Re the ice manufacturer/picking analogy, think of it this way: the "business model" of the ice companies was providing a service and delivering a product to consumers that, due to advances in technology, they were able to completely assume themselves. The refrigerator, not the ice manufacturers, now directly provides the service and the product consumers desire (the ice). In the case of copyright, on the other hand, consumers are still consuming the specific and unique product and service of the middlemen -- that is, the content funded and owned by the labels/studios/publishers -- without any compensation. Properly understood, the business model of content owners has not been outdated by technology; the Internet does not itself create or fund any content. Rather, it has provided a more efficient way to copy and share the product of another. That is in no way analogous to the ice manufacturer whose service was entirely replaced by a technology that now creates the identical product iteself.
It should also be noted that comparing ice (a physical product) to IP (non-physical) is something that IP detractors generally disdain. The hypocrisy seems clear.
Please identify the "good filters" and provide any evidence you may have that the US public is able, willing, and benefited by using those filters. It should be remembered that not all citizens of the United States have regular access to high-speed Internet or even computers.
So, I'll ask you the same question: should I remove the first comment on this post?
That depends. Are you asking if you should remove the link so as to avoid secondary liability? If so, the Supreme Court's inducement test is fairly limited and straightforward: "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties." (Grokster at 936-37). If your website became a haven for infringing links and you knew of and encouraged such activity, then Techdirt could, theoretically, be held secondarily liable for copyright infringement. However, as should be fairly evident, a single post would not likely subject Techdirt to inducement liability under the Court's Grokster test.
Should Google remove the links to the very same content?
Perhaps. I don't know that Google is (or has been) taking affirmative steps to foster infringement by third parties, but then again, there isn't a full record before us on the matter. There is such a record in the isoHunt case, however, and as I've stated before, it's a fairly egregious case of inducement.