Should Google ban racist images?

[RSS News]

A racially offensive picture of Michelle Obama is top of Google's search results. Should they police their content?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

yes, of course

[Q]

No, of course not.

Any call on the state or a big company to do the work of the working class movement does not have an educational value for the self-emancipation of workers and secondly such measures could as easily be used against the working class itself as to avoid any "unwanted" info from a bourgeois perspective.

[Искра]

No.
If you don't see racist images you believe you live in the world without racism.
You can take your eyes out but racism will still exist.

[Panda Tse Tung]

The promotion of racism doesn't really help in the fight against it though.
Edit: also, they cant ban radical leftist materials on the basis of Racism. If they want to ban our materials, they will anyway. Whether this rule is in effect or not. So i say 'yes'.

[Guerrilla22]

I'm inclined to say leave it so so no one can claim that racism still isn't a problem in the US.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Have fun trying to determine what qualifies as racism on a search engine that constantly spiders millions of pages at a single second. The idea Google would censor any type of information is alarming. Some of the most vile, backwards opinions are expressed on different message boards about [insert any group here], but I wouldn't want to strip the right to use the internet from anyone.

No.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Absolutely not. Communists should no resolve contradictions by simply banning things, we resolve them through ideological struggle. The people must do away with racism themselves, not the state (or in this case, a corporation). Any removal of content from above simply fans the flame of racism and xenophobia by taking it out of the realm of public criticism. True, it also would make it less accessible, but should we really fight racism by pretending the problem doesn't exist? No, people should be conscious anti-racists that can combat incorrect ideas, not passive masses that can be swayed to reactionary ones any time they present themselves.

[Panda Tse Tung]

It's not pretending it doesn't exist. It's banning it from the internet.

[Blackice]

It wouldn't matter wheter google bans it or not, racism should be banned from people's minds.

[RedAnarchist]

It wouldn't matter wheter google bans it or not, racism should be banned from people's minds.

You cannot ban a viewpoint from someone's mind. You can, however, educate that person about the viewpoint and help them become more open-minded.

As for the image, I've seen it and it's vile (it's the usual crap about how racists think black people look like monkeys), but action on the surface doesn't affect the views held deeper in people's minds. A racist won't be bothered that Google has banned racist images. In fact, it may convince them that their views are correct.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No, of course not.

Any call on the state or a big company to do the work of the working class movement does not have an educational value for the self-emancipation of workers and secondly such measures could as easily be used against the working class itself as to avoid any "unwanted" info from a bourgeois perspective.

repressing racist attacks and other means of dimishing oppression are "the work of the working class movement"
it is working class interests which have called upon the state to do this

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

our problem is not "views held deep within peoples' minds"
I don't concern myself with what's in peoples' minds
it's not ideas that oppress people
it's expressions of racism
they should be illegal

[Blackice]

You cannot ban a viewpoint from someone's mind. You can, however, educate that person about the viewpoint and help them become more open-minded.

As for the image, I've seen it and it's vile (it's the usual crap about how racists think black people look like monkeys), but action on the surface doesn't affect the views held deeper in people's minds. A racist won't be bothered that Google has banned racist images. In fact, it may convince them that their views are correct.

We're on the same page actually. That was what i tried to mean with "banning the idea from people's minds " Of course you can't eradicate the idea of racism without education and helping them to be more open-minded

[ls]

I wanna say yes, but no, because it will probably just lead to google (as they already do to an extent) getting rid of loads of kinds of other images more easily, it'll probs just set a precedent which will backfire in the end.

[Tatarin]

Capitalism should be banned from Google.

[NaxalbariZindabad]

(forgive my bad english) Any type of censorship by the State or corporations is bad for the people. Even fascist websites should be protected by bourgeois freedom of speech, because if there begins to be rules against far-right propaganda, it won't be long until anything that offers a serious criticism of the system is targeted, including sites like Revleft. (Everyone here knows how capitalists like to say that communism=fascism.)

The state and corporations aren't fair judges about what should be protected or not. The masses should mobilize directly to combat backward ideas. We shouldn't rely on the bourgeoisie for stuff like that or it will backfire against the people.

It's so easy for legislators or corporations to start with opposition to racism, then sexism, and then to anti-nationalism (like in India), discrimination based on social class (like some eastern European countries), attacks against religion, "morality", you name it.

For example:

Any defamation of the country and the nation, any instigation to a war of aggression, to national, racial, class or religious hatred, any incitement to discrimination, territorial separatism, or public violence, as well as any obscene conduct contrary to morality shall be prohibited by law. (From the Romanian constitution (http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=2#t2c2s0a30))If Google were to remove the picture in question, due to the reactions it created, what would be next? Catholics could start pressuring Google to remove pictures like this (http://poligraphic.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/nazi_pope.jpg), and they would have a pretty good case too I guess, from their perspective. This could easily be a Pandora's box.

Anyway, Google isn't a website, it's a tool to find what's existing on the net. It shouldn't be held responsible for what users find when they use this tool.

[Saorsa]

No. Don't be stupid.

[Vendetta]

No. Don't be stupid.

