If you want to know how evil Google is, they just banned our Natural News app from Google Play, claiming that if your content OPPOSES CHILD MUTILATIONS, that’s “health misinformation.” They also claim that advocating for good nutrition is a “harmful, unapproved treatment” and that telling the truth about vaccine damage is “misleading.” Google is pure evil. Demons in charge there. This is why everyone needs to DE-GOOGLE your life, get Google out of your entire sphere of operations and stop using Google Android phones that rely on the Play Store. Get de-Googled phones with freedom-oriented operating systems instead, like the ones at AbovePhone.com
Petition to Stop Silicon Valley’s Censorship of Christian Voices
Big Tech’s brutal assault on free speech is appalling, and it is directed at you, me and anyone who stands for life, family, freedom or any moral value!
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, Apple, Amazon, Pinterest, and other Big Tech companies have launched a worldwide crusade to censor voices like ours.
They showed the world just how far they are willing to go after they banned former U.S. President Donald Trump from all of their platforms.
And if they can censor elected leaders like Trump, they can do it to anyone…
…including YOU and CitizenGO!
What few people realize is, Big Tech’s banning of “unapproved” speech started long before Trump was banned.
Amazon, Google, and Apple conspire to bring down the conservative-leaning social media app Parler.
The US pro-family National Organization for Marriage was stripped of its online fundraising portal.
The rising pro-life conservative party in Spain, VOX, was banned from Twitter.
I could go on and on.
It’s clear that those in power at these Big Tech conglomerates seem to think they can use their oligarch control of online interactions to do as they please.
And with the growing effectiveness of CitizenGO in exposing the culture of death, transgender madness, and indoctrination of children in gender ideology, they will attack CitizenGO at any time.
But unlike others, I will not quietly cower and hope to be allowed to speak.
That’s because I know these tech giants are not as invincible as they’d like us to believe.
If you and I stand up to the Big Tech bullies, we can show them they will lose popular support, AND they will also lose billions of dollars in profits and suffer legal penalties.
This is something no CEO likes to tell their stockholders.
Right now, these social media platforms are some of CitizenGO’s most valuable advocacy tools, with our followers sharing our campaigns daily.
Our allies and CitizenGO have leveraged our over 15 million supporters to launch impactful campaigns, including:
Defending our own U.K. campaigner, Caroline Farrow, from malicious, unfounded lawsuits that sought to jail her for standing up for traditional family values;
Freeing Asia Bibi from anti-Christian persecution in Pakistan;
Standing up to corporate behemoths like Disney and Netflix who insist on promoting anti-Christian and LGBTQ ideology, even to very young children;
Exposing UN lobbyists who tried to force pro-life governments in Africa to support abortion or lose critical aid; and
Saving baby Tafida from heartless bureaucrats who sought to deny her life-saving medical care.
And these campaigns are only a small part of what our online presence has helped us accomplish.
But if radical Leftists like George Soros and some of the leaders of the Big Tech get their way, any group — even private citizens — could be banned from promoting our values.
Big Tech claims their main goal is to fight hate and false facts.
But you and I know what the real goals of their leaders more often than not are: to weaken our defense of the unborn, free speech, the natural family, freedom of Religion and Christian values.
If CitizenGO members like you stand idly by, these tech giants could get away with one of the most significant assaults on free speech since the rise of the Nazis and Communists.
That’s why our petition to these Big Tech CEOs insists they uphold the ideals of a free and open public square which allows space for discussion and opposing ideas.
You and I must stand together to show them they will pay a heavy price in loss of popular support, lost revenue and legal penalties.
Tell them to stop the censorship of pro-life, pro-family, and pro-liberty speech and activism on their platforms.
Nunes: Parler Ban a Violation of Antitrust, Civil Rights, the RICO Statute — ‘There Should Be a Racketeering Investigation’
26,850 https://www.youtube.com/embed/PDM3AQOUqgMJeff Poor10 Jan 20212,883 2:08
During this week’s broadcast of FNC’s “Sunday Morning Futures,” Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, called on the Department of Justice to launch an investigation into tech companies’ efforts to remove Parler as a platform from the internet.
