Well What Did You Expect? 

Little Green Footballs notes that Google has removed The Jawa Report from Google News because it contains "hate speech". LGF contends that it's different than National Vanguard (a Neo-Natzi site) which was removed amid a big blogger buzz. I'm not going to argue over the relative worth of The Jawa Report vs. National Vanguard because frankly it's irrelevant.

Honestly though, what did you think was going to happen? We have to look at the reality of the situation here. Google News is an automated news aggregator. That's it. And what is news? This is the core of the argument. Basically defined, it is "information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by newspapers, periodicals, radio, or television." Should this be limited to straight facts about an occurrence? If so... than no current media organization meets that stringent standard. When was the last time you read anything from MSNBC or the NY Times that didn't offer some interpretation? In fact, journalists today are taught, and view it as their job, to interpret the news, not just to report it. It's just not journalists either... name one blogger who doesn't interpret the news. So should we get rid of those major media outlets also? What's left?

I'm sure there are plenty who would argue (as I'm sure LGF would) that we can be reasonable as to what is news, and what is not, and only remove those offending sites. Personally I think reasonableness went out the window a long time ago. Nobody is capable of being reasonable any more. People will always find a way to argue one way or another that if you exclude one site, you must exclude that one, and that one, and that one too. This is the painful result of our politically correct world. This is what is happening now with Google News. One group balked at National Vanguard, and now the groups that don't like Jawa Report are putting their two cents in.

So as I see it... the solution is simple. Exclude none of them. By including them all... the ugly thoughts, the racist interpretations, the heinous actions are brought into the light of day for all to see. By excluding sites like National Vanguard, we force them into the shadows, which frankly only serves to allow them to grow. Molds and pestilence thrive in the dark where few see it, or try to fight it. Bringing it into the light of day does not offer us a chance to push it back into the dark... it offers us a chance to destroy it with our thoughts, our news, our interpretations for all to see as well.

People who choose to exclude those sites are not afraid of what they have to say. They are afraid that people will listen to them. I have more faith in my fellow man that when confronted with that sort of thought, they can not only choose to listen to them, but they can also choose to disregard them knowing what they are. Choice is as much of a burden as it is a freedom. I choose freedom.