Posted on 07/29/2009 4:40:54 AM PDT by massmike
Google has finally given its reason for blocking the MassResistance blog, but it took a call from Fox News in New York to get it. And it seems to be more political - and frightening - than anything else. Since 2005 the MassResistance blog has been hosted on Google's blogspot blogging site with few problems.
As we reported in a recent posting, for the last several weeks Google has been blocking the MassResistance blog with a warning screen alleging "objectionable content", (see above) and requiring readers to click through to get in. The block was put on almost immediately after researcher Amy Contrada posted some articles and photos from transgender and gay-pride related public events, in preparation for the July 14 transgender bill hearing.
First, the photos they object to are of homosexual and transgender activists doing bizarre things at public events on public streets, where uniformed police were present. Why weren't any of the people arrested for obscenity, one might ask, if Google finds it so offensive?
Second, none of the pictures show genitals or fully "nude" people. Interestingly, they are mostly pictures of women who have amputated their breasts to "become" men, and who are marching shirtless as a statement of their "masculinity". (Ironically, according to Google's own absurd transgender-support policies these women would be considered "men" anyway since that's their "gender identity!"
(Excerpt) Read more at massresistance.org ...
Amy Contrada:Homosexual newspaper publishes attack on MassResistance activist and 17-year-old daughter. Disgusting attempt to traumatize family.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/07c/attack_on_activist.html
Being "supportive" and "loving" is good. Isn't it? If I had a friend who felt that one of his/her/its eyes was not part of his true identity, I would support that friend's effort to remove the offending organ. Not only that, but after the surgery, I would refer to my friend as a Cyclops if that was my friend's desire. After all, cosmetic changes are enough to alter more fundamental aspects of identity.
The sad thing is that many liberals would not recognize the absurdity of my comment. Perhaps I should have gone with an earthworm identity and steered the picture toward "Boxing Helena"?
later review.
Use Bing.com for your search engine.
I agree. I don't want my kid to be able to see these pictures you describe.
I went over and barged throught the warning. I must say a warning is almost necessary, there are some UGLY people pictured on that site.
Mostly people who are homosexual because they couldnt attract the opposite sex even if they tried.
“I must say a warning is almost necessary, there are some UGLY people pictured on that site.”
I did see a lot of people whose appearance set off warning signs in my head that they’ve got some issues....
Google blocks the site for political reasons, not obscenity. As Google is a private company, there is no 1st amendment violation. It does damage Google’s reputation as a search engine when it blocks sites for reasons other than because they are illegal or a known source of viruses.
If safe search is turned off, as it is on my computer, sites shouldn’t be filtered because of content.
They’re just following Jesus’ advice to cut it off if it offend them. I’m sure that’s what he meant. /sarc
...But isn’t it funny that the very things that the gays DON’T want YOU to see are the same things that they fight to present to CHILDREN in school as “normal,natural,and healthy”?(..in spite of parental objections).
Oh come now, they are "normal". They were born that way so they MUST be normal.
Just like three legged frogs with 4 eyes are normal.
Google is not a government institution. What is it exactly you want here? To make them list your site? If they don’t want to list your site... It’s their business isn’t it (literally)?
Google is... Huge. I doubt there’s too much you can do in any sort of practical sense that would force them to list your site. If you had some massive planet destroying weapon you might be able to force them to, but failing that...
I would think that if google doesn’t list your site, advertise the search engines that do, and don’t sensor sites because of their political or other beliefs.
Then people will gradually learn and use the search engine that gives them a better, unbiased result for their searches.
The article and the headline are mismatched. Blocking a site means (at least so I thought) that you cannot view its content at all. The mass resistance page had a warning that you have to click through.
How is that blocking?
Did I miss something in the article?
Also, the claim that the blog is being “blocked” is not true. A warning comes up about potentially objectionable material, but you can still access the site, by clicking yes. There is a huge difference between warning users and letting them decide for themselves, and actually blocking access.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.