The California Republican cited violations of antitrust laws, civil rights and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
“Well, Maria, when I wrote that book, I was hoping to warn Americans so that they would vote right and that maybe this wouldn’t happen and this could be prevented,” he said. “Unfortunately, it’s far worse than what I could even imagine. The effect of this is that there is no longer a free and open social media company or site for any American to get on any longer, because these big companies, Apple, Amazon, Google, they have just destroyed a — what was likely — Parler is likely a billion-dollar company. Poof, it’s gone. But it’s more than just the financial aspect to that. Republicans have no way to communicate. If — and it doesn’t even matter if you’re a Republican or conservative.”
“If you don’t want to be regulated by left-wingers that are at Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, where you get shadowbanned, nobody gets to see you — nobody gets to see you, they get to decide what’s violent or not violent, it’s preposterous,” Nunes continued. “So, I don’t know where the hell the Department of Justice is at right now or the FBI. This is clearly a violation of antitrust, civil rights, the RICO statute. There should be a racketeering investigation on all the people that coordinated this attack on not only a company but on all of those like us, like me, like you, Maria. I have 3 million followers on Parler. Tonight, I will no longer be able to communicate with those people. And they’re Americans.”
I am sitting here on a pile of diapers and could not be more proud
after having climbed Mount Everest. Motherhood, including pregnancy and
giving birth, is a monumental achievement and only now I know how
shamelessly belittled this accomplishment has become in the West.
Years of schooling and education prepare white women to become
exchangeable numbers working to increase the profits of a corporation
but neither prepares them for this most difficult and exhausting task
necessary to keep our people and culture alive. We all know why and how.
Therefore, you will not be surprised that Google has completely
buried the search keywords leading to WhiteDate.Net or positioned us to
page 7 and lower to make sure hardly anybody finds this unique white dating site by typing ‘white dating site’ or whites dating whites’. Before only keywords such as ‘dating
a white man’ or ‘date white men’ or ‘looking for a white man to date’
were banned from the results which also explains why so few women who
are likely to search those keyword combinations find WhiteDate and the
ratio women/men has been spreading from 1:6 to 1:12!
The online war of the big corporations against whites is undeniable
and especially evident when you look at Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit
that banned WhiteDate from advertisement because of ‘hate speech’. I
still have not understood what is hateful about white people for simply
wanting to preserve themselves as there is nothing to understand and
never any reasons provided. No other ethno-dating site faces hate or racist accusations as well as marketing bans but the only explicit ethno-dating site for white people globally, ours.
Now, I am not the kind of person to bemoan anything as too busy
finding solutions. I urge you, male and female members of WhiteDate, to
take action and invite women who are seemingly aware of the anti-white
agenda on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, trad forums etc. Help get more
women on-board who are likely to make good partners whilst our male
members, as vanguards, are paving the way to impose white dating as the norm and make it nolens volens get accepted by the anti-whites.
Together, we will grow organically by word of mouth until the day the
critical number of us have woken up and we can form our local offline
cells to speak freely, fall in love, build families, enjoy white life
together, and last but not least, defend white interests
unapologetically.
Worker claims he was put on leave for speaking out
[MORE IDEOLOGICAL TYRANNY BY THE LEFTISTS IN SILICON VALLEY.]
Toronto Sun
GRAEME GORDON
GREG COPPOLA
A Google employee was summarily put on administrative leave for speaking out against the tech giant’s leftwing ideologues allegedly having their paws all over the company’s algorithms in order to slice out conservative information and people they don’t like.
Freshly suspended senior Google engineer Greg Coppola spoke out publicly in an interview with conservative investigative news outlet Project Veritas.
“Are we going to continue to think for ourselves or are we just going to let the biggest tech companies decide who wins every election from now on?” he said in the bombshell interview.
“I look at search and I look at Google News and I see what it’s doing and I see Google executives go to Congress and say that it’s not manipulated.
“It’s not political. And I’m just so sure that’s not true.”
This is not the first time a Google employee has charged them with having a left-wing bias.
Last year, James Damore was fired for an internal document he authored trying to explain why there were less women in tech after the company was looking for feedback.
He then started legal proceedings against the company claiming it has “left biases” and is “alienating conservatives” by using “discriminatory practices.”
