Daniel Carrera wrote:
Chad Smith wrote:
That is *exactly* why Google *has to* abide by the laws of the land.
Other
wise they *would be* guilty of a crime. Filtering out the word
"Democracy"
is still nothing remotely similar to building the "showers" in Auschwitz!
Filtering search results based on the demands of the local government *IS
NOT A CRIME*.
So you wouldn't be opposed if Google started filtering out reports on
the Iraq invasion based on a request by the US government?
If the US government made it clear that they would forcibly shut down
Google if Google did not co-operate, I wouldn't complain about /Google/.
Co-operating with the demands of the Chinese government is the price of
doing business in China /at all/.
On the other hand, Chad's facile argument that co-operating with a
brutal tyranny "is not a crime" because the word "crime" is subject to
the tyranny's definition is, frankly, nothing short of disgusting. We
had that out in 1945-49.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Information is light. Information, in itself, about anything, is light."
-- Tom Stoppard. "Night and Day"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
