Offensive
\nSearch Results<\/FONT><\/EM><\/B><\/A>. It says the Google Team is also “disturbed” by the
\nresult, and it apologizes for “the upsetting nature of the experience you had” if you had done the
\nsearch. <\/P>
\nBut it also says the automated system for ranking sites, which determines the order of the
\nlistings, is “completely objective.” Further, it points out, “the only sites we omit are those we are
\nlegally compelled to remove or those maliciously attempting to manipulate our result.” And in any
\ncase, it says, Google “cannot be influenced” by petitions. So the anti-Semitic Web
\nsite remains a top search result.<\/P>
\n
If you type in “Christian” the top site you get is for the newspaper The Christian Science
\nMonitor<\/FONT><\/EM><\/B><\/A>, immediately followed by a pro-Christian Web
\nsite<\/FONT><\/EM><\/B><\/A>. If you type in “Muslim” the top site listed is a pro-Muslim
\nsite<\/FONT><\/EM><\/B><\/A> under construction that is partnered with a religious Muslim
\neducational site<\/FONT><\/EM><\/B>.<\/A><\/P>
\nQuestion: Is the issue a matter of free speech vs. hate speech, as one petitioner says? Seems
\nto me Google has done the correct thing. If anyone can make the case in court to remove the
\noffensive anti-Semitic site from the search engine, that would be the way to go. Google already
\nsays it’s willing to comply. Barring that, free speech should rule. What do you think?<\/P><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
They’ve even noticed the controversy in India. Until the other day if you typed the word “Jew” into Google, the first search result turned out to be a link to an anti-Semitic Web site. A group called removejewwatch wants the site removed from the Google search engine and is asking at least 50,000 people to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-629","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-main","7":"entry"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pbvgEs-a9","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/629","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=629"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/629\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=629"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}