Google Censors Scientology Critic

from the search-engine-censorship? dept

Soylent writes “Daily Rotten has a story about how Google is censoring the Internet’s leading critic of the Church of Scientology, Operation Clambake. The site has been completely removed from the search engine and from the Google Directory, which uses data from the Open Directory Project, DMOZ.”

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Google Censors Scientology Critic”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Robert Loch (user link) says:


It is good to see the law in action ‘We removed certain specific URLs in response to a notification submitted by the Religious Technology Center and Bridge Publications under section 512(c)(3) of the the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Had we not removed these URLs, we would be subject to a claim for copyright infringement, regardless of its merits. The URLs included in that notification are attached to this email.’ I thought that Google had integrity. They claim that they will not remove links, but a soon as anyone puts a little pressure on them they cave. Does this statement mean nothing? ‘Google views the quality of its search results as an extremely important priority. Since Google is committed to providing thorough and unbiased search results for our users, we cannot participate in the practice of censoring information on the world wide web.’ It appears that all you have to do to have something censored is threaten a law suit. Don’t worry about whether it has any merit; Google won’t fight.

Mike (profile) says:


Actually, the DMCA is pretty clear on this. If Google didn’t remove it, they almost certainly would have been facing a ridiculously long and expensive lawsuit.

Yes, it’s a TERRIBLE law, but legally, this was what Google was required to do. We’ve spoken about this before. I’m actually impressed with the letter Google wrote explaining this to the site. This shouldn’t be Google’s fight. It should be’s.

Mark Fox says:

Re: Re: DMCA

Mike stated “If Google didn’t remove it, they almost certainly would have been facing a ridiculously long and expensive lawsuit.

Well that’s just the price of being the leading search engine. If people start to think that Google is just providing links what other people want them to, then they will not use Google anymore.

Mike (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: DMCA

Actually… that’s not true. That’s not the price of being a search engine, as far as I can tell. Google has always removed links to copyrighted material (such as archive material) at the request of the copyright holders.

In this case THE LAW IS CLEAR. Google will lose the case because they are breaking the law.

Again, this isn’t Google’s fight. While I agree that it would be nice to see someone challenge the DMCA on this particular point, I don’t think Google has any obligation to break the law.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...