Kodomo no Jikan
Today a new development appeared, courtesy of Tsurupeta (via Icarus): a loli doujinshi scanlator discovered that Google had removed them from all search results after a child pornography complaint from an unknown party.
Dance in the Vampire Bund was also removed
But it's pretty interesting, since Google just recently shut down their Chinese version due to interference and censorship from the Chinese government in favor of passing all of that traffic through Google Hong Kong. As Tsurupeta notes, it's not like loli doujinshi is comparable to political dissent, but it does show a certain inconsistancy when it comes to views on freedom of information.
More updates as events warrant, of course-- I would also recommend reading Icarus Publishing's blog post on the matter, which has some interesting viewpoints. (My favorite? "Who knew it was this easy to get a site delisted from Google? Maybe publishers fighting those scan aggregators have been going about it all wrong.")
Well Google delisting them from search results doesn't really violate any freedom of speech or even network netruality for that matter. If they were a government or an ISP that would be a different story but by restricting search results they aren't restricting the user from finding the site since the user can just use a different search engine or if they know the URL go straight to it themselves. In fact this is helping their competitors since the user may just decide to stick with another search engine that has that content listed instead meaning they don't see Googles ads in their search.
It is a hypocritical move on their side though considering how Google evangelises network netruality
I wanted to say something about Dance in the Vampire Bund: The anime isn't great (but its not bad) so the whole censorship problem is a bit silly now.
For Dance in the Vampire Bund to be removed is stupid. I haven't read the manga but the anime has any nudity white-d out. Many scanlators do the same thing to manga (blurring and darkening private parts). I'm ashamed Google did this since it's suppossed to take over the world. But I guess if you can't topple the Chinese government you just can't take on the world, let alone allow sites with "iffy" content containing lolis (lots of disdain and mockery).
I'm not saying that Google is like this now, but it's very easy to see a situation where if they start to censor a lot of things they shouldn't be, then when ever someone tries to make it public Google comes in and starts censoring them trying to tell people about the censorship. It's a very slippery slope to go down once they start censoring anything, no matter their intentions.
Given there willingness to submit to china's censorship laws, and now hearing about something like this, I'm starting to feel like using a different search engine if for no other reason then on principle. I know it's pointless, and Google could give a fuck if one less person in the world uses their search engine, but I just cant support anything or anyone who thinks censorship is acceptable in any situation.
Yes and no. From what I understand (and IANAL), because Google is a "service provider" to a certain extent like the phone company or your ISP, they operate under Safe Harbor provisions, which basically means that they can't get in trouble for anything that goes over their network unless they start descriminating over what goes over their network (this is part of the reason why there was and is a fuss over Net Neutrality, because that could in theory violate Safe Harbor).
So, in theory, Google could get in trouble for this.
Now, while Federal Statue 42 USC 13032 (according to ChillingEffects.org) requires that Google (or other ISPs) report sites that have Child Pornography to the proper authorities, and limits their liability for so reporting, it doesn't say anything about taking the site down and, according to the Cornell University Law School, if I'm reading it right, the section in question has been repealed, so Google may still be in hot water if, say, down the road someone wants to say that Google no longer has any sort of Safe Harbor protections because Google has delisted sites like this one when they didn't necessarily have to.
Well said, sotyfan16. I have noticed that ever since CNN began overblowing the Rapelay game, all of these new censorship rules seemed to have popped up and some of the "Loli" material has come under fire since the Wikipedia issue a week or two ago popped up. (see the AnimeVice story of The Next John Handley Case: The People vs Wikipedia?).
I personally think that they are overreacting to this issue of "Lolicon" material, but I do not bother with Loli material, so it does not affect me.
Google is not an ISP though. They are not providing access to the internet and last I checked this is what an ISP is. They provide many internet based services and products that are almost entirely sustained by advertisments but this is not what it means to be an ISP. However on checking the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (which smells of some of the shadiness that Bill C-61 had back before it died when the 39th session of Parliament was dissolved) it seems that they are included an an "OSP". (which is the first time I have ever heard of that term)
@HeeroYuy said:
I guess this was last amended before furries became more widly known. (it's the internet I'm sure somebody has put up some more animalistic than anthropomorphic loli furries before somewhere in the deep dark series of tubes)