This. Freedom of speech goes both ways, folks. The key point shouldn't be banning it, it should be education on the subject.

[Patchd]

No, it's not about freedom of speech, 'freedom of speech' as a concept is a good one, to the point where it does not cross into you using arguments which have no actual scientific basis for to intimidate, oppress, spread hatred of and stir up violence against groups of people for who they are. The protection of communities, and essentially, of lives, takes precedence.

But, I still won't agree with Google (nor the state for that matter) administrating anything, in many cases, they use stronger powers for themselves against the workers' movement (take the banning of the hammer and sickle image in some Eastern European states). Agreed completely with Q as well, it is the task of the workers' movement to crush racism, not an exploitative, profit making business like Google. Whilst they uphold capitalism, they uphold racism, to let them administer their sites to 'combat racism' is like having a 19th century Southern US slave master give a talk arguing for racial equality within the slave economy.

[mel]

Google could get in legal trouble for doing so, if they start being selective about which content they index and do not index, then they have to make a good faith effort to do so for all content, this means that every media conglomerate in existence could start suing google for indexing "infringing content". As such, google will probably never do it.

In addition, I don't know that they really should if it were plausible. Google indexes content, it should not police it. It's the job of leftists to eliminate racism from the society and the internet, not the job of capitalist enterprises.

[Yazman]

Google already censors enough content from their search engines. I'm sick to death of it, and while I do not condone racism in any form, I also do not feel that censorship is the way to stop it.

They should stop censoring.

[Cowboy Killer]

What would banning racist images from google do to stop racism? You cant stop them from existing and what if you wanted to research racism?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What would banning racist images from google do to stop racism?

it would decrease the circulation of racist material on the internet

[Manifesto]

What picture exactly? All I see are a bunch of pictures of her in Google.

[Chapter 24]

I'm sure Google is waiting with baited breath for the democratic opinion of the leftists here on revleft to make this decision.

And I'm sure Stalin's corpse thanks you for defending him against ultra-lefts.

No, of course Google doesn't give a shit about our opinion. That's not why people are discussing it, and in fact acknowledgment on behalf of the entity people talk about almost always never happens. That's why we talk about Catholic priests molesting altar boys without bringing up the fact that the Vatican won't give a flying fuck what any of us have to say about it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm shocked by this thread, tbh


Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

[Das war einmal]

I should use these google images to trace these racist and put them to justice. You really shouldn't ban them all at once, just steadily

[black magick hustla]

holy shit no. a call for the state to ban this stuff is also a call for he state to bun this website. there is nothing socialist about calling the pigs to do this kind of stuff

[robbo203]

A racially offensive picture of Michelle Obama is top of Google's search results. Should they police their content?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

The problem is not only would this do little to stop racism - it might even have the opposite effect - but once you start talking about censorship there is no knowing where this will stop. Next, socialist revolutionaries might be in the firing line for promoting provocative views about expropriating the expropriators. Im against further empowering the already powerful with the right to determine what is "acceptable" or not

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

What if I want to do a project on how racist images contribute to negative stereotypes about minority groups? You banning racist images is going to make it rather difficult for me to do that project.

Banning images is not cool. There are certain things you might be able to justifiably ban. But literary and artistic expression. I mean, that's kind of one of the important things to keep around.

Even if it was beneficial to stopping racism, isn't there something to be said for the value of free speech. Even though you never would, doesn't it make you feel sort of fuzzy realizing you could say something completely despicable "if you wanted to?"

I mean here is another example. If you have a near perfect society, is it justifiable to put chips in people that prevent them from killing others. Not in my book. Knowing that you "could" kill others makes you feel like you have control over your life.

The ability to do something has value even if you'll never do that "thing." I'd say the same applies to racist images. I admit this might be because I'm a bit of a childish person. But I just don't like being told what to do - even if it's for a good reason.

[ComradeMan]

A racially offensive picture of Michelle Obama is top of Google's search results. Should they police their content?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

No, as others have stated- banning images doesn't make the issues underlying them go away.

Better to highlight the image and expose it as racist- that way you set an example.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

"racist imagery" in the context of an academic or encyclopedic article is not racist, as it does not seek to nor does it inadvertantly accomplish racist oppression

racism, as has been widely discussed on this forum in the past, is the oppression of people based on the social construct of race
racism is carried out by or for the interests of the ruling class
to repress racist expressions is always in the interest of workers

[RedFruit]

No for numerous reasons.
1) If you ban racist images the people who created them are still there. We need to get racism out of the heads of the people.
2) It is very hard (and technically nearly impossible) to categorize every image in "racist" or "not racist".
3) It doesn't change anything.
4) You can use another search engine.
5) Other things (like evil communist pictures) might be banned in the future also.

Edit: The German Google does already ban sites which deny the holocaust (e.g. StormFront).

[Soldier of life]

What picture exactly? All I see are a bunch of pictures of her in Google.

Are you saying all black people look the same?


Racist pictures should not be banned by google, as said already they may be a bit selective with what they ban. And anyway, it wont achieve much.

[Manifesto]

Are you saying all black people look the same?

I don't think so since I said pictures of her.