Google blocks blog exposing homosexual agenda

Google blocks blog exposing homosexual agenda

www.wnd.com

Google's blog hosting service, Blogger.com, admits that in the name of "free speech" some of its blogs are "offensive, harmful, inaccurate," but when one of its clients blogged in opposition to a transgender rights bill, Google drew the line.

A day before the Massachusetts Legislature plans to review a controversial gender identity bill, Blogger.com blocked the blog of MassResistance, an organization that exposes the increasingly open agenda of the homosexual movement in Massachusetts, with

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is another act of violating the freedom of speech, especially on the internet. This is how the govt censors the media and the internet? Deplorable.

Some users had complained to Google that the content was objectionable but the blog had a disclaimer about it. The govt used this as an excuse to remove the blog, just before the bill was to be passed. Not a coincidence IMO

There are terms and conditions for posting to a blog on the internet, but let the people decide if there is any hatred created or not. The govt otherwise uses it to it's own benefit

www.wnd.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

How is this the government taking away free speech? Blogger.com had full rights to delete the blog if it is stated in the T&C

reply to post by scghst1

How is this the government taking away free speech? Blogger.com had full rights to delete the blog if it is stated in the T&C

The blog was removed just one day before the bill review, isnt that suspicion enough, that the govt was behind removal of the blog (the blog was online since 2005, and only now they found out that it promotes hatred?)

And how can google prove that it indeed promoted hatred?

I guess it seems like a conspiracy instead of NWO or anything. But thats just me. You are right on the prospect that it has been active for a few years and now just being closed... i find it strange too

To be honest, isn't that website a privately owned company, much like google itself? far as i recall, the private internet companies don't have to cater to freespeech if they are disinclined to. the government isn't supposed to be able to censor you on the internet, however....that's apparently not what happened here. you would just like to believe that because it's "suspicious".

maybe what really happened was, blogger.com didn't want to get sued by a special interest group opposed to that particular blog, or they were bought off by someone, or that blog violated their t&c's . any possible number of real reasons, beyond "suspicious government control schemes".

perhaps not every company is so greedy they're willing to put up with hate against another group of people. and if that's so i say good on ya blogger.com.

Sensationalized title, anyone?

(Not you, OP, the WorldNetDaily article you posted )


Blogger.com didn't block anything. All they did was put up a little warning before you enter, stating that the content is objectionable and asking if you want to continue. The blog is still there in its entirety.

This was probably done because they received several complaints from users. It is the same as on youtube, when a video is rated by users and then youtube asks you to confirm your age before you view it (such as Aphex Twin's Rubber Johnny video).

Trying to make it seem like Google is blocking certain political views (when in reality it is based on user feedback) is sensationalizing at its finest. Again, I'm not blaming you, OP, I'm blaming WND.

Well, worldnetdaily isn't really a news source, it's a propaganda machine, so I'd be suspicious of anything I read on there. Think Faux News on tons of crack...

reply to post by drwizardphd

Trying to make it seem like Google is blocking certain political views (when in reality it is based on user feedback) is sensationalizing at its finest. Again, I'm not blaming you, OP, I'm blaming WND.

I did not check out the actual blog, just saw the article in Breitbart.com and that had a link to the world daily net article.

Do you have a link to the actual blog? I cant find it anywhere.

reply to post by sunny_2008ny


Blogger


Here is a link to the blog, I just googled it, the WND article didn't provide a link to it (probably because the entire premise of the article is wrong).

It says, in more words or less, that readers have found the blog to be objectionable. All you have to do is click 'continue' to go onto the blog. No content has been removed, nothing has been blocked.

reply to post by drwizardphd

Here is a link to the blog, I just googled it, the WND article didn't provide a link to it (probably because the entire premise of the article is wrong).

The link that you have given me is for Blogspot whereas the article talks about Blogger.com

These are 2 different websites. I tried massresistance.blogger.com and it gave me a page not found error. But I got the blog on massresistance.BlogSpot.com

Thanks for pointing it out !


[edit on 14-7-2009 by sunny_2008ny]

Originally posted by sunny_2008ny
The link that you have given me is for Blogspot whereas the article talks about Blogger.com

*.blogspot.com is the domain for Blogger. Same thing.

Originally posted by drwizardphd
reply to post by sunny_2008ny

 

Blogger


Here is a link to the blog, I just googled it, the WND article didn't provide a link to it (probably because the entire premise of the article is wrong).

It says, in more words or less, that readers have found the blog to be objectionable. All you have to do is click 'continue' to go onto the blog. No content has been removed, nothing has been blocked.

Case in point of worldnetdaily spewing total nonsense. Despite their claims that the blog was "blocked," the blog was, in fact, NOT blocked in any way. Yeesh, people are nuts...

"Gender Identity" WTF is that!? There is no such thing as a woman trapped in a mans body or vice versa, you are what you are born not what you think you were born and then subsequently go through multiple chemical and physical changes inorder to reflect. Why are these operations paid for by certain governments? It isn't hate speech, its a valid question.

To quote a stand-up comic I can't remember who made a great point: "If a man says he has a woman inside of him, nobody questions it but if I say I have napoleon inside of me, everyone thinks I'm crazy."

If someone chooses to be gay or have a surgery (thats NOT paid for by a state) to change their sex, thats their choice and I have no objection to that (them making a choice, not necessarily the choice itself). I probably make some (read: a lot of) personal choices that people frown upon and its ok for them to call me out on it because its their choice to disagree with what I choose to do. I'm free to make a choice and other people are free to criticize said choice.

