Yesterday Michael Hoffman published the response he received from Google about their removal of his revisionist videos. They said they had gotten complaints alleging the videos violated Google’s hate speech policy. Google didn’t say they looked into the complaints and found grounds for them. They simply said they received complaints, took them at face value, and acted accordingly.

I surmise that what they got were suggestions that it would be bad for business to continue to provide resources for Hoffman’s videos. As I said in my letter to Google’s CEO, no one questions their right to offer and withhold their resources as they see fit. When they withhold them selectively, however, we have the right to ask what that means.

Here's more evidence that's something's rotten in Mountain View, California. When one Googles “Communist Party USA,” the caption under the first “hit” reads: “A militant, activist, working class party that unites workers, students, professionals and farmers from various backgrounds in a fighting organization.” Obviously written by a Party member, not created by Google. If, however, one searches for “David Irving,” one gets a caption that Irving did not compose and is, in fact, nowhere to be found on the site linked above it:

“Web site of disgraced British Holocaust denier David Irving.”

Let’s try the Institute for Historical Review:

“Site of the world's leading Holocaust denial organisation.”

Again, even if some would find that description accurate, that’s not how they would describe themselves. Finally I Googled “David Duke,” and got:

“The official web site of the former Klan leader.”

Surely not the bio tidbit Dr. Duke is most proud of.

Do the same searches on Clusty, one of Google’s competitors (yes, Google has competitors) and compare the results.

Just how did those unflattering descriptions find their way onto Google’s hit pages? To paraphrase Professor Butz, fear explains a great deal. What fear drives Google's behavior?

The following letter was mailed today.

Dr. Eric Schmidt, CEO
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043

Dear Dr. Schmidt,

I can only imagine the business pressure Google must have been under that led to its accession to the demands of the Chinese Communist government to prevent its citizens from gaining access, via Google, to content that displeases the powers that be. I do not condone it, but I understand it.

What I do not understand is how two of Michael Hoffman’s programs, once available through Google Videos, “do not comply with our [Google’s] policy guidelines.”

The timing of Google’s censorship raises suspicions of, once again, caving in to pressure:

1. Two days ago, David Irving, who has earned his living by writing and speaking and who appears in one of Hoffman’s videos, has been sentenced by an Austrian court to three years in prison for writing and speaking in ways that displease the powers that be.

2. A few weeks ago, Deborah Lipstadt, who successfully defended herself from his libel suit against her (with virtually unlimited financial resources at her disposal), described one of Hoffman’s Google videos as “dripping with hatred.”

I had viewed that video, and while hatred of “Amalek” is the video’s theme, hatred is not the mood of the presenters, unless Lipstadt’s fiat is infallible. Was it for Google? If not, how did the video fail to comply with Google’s guidelines?

Google’s actions invite the inference that the power of Lipstadt (and kindred souls) and the Chinese Communists to induce Google to censor its content is roughly equivalent.

Google has the right to censor its content, but the rest of us have the right to ask what its particular acts of censorship mean.

Sincerely,

Anthony Flood

"Whenever the State involves itself in arguments about the truth, disputes between opinions become disputes between opinions and power."

NEWS RELEASE FROM THE LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE
In Association with the Libertarian International

Release Date: Saturday 18th February 2006
Release Time: Immediate

Contact Details:
Dr Sean Gabb, 07956 472 199,

For other contact and link details, see the foot of this message Release url:

"FREEDOM OF SPEECH MEANS RIGHT OF DAVID IRVING TO DENY HOLOCAUST", SAYS FREE MARKET AND CIVIL LIBERTIES THINK TANK

At 9:30am on Monday the 20th February 2006, Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, will appear on Sky News to defend freedom of speech in general, and in particular the right of controversial historian David Irving to say anything he likes about the holocaust.

Mr Irving is awaiting trial in Austria for the supposed crime of denying or minimising the holocaust.

Commenting ahead of the broadcast, Dr Gabb says:

"Either freedom of speech means the right to say anything at all about politics, religion, science or history, among much else - or it means nothing at all.

"There are those who say they believe in freedom of speech, but then insist that the promotion of 'hatred' does not come within the meaning of free speech. The Libertarian Alliance utterly rejects this supposed distinction. What some call the promotion of hatred others call telling the truth. In any event, we believe in the right to promote hatred by any means that do not fall within the Common Law definition of assault.

"Whenever the State involves itself in arguments about the truth, disputes between opinions become disputes between opinions and power. And the State has neither special ability nor the right to decide what opinions may be true or false.

"Whatever we may think about what he claims, whatever we may think about the motivation for his claims, the claims Mr Irving makes regarding the holocaust are a matter to be settled by historical debate - not by the criminal law.

"If Mr Irving is found guilty by the Austrian court, he will be as much a prisoner of conscience as any of the politically correct prisoners that the Potemkin 'human rights' organisations - such as Amnesty International - like to defend, while refusing to defend the rights of holocaust deniers and anti-semites.

"We also note with distaste that those journalists throughout Europe who are congratulating each other on how brave and liberal they have been over the anti-Moslem cartoons have not said a word for the freedom of Mr Irving to express himself.

"The Libertarian Alliance believes in freedom of speech for all - WITH NO EXCEPTIONS."

The Libertarian Alliance further believes:

The next time the spirit moves those principled, free-speech heroes in Copenhagen, Rome, Paris, and Berlin to mock a religion, maybe it will be the legally protected one. Now wouldn't that be interesting?


Click to enlarge.

Perhaps some of them will think of entering Iran's Holocaust cartoon contest.