Shortly after Coppola came forward at the end of July, another Google employee fired in 2018 told Wall Street Journal he was let go for what he claims was advocating for conservative employees he says were bullied.
Google told The Hill he was fired for “misusing company equipment.”
Other critics have found biases in its search engine through their research.
Last year, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg told Congress Silicon Valley is “an extremely left-leaning place.”
In mid-july, U.S. President Trump held a social media summit in which he accused the tech giants of censoring conservatives.
In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called for more censorship of “hate speech” and “misinformation” through the introduction of a digital charter.
The Liberal government has close ties to top Canadian execs at the big tech companies, including Google.
As the 2019 federal election kicks off in mere weeks, the role big tech plays in the flow of information to everyday Canadians looms large.
Tulsi Gabbard sues Google for suspending her ads after first Dem debate
July 26, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – While most of the voices accusing tech giants of political discrimination are conservative, some left-of-center figures have been caught up in the controversy as well, including 2020 Democrat presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard.
Gabbard, a congresswoman from Hawaii, announced Thursday that she’s suing Google for suspending her campaign’s Google Ads account for several hours after the first Democrat primary debate.
The New York Timesreported that following the debate, Gabbard was “briefly” the most-searched presidential candidate on Google, and the campaign wanted to seize that momentum with some ad buys, but found their account suspended.
“For hours, Tulsi’s campaign advertising account remained offline while Americans everywhere were searching for information about her,” Gabbard’s campaign charged. “During this time, Google obfuscated and dissembled with a series of inconsistent and incoherent reasons for its actions. In the end, Google never explained to us why Tulsi’s account was suspended.”
The campaign gave the Times emails indicating that Google initially suspended them for “problems with billing information or violations of our advertising policies,” then sent a notice several hours later reinstating the account and claiming the temporary suspension was meant to verify billing information and compliance with Google’s policies.
Google spokesman Jose Castaneda told the Times that the company’s automated systems, which are designed to catch “unusual” activity such as large spending changes, “triggered a suspension,” but “the account was reinstated shortly thereafter.”
“Google’s discriminatory actions against my campaign are reflective of how dangerous their complete dominance over internet search is, and how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values,” Gabbard declared in a statement. “This is a threat to free speech, fair elections and to our democracy, and I intend to fight back on behalf of all Americans.”
The lawsuit seeks an injunction against Google engaging in further election interference and a minimum of $50 million in damages. It also alleges that her campaign emails found their way into Gmail spam folders at “a disproportionately high rate” compared with those from other Democrat primary campaigns.
Gabbard has drawn some interest for ostensibly being more moderate than the rest of the Democrat field. As recently as 2004, she opposed same-sex “marriage,” but is now a doctrinaire liberal on abortion, LGBT issues, and even decriminalizing prostitution.
Since the 2016 election of President Donald Trump, Google has been under fire for allegedly intensifying efforts to slant their platforms and services in favor of Trump’s opponents and other left-wing causes in a variety of ways, including blacklists, biased algorithms, and more. Concerns have also been raised that figures within Google and other tech companies have been “subverted” by foreign governments.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Ajit Pai told Congress last month that he considers “unregulated Silicon Valley tech giants” today’s “greatest threat to a free and open internet.” Earlier this month, Trump announced that he was “directing my administration to explore all regulatory and legislative solutions to tech censorship.” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, has proposed legislation that would require social media platforms to certify their political neutrality with the FCC if they want to keep their congressionally granted immunity from legal liability for what they allow users to post.
Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Reynolds to POTUS TRUMP: Break Up Tech Monopolies – Or Lose in 2020
by Jim HoftNovember 19, 2018 Gateway Pundit
Conservative author and radio host Rush Limbaugh promoted the latest article by conservative law professor and writer Glenn Reynolds in USA Today on Monday.
Glenn Reynolds called on Trump on Monday to breakup the tech monopolies like his predecessor Teddy Roosevelt did back in the early 1900s.
RUSH: Glenn Harlan Reynolds, who’s a friend and a law professor at the University of Tennessee, has a column out today in USA Today saying that Trump has got… Forget prison or anything else. If Trump doesn’t get a handle on the monopolies that exist now — Facebook, Google, Netflix, and (What’s the other one?) Amazon, the social media titans — that if this not gotten handle on, we don’t have a prayer because they have monopolized social media, and in the process of monopolizing it and mass media, they are excluding anything and everybody conservative.
