On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com> wrote: This story says the SMH one is misleading: http://www.inquisitr.com/57105/aus-media-gets-ed-story-wrong/ The statement from Google in that story is "We respond to complaints and review them by reference to local law. In this case, we have removed the search results on google.com.au linking to the pages identified to us by a legal request. In the interest of transparency, the search results now provide notice that pages have been removed in response to a legal request and in their place is a link to Chilling Effects." The complaint was sent it the Australian Human Rights Commission, and it appears they decided the links were against Australian law and asked Google to remove them. -Sage

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com> wrote: If censoring some things (like "the most offensive sorts of racial vilification you could possibly find"), and refusing to censor other things (like an historical account of a pro-democracy demonstration), is hypocrisy, then let me be the first to say that I'm in favor of hypocrisy.