WARNING: Content may be objectionable

Suppose you were to enter a website address from your home computer (versus a public computer) and you were met with a sign like this:

  

What would you think? You'd think this is something you wouldn't want to see, right? Google-owned eBlogger has placed this sign before a Massachusetts-based website that raises concerns about promoting homosexual rights, called Mass Resistance.

For the most part, e-Blogger's content standards found HERE are pretty loose. 

Blogger is a free service for communication, self-expression and freedom of speech. We believe Blogger increases the availability of information, encourages healthy debate, and makes possible new connections between people.

We respect our users' ownership of and responsibility for the content they choose to share. It is our belief that censoring this content is contrary to a service that bases itself on freedom of expression.

In order to uphold these values, we need to curb abuses that threaten our ability to provide this service and the freedom of expression it encourages. As a result, there are some boundaries on the type of content that can be hosted with Blogger. The boundaries we've defined are those that both comply with legal requirements and that serve to enhance the service as a whole.

But even Google has its limits of what it will allow to be published on its free e-Blogger service.  It will censor some pornography and obscenity, as well as violent content and personal information disclosures. 

It's Googles' limits of "hateful content" that Mass Resistance author Amy Contrada has run into while publishing a post entitled GLAD: Perversion, Public Sex and Censorship.  The post was evidently too much for gay rights activists.  They complained to Google about the post's offensiveness, and the warning sign appeared, justified in Google's minds that the Mass Resistance sign post deserves partial censorship because of Bloggers' content guideline:

 

HATEFUL CONTENT:  Users may not publish material that promotes hate toward groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity.

Amy writes:

So -- now that this blog has made history as possibly the first to be semi-blocked by Google for “objectionable content” -- what exactly is it that is so effective on this blog? First, we publish only facts, “uncomfortable truths,” not rumors or personal attacks. And obviously, our photos reveal the ugly truth. Then, we identify those public figures who are twisting the law to enable public perversion and subversion of our youth and culture.

The post merely points out activities of the well-known radical homosexual activist group called "GLAD." That's hateful?  Who determines what's hateful? 

While conservatives have been resisted by school boards and public libraries for years for filtering efforts to protect minors from illegal obscenity images on computers, simply exposing the sinister agenda of groups like GLAD are now considered censorable under the "hateful content" definition. 

Hatefulness has new connotations in federal and state laws, especially when activities criticize sexual orientation.  Thinking critically of lifestyles and speaking your mind either vocally or by written word against any lifestyle could be soon considered a federal crime, especially protecting homosexual, bi-sexual or transgender sexual behavior.

Google's standards do not qualify as fair or discerning.  They're broad and questionably enforced.  Just know that without public outcry, this new practice of squashing traditional moral views will spread and more and more, you'll be seeing Google's Content Warning, especially when scanning conservative websites that address moral issues like we do here on Illinois Review. 

Comments

[suzy]

well anything with words like gay, homosexual, will get that banner. Google uses a robot search for "objectionable" words and content...

shouldn't google protect your children for you ?

[suzy]

PS this banner warning has been around for almost 2 years and don't kid yourselves into thinking its targeted specifically at the site in question.

[IR]

Suzy,
Your point that the banner has been around for 2 years makes the point that Mass Resistance has been targeted because of it's content.

Where was such protection for the blatant ignorant lies about Sarah Palin and her children? Why would quoting the same things published on GLAD's website suddenly become offensive because it's included on Mass Resistance?

Why are websites such as Planned Parenthood's explicit question and answer blog not protected similarly?

It's not the words "gay" and "homosexual" that Google finds offensive -- it's that the words are negatively written about that's so bad.

Suzy, are you the Democrats' new IR-assigned troll? If so, how much do we taxpayers pay you to take over discussions on blogs like ours?

[suzy]

IR you are technically illiterate... there is nothing personal about the google word robots. You might as well yell at a TV.

But thanks for showing just how paranoid you really are. Now you know what its like when google filters (designed for China) hits a blog as "adult". Good luck getting the little man in the computer to bend to your will.

[IR]

Then you're denying Google's own explanation: "Some readers of this blog have contacted Google because they believe this blog's content is objectionable..."

That's not a technological issue, it's a human complaint per their explanation.

You're saying Google is lying or that you know more than what they're willing to reveal?

Again then, if it's censored based on content, why aren't gay and homosexual sites censored? They use those words a lot ...

[Paul, Just This Guy, You Know?]

My site uses those words, and I've never gotten such a screen.

[Save our Constitution]

I think you guys are missing the point.
If I am correct this means the gays have complained or marked as offensive" this site because they don't like it that this site is speaking against them.

We can do the same thing to the gay sites: complain that they are offensive! check the box to mark as offensive.Or contact Goggle or who ever?

The next thing you can do, and ask all your friends to do, is call your Congressmen and Senators and demand they protect freedom of speech on both sides. Protect our right to complain that this is perversion based on our religion and the religion that the laws of this great nation was founded on!!

If this nation is going to protect speech against the muslims and perverts, they damn well better protect our religion too! If we all, don't speak out to our leaders they will run rough shod over Christianity, and Obama the Homo-Muslim!, will be the leader of it all!

[spintreebob]

Suzy,
You are technically naive. The filters of google and other sites are biased to capture the negativity (or not) of the usage of words. This occurs not just in political/social issues, but in technology bias also.

For example, some sites are champions of google or yahoo or microsoft or oracle or xxx and filter out negative content or links to negative content about their favorite. Wikipedia, Snopes, etc are example of bias that is not just limited to poltiics but extends to anything they disrepect as not worthy of their site.