So Glenn’s piece today is suggesting that Trump needs to do his own version of Teddy Roosevelt and bust ’em up. Teddy Roosevelt busted up the trusts, among them Standard Oil, the Rockefeller family, and J. P. Morgan, who was on the verge (chuckles) of owning the United States financial markets. Do you know back in the late 1800s, early 1900s, when the federal government needed money, they went to J. P. Morgan to borrow it? Before there was a tax code, before there was a tax system, they went to J. P. Morgan to get money. Well, J. P. Morgan was one of the trusts that Teddy Roosevelt busted up.
I’ll tell you, Glenn Reynolds makes a pervasive case in this — and even if he hadn’t made it, it’s a scary thing. You know, I don’t like monopolies, and I really hate government intervention, but this social media stuff is getting totally out of hand, especially, folks… There’s now polling data. I forget where a term. I’ll find it just a second. It’s a credible polling unit. Do you know that 42% of the American people believe that the Russians meddled with votes in 2016? This has been one of the most successful hoaxes that has ever been run in politics.
This has been one of the most successful disinformation campaigns ever, the fact that the Russians and Trump colluded to steal the election. There isn’t any evidence! In fact, in announcing the latest series of indictments, Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, made it clear that in none of the indictment that Mueller has announced is there any allegation or evidence that a single vote was tampered with! Yet you read newspaper accounts of this or watch cable news accounts, they don’t even mention that that has been acknowledged and admitted by the government.
They continue with the myth that not only did Trump and the Russians collude, but the Russians tampered with vote totals. It did not happen, and yet 42% of the American people believe it largely because of the media — and social media, which is one of the biggest promotional groundswells for that point of view. You talk about misinformation and disinformation? This is profound. There is no evidence that any of this happened!
At least 35 Republican lawmakers lost their seats last Tuesday night.
Democrats have a huge advantage over Republicans with their partners in the media complex, Hollywood, and academia.
And, unlike 2016, this year Democrats can also can give a huge amount of credit to Tech giants Google, Facebook and Twitter.
Suburban voters and women no longer were reading conservative articles on Facebook. Facebook eliminated at least 1.5 billion links to conservative articles since 2017. If you add additional websites like The Gateway Pundit, Infowars, Young Cons, Right Wing News, etc. the number tops 2 billion easy. And it likely made a difference on Tuesday night. 80% of women age 18-49 have Facebook accounts. These are the women who get their news from Facebook. Facebook knows this and eliminated conservative content on their platform so there would be no repeat of 2016.
It’s no secret that the Silicon Valley tech giants discriminate against conservatives and conservative content.
In August President Trump warned Google about it’s biased practices against conservatives and conservative content in their search feature.
Facebook has been shutting down traffic to conservative websites since the 2016 election.
The Gateway Pundit recently spoke with two of the top conservative publishers in America.
Floyd Brown is a conservative author, speaker and media commentator. In 2008 Floyd launched Western Journal which quickly became one of the top conservative websites in America. By 2016 Floyd’s organization of Western Journal and other conservative websites under his umbrella had more than a billion page views. Since 2016 Floyd’s organization lost 75% of its Facebook traffic.
Likewise, we spoke with Jared Vallorani from Klicked Media. Jared traveled to Washington DC with The Gateway Pundit and website owners at 100%FedUp in June to discuss Facebook targeting against conservative publishers with Republican lawmakers. Jared told The Gateway Pundit his organization Klicked Media, which hosts over 60 conservative websites, lost 400 million page views from Facebook in the last six months if you compare the traffic to a year ago. Jared said, “We lost 70% to 80% of our traffic if you compare January to May 2017 vs Jan to May 2018.”
If you combine the total number of page-views lost by just these two conservative online publishers you are looking at a loss of over 1.5 billion page-views from Facebook in one year.
These are numbers from just two of the top conservative publishers in America. This does not include the thousands of other conservative publishers across the country who lost all of their traffic coming from Facebook. Here at The Gateway Pundit our Facebook traffic has been effectively eliminated after we were ranked as the 4th most influential conservative publisher in the 2016 election.