Just own up that it is a choice. Thats it. Don't somehow divinely justify your choice with this "I was born....." nonsense. Thats called denial and an attempt to remove personal responsibility for said choice from the equation.

Men and Women are born to conceive children to further the existence of the species, and as such, they are wired chemically and physically to do so from birth. Thats not some religious conspiracy against your choice, its a fact. Now what those same men and women choose to do during their lives, is a choice which may or may not be influenced by chemicals in their brains.

Chemical imbalances happen to a lot of people in a lot of different ways. They make some people "unable" (by choice) to stop eating. They make others "unable" (by choice) to stop taking certain substances. And they make some people "unable" (by choice) to follow their genetics to procreate. Just because you have the genetics to be in great shape, doesn't mean you will choose to live a healthy lifestyle. Like wise, just because you are born with the capacity to concieve a child with a member of the opposite sex, does not mean you will choose to do so.

Just stop having all these parades and protests looking for people to accept your choice. They don't have to accept your personal choice if they don't want to. It isn't some kind of pseudo-racism like you are making it out to be. People can't choose their race, nor should they ever be able to.

Everyone's ancestors adapted different physical traits to cope with their living environment at the time and somehow finding someone's race to be "objectionable" is a sign of ignorance and as such, it should be condemned across the board. What you are doing, isn't an institution of the species to better its existence as racial traits are relative to the area of their origin, it is a personal choice of what you do for fun. What is wrong with some people objecting to what you do for fun?

The blog was what some would call not exactly politically correct.

BUT they are still up and no one has forced them to take their site down or remove or even edit ANY or their content. They are free to hate as much as they want.

The disclaimer is valid. There is some pretty strong language used and some questionable content pictures (even though they ARE of gay pride festivals).

Really simple to just click the age verification. I am not sure why the blogger is creating such a fuss. The timing does coincide with the vote regarding gay rights but I fail to see how the age restriction button is preventing anyone from accessing the information.

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


Aside from some "terms" (in most blogs of this nature, you would see far more terms and a lot less points), the language isn't all that strong really, infact (and quite ironically), the only questionable content is indeed the pictures which, as you have pointed out, are from the actual gay pride movement. The blog isn't riddled with profanity (it contains none actually from what I've seen) and it articulates its point well. Thats just from what I've seen of it, without knowing the full history and future direction of the blog, I will not endorse it.

The "expression" language in the bill is definitely something that should be debated especially along the lines of a male with a "female gender identity" who is also a pre-op "lesbian" using a woman's bathroom while also trying to pick them up. Honestly, logically process that one for a minute.

All that being said, I agree that they are causing a big fuss over nothing. Their blog is simply two clicks away now instead of one. There is no advanced blocking mechanism nor is the reason for instituting the screen in question a lie. It was due to the opinion of those on google, not google itself. They even say right in the disclaimer that they do not judge the content themselves. That also means that they don't endorse the objection to said material.

reply to post by Eitimzevinten

Intersex
What is it?
Intersex is a state where a newborn’s sex orgrans has anatomic characteristics of both sexes, making it impossible to identify the sex of the baby from its outward appearance. Sometimes, the genetic sex (as indicated by chromosomes) may not match the appearance of the sex organs.

Who gets it?
Intersex affects one in every 2,000 births.

What causes it?
Intersex may be caused by any abnormality in chromosomes or sex hormones, or in the unborn baby's response to the hormones. The condition can also be caused by congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a disease that blocks the infant’s metabolism and can cause a range of symptoms, including abnormal sex organs.

www.hmc.psu.edu...

If 1 in 2000 people are born with some ambiguity about their sex, it seems entirely likely to me that yes, there are people who could have very legitimate reasons for gender identity confusion, both with biological and psychological origins.

And to give you an idea of how complicated gender can be, let's break down the sorts of things that can occur, so we can see how common the numbers are.

Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births
Klinefelter (XXY) one in 1,000 births
Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births
Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births
Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals
Vaginal agenesis one in 6,000 births
Ovotestes one in 83,000 births
Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause) one in 110,000 births
Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother) no estimate
5 alpha reductase deficiency no estimate
Mixed gonadal dysgenesis no estimate
Complete gonadal dysgenesis one in 150,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft) one in 2,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis) one in 770 births
Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births
Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births

www.isna.org...

As a web developer, I have no sympathy for anyone involved.

This man used a private service (created by a corporation, Google) to produce something, and agreed to the terms of service before doing so. He knew when he was signing up (if he knew how to read) that Google could shut down his blog for no reason, should they simply want to.

My point: this guy should have picked a better blogging service. One that isn't run by Google. Move along guys, there are plenty of other blogging hosts who wouldn't have blocked his blog, while still getting all the same traffic he would from Blogspot.

Originally posted by drwizardphd
reply to post by sunny_2008ny

 

Blogger


Here is a link to the blog, I just googled it, the WND article didn't provide a link to it (probably because the entire premise of the article is wrong).

It says, in more words or less, that readers have found the blog to be objectionable. All you have to do is click 'continue' to go onto the blog. No content has been removed, nothing has been blocked.

Chalk another one up to wingnutdaily

Good catch drwizard!

Nice.

So this so-called "government censorship" turns out to be some guy posting a hate-freak rant, people objecting, and a warning getting stamped on it.

Boo hoo

We have freedom of speech.

You don't have the right to force private companies to post your hate-filled screed without a "here be dragons" warning - that's up to the company. Not the government.

What the hell is it with the martyr complex bigots have these days anyway?