Google Supresses Jawa Report for 'Hate Speech'

This news is disturbing.

For several months, Dr. Rusty Shackleford at The Jawa Report has been an approved provider of news reports for Google News. However, everything changed yesterday when Google notified Rusty that he was de-listed because The Jawa Report contained hate speech. The accusation of hate speech was not supported by evidence nor example. This is tantamount to the flight attendant stating:

"I'm afraid, Dr. Shackleford, you're doing something we don't like, so please get off the plane. We're not going to tell you what we don't like, but until you can guarantee it won't recur, your privileges are revoked."

It would be nice to claim a double standard exists for the definition of 'hate speech' but, in reality, there is no universal definition. 'Hate speech' is defined as a person desires. This explains why Ward Churchill's words are not hate speech, only contemptuous and defiant, even when he adds clarification by spitting in someone's face. At the same time, verses from the Bible are deemed hate speech by law. Consequently, I don't buy the explanation given by Google News. Without specifics, the definition of 'hate speech' is too mercurial to be a valid basis for anything. However, it works just fine as a catchall excuse.

As alternatives, I'd propose that one of the following reasons is actually the basis for removing The Jawa Report as an approved news source for Google.

1) The management of Google News disagrees with the content of The Jawa Report because it departs from the journalistic standards displayed by the New York Times and Al-Jazeera. This would be understandable were it that Google News fancies itself as part of the elite media and has adopted a policy agenda similar to the MSM. Unfortunately, in traditional terms, Google News is not part of the news media since, unless I'm mistaken, they have no writers. However, in contemporary terms, they have a major impact on the news media by functioning as an electronic traffic controller. As a traffic cop, Google apparently is taking on the responsibility for judging the acceptability of Internet content. I personally have a big problem with this concept.

2) Google News has received one or more complaints from individuals or organizations which disagree with the opinions expressed at The Jawa Report. And, it's entirely possible that Google received a threatening cease and desist letter. Neither complaints nor C & D letters are uncommon in the media. Even cooking shows receive them.

3) The legal advisors at Google News have expressed fears of imagined rulemaking by Congress or the FCC such that the patriotic conservatism of The Jawa Report would become an issue. A preventive move to drop The Jawa Report would then make sense if, and only if, the action were across the board. There's no evidence it is.

Despite my speculation on the reason for Google News dropping The Jawa Report, one thing is sure. One person made the decision. One unnamed person, influenced by something, decided. It would be nice to know that person's name. In my opinion, the action by Google News was an insult to Dr. Rusty Shackleford and The Jawa Report and someone should be accountable for the decision.

All in all, it was a pretty cheap shot by Google News.