The fact that Facebook is targeting conservative publishers should not be a surprise to Gateway Pundit readers.
We have been reporting on this for several months now. In July we released a study where we looked at several top conservative websites and discovered that the publishers had lost an average of 93% of their Facebook traffic.
This is a bloodbath. Facebook has wiped out conservative content to American subscribers.
This influence map below by Columbia Journalism Review shows the top influencers during the 2016 election.
And here is that same map showing the conservative publishers who have been targeted by Facebook since 2017.
Facebook has eliminated content from a vast majority of top conservative publishers since 2017.
In 2016 suburban voters and women would check their Facebook pages and get conservative news. That is no longer the case. And on Tuesday these voters chose Democrats.
Facebook has wiped out conservative publishers. Americans will no longer see articles from conservative websites even if you follow them. Facebook took advertising dollars from all of these businesses and then changed their business plan after the 2016 election.
Facebook wants to pretend this was not a political decision. Yet, several top liberal activist groups: Media Matters, Share Blue, CREW and American Bridge, made it a priority in early 2017 to work with the liberal tech giants to undermine President Trump and ensure that liberals gain control of Congress and the presidency in 2020.
Non-PC World -Google fires employee behind anti-diversity memo for ‘perpetuating gender stereotypes’
Note: On the face of it, it is remarkable that so many people, often in middle class jobs, are still willing to behave in politically incorrect ways when they almost constantly have before them examples peopel accused of pc “crimes” which result in their loss of their job at best and criminal charges at worst. But it is not so surprising when one thinks about. People have a natural resistance to being told they cannot express their honest views and feelings and the very act of making such thing effective illegal increases the desire to say them. In addition, the fact that political correctness runs against human nature means that Nature will out sooner or later. Finally, some political correctness is unintended because the parameters of political correctness are forever shifting so that what may have been untouched by political correctness one day is politically incorrect the next. RH
Telegraph
Google fires employee behind anti-diversity memo for ‘perpetuating gender stereotypes’
James Damore, the engineer who wrote the memo, said he was exploring all possible legal remediesCREDIT: REUTERS
Internet giant Google has fired the male engineer at the centre of an uproar in Silicon Valley over the past week after he authored an internal memo asserting there are biological causes behind gender inequality in the tech industry.
James Damore, the engineer who wrote the memo, confirmed his dismissal, saying in an email to Reuters on Monday that he had been fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes”.
Mr Damore said he was exploring all possible legal remedies, and that before being fired, he had submitted a charge to the US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) accusing Google upper management of trying to shame him into silence.
“It’s illegal to retaliate against an NLRB charge,” he wrote in the email.
Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc based in Mountain View, Calif., said it could not talk about individual employee cases.
Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai told employees in a note on Monday that portions of the anti-diversity memo “violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace,” according to a copy of the note seen by Reuters.
Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai CREDIT: REUTERS
It was not clear what legal authority Damore could try to invoke. Non-union or “at will” employees, such as most tech workers, can be fired in the United States for a wide array of reasons that have nothing to do with performance.
The US National Labour Relations Act guarantees workers, whether they are in a union or not, the right to engage in “concerted activities” for their “mutual aid or protection”.
Damore, though, would likely face an uphill fight to seek that protection based on his memo, said Alison Morantz, a Stanford University law professor with expertise in labour law.
“It’s going to be a hard sell that this activity was either concerted or for mutual aid or protection, rather than simply venting or pitting one group of workers against the others, which does not sound very mutual,” Ms Morantz said.
Debate over the treatment of women in the male-dominated tech industry has raged for months. Claims of persistent sexual harassment in the ranks of Uber Technologies Inc and of several venture capital firms led to management shakeups.
Management at the largest tech firms, including Google, have publicly committed to diversifying their workforces, although the percentage of women in engineering and management roles remains low at many companies.
Damore’s memo attacked the idea that gender diversity should be a goal.
“The distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and … these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership,” Damore wrote in the internal company memo last week.
Google’s vice president of diversity, Danielle Brown, sent a memo in response to the furore over the weekend, saying the engineer’s essay “advanced incorrect assumptions about gender”.
