuse me for being so stupid. Could you please explain to me in simple steps how your post addresses the question?[

I already now the know the definition. . . and since it doesn't apply to my post why did you bring it up? Oh yeah the kangaroo response again. . . You already admitted your mental failing (your termonlogy being "stupid") was the cause of you failing to see the connection. . . . and since my last post pretty much clears it up I see no reason to rehash it again. . . .

I missed the application of how this quote to the topic at hand. Could you explain how it is relevant to the question being debated?

Quite simple actually since prior to the vomit of "equal rights" and "civil rights" the professing Christians concidered the definition of hate speech to included what the jews spewed into their movies hence the jews had their hate speech regulated . But now with the rise of the vomit of "equal rights" and "civil rights" it is considered "antisemitic" to say the exact same thing as back in the 1930s as indicated by my quote. . . .so the defintions of the words have changed to suit the modern day kangaroo courts which bathe in the vomit of "equal rights" and "civil rights". . . .who happen to be racist, xenophobic, and intolerant God haters. . . . who also love the vomit of the melting pot. . .

In the "clash of civilizations" paradigm that defines the neo-con approach, the United States has embarked on a pre-emptive crusade to generate a "global democratic revolution" - regime change to usher in governments more reflective of US values and thus more in tune with American interests all under American (corporate) tutelage: American Empire in a truly New American Century. Israel, then, fits neatly into the equation in three ways. First, it represents just that kind of American underling the U.S. Holds up as a model (and how Israel benefits from American largess should help persuade other regimes); second, it possesses the military capacity and political readiness to further American interests; and third, it is located in the Middle East, the primary "theater" of the Crusade, where it is engaged with America's declared arch-enemy, "radical Islam." A strong Israel, then, represents a strong America.

Ateek, Naim, et al editors. "Challenging Christian Zionism: Theology, Politics and the Israel-Palestinian Conflict" (London:2005) Page 2005.