Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 6:51 PM
Thu Dec 10
72 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
| Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Lizzie Skurnick
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/25/09
11/25/09
Their blog is:
0hot-girls. blogspot.co m
The post is:
h ttp://0hot- girls.blogspot.com/2009/10/michelle-obama. html
[remove spaces]
The link to report a blog is here:
[www.google.com]
NOTE: GOING TO THE POST WILL INCREASE ITS RANKING IN GOOGLE.
11/25/09
11/24/09
11/25/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
The solution to this problem isn't censorship. The solution is never censorship.
11/25/09
11/25/09
The concept of censorship applies to abridgement of free speech. The only entity that can abridge free speech pursuant to the First Amendment is the U.S. government.
If Google pulls the picture, that is not censorship. They are a corporate entity, not a governmental one. The only way such an action would be tantamount to censorship, even allegedly, is if they were found to have done so at the affirmative behest of the government. And even that action is permitted if it's determined to have constituted a compelling state interest.
You don't have to believe me. You can look it up.
11/25/09
It is not specific only to the government. You honestly think censorship only applies to the government, and then only to the US government, and then only to the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights? No. That's absurd.
I didn't have to look it up. I already know the facts.
11/25/09
I was using the definition that, you know, professionals use. Your definition appears to be a bit more broad.
*eyeroll*
I have a few things to do other than argue about it this morning, though. Have a nice day.
11/25/09
11/24/09
11/25/09
11/24/09
I understand where they are coming from. I hesitate to use Bing because it is owned by Microsoft and I don't trust the neutrality of the results. I don't like the idea of a huge corporation controlling that quantity of information.
This entire thing saddens me so deeply, though. I was so excited when Obama was elected and I knew that some ugliness was going to be dredged up, but I never imagined it would be as bad as it has been. I guess I was more of an optimist than I realized and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Pessimist Squad, that's saying something.
11/24/09
11/24/09
There really isn't such thing as a neutral position.
11/24/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/24/09
even worse to me is the fact that this family has only been in the white house for less than a year. we had 8 years with george w. bush and yes, he got slammed a lot but usually for justifiable reasons. how on earth would you justifty "satirizing" (ugh, this is not even close to that but i'm sure that's how it's argued) the first wife within her first few months in the public eye? what has she done to deserve this?
losing my faith in humanity is not helping me stay concise or coherent, i'm sure.
i'm going to go peruse michelle obama style to try to balance out this bullshit.
11/25/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
Am I out of the loop I've never heard this word before
11/24/09
11/25/09
11/24/09
I tried to come up with an example of something equivalent that I am sensitive to. I tried to imagine what it would feel like if I typed "rape survivor" into google and, instead of support groups, the first hits were "Why raping women is fun fun fun male bonding activity!" or "Those dumb sluts were asking for it!" Or what if I typed in "woman" and the first result was "bitches should stay in the kitchen." And if this were the case and Google simply wrote a disclaimer "Google does not agree with this statement," I'm not entirely sure how I would feel. I would be relieved that Google felt it necessary to put the disclaimer, but I'm not sure if that would feel adequate to me. This is because misogyny feels like a THREAT to me. Racism is more... abstract, because it's not something I live with every day. But there are many, many others who do live with it every day, and to them a picture of a monkey with earrings is more than just offensive. It is a clear statement: "yeah, there may be one of 'yours' in the white house, but you better watch your back. You are still not safe here."
Sorry this is so long, but I guess I'm just trying to say that I feel... ambivalent about Google's response. I don't know if that can or should do anything beyond the disclaimer, but the more I think about it, the less satisfied I am.
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
And what you mentioned at the end, do they believe there is actually no racism against them?
11/24/09
11/25/09
It's just because it doesn't hurt them deliberately that they don't see it.
(It's one of those "if and only if" statements that I don't know the formal logical lexicon for. I was so intimidated by my TA that I didn't do well in that class. I kick myself frequently as a result.)
11/25/09
#tips
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
lulz is the first thing that comes to mind when I think about misogyny and racism.
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/25/09
11/24/09