Telegraph
Google employee’s theory that women are unsuited to tech jobs provokes immediate backlash
AGoogle employee’s manifesto arguing that programmes increasing race and gender diversity be replaced with a commitment to “ideological diversity” has spread rapidly across social media sparking a furious backlash.
The 10-page document, apparently drafted by a senior male software engineer, was initially posted on the company’s internal forum.
Critics reacted angrily to its argument that the lack of women in tech companies was down to genetic factors, saying it was evidence of Silicon Valley’s hostility to women and minorities.
“I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership,” the author writes, according to a version posted by Gizmodo.
He goes on to argue that the company’s diversity drives have created a “politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence”.
And the document also suggests that men have a greater drive for status, in contrast to women who may be less interested in coding and have a greater connection to “people and aesthetics”.
The provocative essay, entitled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”, first began making waves on Friday. A string of Google employees expressed their anger as the document spread internally.Before long, details of the manifesto leaked out and the outrage snowballed.
For many it was confirmation of biases common among the white men who dominate Silicon Valley.Google’s new vice-president of diversity, integrity and governance, Danielle Brown, sent a memo to staff distancing the company from the views.
She said it was not a viewpoint endorsed by Google.
“Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate,” she wrote.
“We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul.”
Not Canadian? Not in Canada? It doesn’t matter, according to its supreme court.
[While Justin Trudeau, the Trust Fund Kid, was dancing and prancing with his LGBTQ… constituency this past weekend, a media distraction, the unelected tyrants of the Surpreme Court were leeching away Canadians’ freedoms to search the Internet. — Paul Frromm]
George TsartsianidisThe Canadian Supreme Court today ruled the country has the authority to demand Google censor and remove links to certain web pages or online content.
The idea that governments can force Google to deindex links to pages is unfortunately not new (see the European Union’s “right to be forgotten“). What matters internationally in this case is the government is forcing Google to remove links from searches regardless of where the Internet user is. That is to say: Canada is demanding the authority to censor the internet outside of its physical borders and control what people who are not Canadian citizens can find online.
Today’s court ruling declares that because the Internet doesn’t have any borders, when Canada decides Google has to censor content it should be a global order: “The Internet has no borders — its natural habitat is global. The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates — globally.”
The case involves copyright and intellectual property claims. A tech firm was accusing another firm of stealing and duplicating one of its products and selling it online. Google was asked to deindex the links to the firm accused of stealing so that it wouldn’t show up in search results. Google complied with court orders, but only for searches from within Canada.
Canada’s Supreme Court sees geographical limits (even virtual ones) on its ability to censor speech as “facilitating” illegal commerce rather than a speech issue. Here’s a paragraph from the ruling that should give folks pause:
This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites that are in violation of several court orders. We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods.
Canada has hate speech laws. Does it follow that Canada should require Google to deindex pages containing what it deems “hate speech” in the United States? If Canada does not because it acknowledges limits to its reach as a nation is it “facilitating” something unlawful?
The court notes Google removes links due to court orders based on content and still doesn’t seem to see an issue in a country’s boundary of authority:
[Google] acknowledges, fairly, that it can, and often does, exactly what is being asked of it in this case, that is, alter search results. It does so to avoid generating links to child pornography and websites containing “hate speech”. It also complies with notices it receives under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2680 (1998) to de-index content from its search results that allegedly infringes copyright, and removes websites that are subject to court orders.
The court, in justifying its ruling, is unwittingly bringing up problems with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA is intended as a tool for fight online piracy and intellectual property theft by making it easier to remove copyrighted material through an ownership claim process. It is also prone to abuse.
People abuse the DMCA’s “take down” process in order to try to censor speech, critiques or commentary, they find objectionable. It can be as minor as trying to censor critical video game reviews, or extend as far as criticizing another country’s leaders. Ecuadorian officials once attempted to use the DMCA to censor criticism of government actions. Google itself has stepped in to try to help users fend off abusive DMCA take-down requests.
Invoking other forms of legally recognized internet censorship is not, perhaps, the defense Canada’s Supreme Court is looking for. A closer examination highlights the potential for abuses. And claiming the authority to censor Google links everywhere in the world is a decision begging to be abused.
Read the court’s ruling here. France has attempted similar international censorship methods.
