Mohammed Cartoons, Google and Yahoo

Probably everything has been said that ought to be said about the Danish cartoons of Mohammed and the inspiring Muslim response. Americans, particularly the media, have generally taken the self-satisfied line that free speech is who we are and what we are about – “If you don’t like it, lump it,” “Sticks and stones” and all that.

Probably everything has been said that ought to be said about the Danish cartoons of Mohammed and the inspiring Muslim response. Americans, particularly the media, have generally taken the self-satisfied line that free speech is who we are and what we are about – “If you don’t like it, lump it,” “Sticks and stones” and all that.

Not quite. A secondary American position has been the need for “cultural sensitivity” and “respect” for religion and culture, which leaves enormous wiggle room in the concept. Google and Yahoo, two of America’s biggest icons of the free exchange of speech and information, wiggled right through.

According to Reuters (1/26) “Web search leader Google said on Tuesday it was introducing a new service for China that seeks to avoid a confrontation with the government by restricting access to services to which users contribute such as email, chat rooms and blogs. The new Chinese service… will offer a censored version of Google’s popular search system that could restrict access to thousands of terms and websites.”

Google’s official statement said, “products – such as Gmail and Blogger – will be introduced only when we are comfortable that we can do so in a way that strikes a proper balance among our commitments to satisfy users’ interests, expand access to information, and respond to local conditions.” The Chinese government is not “comfortable” with the mention of democracy, Tibet and Falun Gong. The Iranian government, we think, is not “comfortable” with the mention of Israel, liberty and women’s rights. The Nazis weren’t “comfortable” with the mention of Jews and homosexuality. At what point does the lack of comfort of a dictatorial regime take precedence over the right of the people to a free exchange of ideas that may not be comfortable?

Now we’re back to the Danish cartoons. But it gets worse.

Reuters (2/9) “Yahoo Inc. provided evidence to Chinese authorities that led to the imprisonment of an Internet writer, lawyers and activists said on Thursday, the second such case involving the U.S. Internet giant… Yahoo had co-operated with Chinese police in a case that led to the 2003 arrest of Li Zhi, who was charged with subverting state power and sentenced to eight years in prison after trying to join the dissident China Democracy Party… Yahoo gave public security agents details of Li’s registration as a Yahoo user, Liu said in an article posted on U.S.-based Chinese-language news portal Boxun, citing a defense statement from Li’s lawyers.”

So, where Google is only censoring information on behalf of the dictators, Yahoo is policing the sites and turning the dissidents in! Interestingly, Google is resisting efforts by the U.S. Justice Department to get information about commonly used sex search terms – hoping thereby to enforce existing online pornography laws. Yahoo, on the other hand, complied with a similar government subpoena, but “did not provide any personally identifiable information.” No, they only provide that to the Chinese government.

Yahoo and Google are not arms of the U.S. government, and the government should not try to make them provide full, private service in China or protect Chinese dissidents. But in the marketplace of ideas, free Americans should make known their belief in the importance of free speech and privacy.