WND’s beef with Google misses the real threat of press censorship

By JIM BROOKS
Nelson County Gazette

Friday, Feb. 21, 2014, 11 a.m. — Joseph Farah, editor-in-chief of the World Net Daily website, recently claimed Google was attempting to censor WND after Google warned the site over the use of two-word term “black mob.”

Google apparently finds the term offensive and warned WND that if it continued to publish stories with the phrase it would begin blocking ads provided to WND via its Google Ads account.

Farah says Google is attempting to censor the site for writing stories that document black-on-black violence, and that the term “black mob” is used to describe just that — a black mob.

But if you look a little deeper into the story, you find that Google isn’t suggesting that it will block WND content — only that it will suspend WND’s use of Google ad services. Google has determined that the offending terms are considered hate speech under their terms of service.

In review, Google isn’t actually censoring WND content. Google believes WND content — specifically the use of “black mob” — violates its terms of service and Google is exercising its right to enforce those terms.

Farah’s editorial goes to great lengths to extol freedom of the press, and he’s spot on; however he is also ignoring Google’s right to refuse service to those who violate the terms of service.

Farah did not mention if he is in contact with Google to dispute their determination. He offers a thorough explanation of WND’s coverage of black-on-black violence and the more recent “knock-out game” coverage. Truth is a defense in libel cases, AND Farah cites WND reporting as using the term in a factual manner, without intent to inflame or offend.

WND is a conservative news website, and receives a great deal of criticism from — who else? — left-wing news sites like the Huffington Post Gawker for their right-of-center views and the columnists they publish.

Farah is correct in his assertion that free speech is protected against government censorship by the First Amendment. But he fails to note that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the censorship of one business by another. While I may not agree with Google’s determination, I respect their right to enforce their terms of service.

The real threat to free speech doesn’t come from Google, but from the FCC’s recently announced “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs.” With this initiative, President Obama’s FCC will grill radio and television broadcasters about how they select the news stories they broadcast.

The official goal is “to identify whether potential market barriers exist and, if so, whether those barriers affect diversity of media voices,” but the effect sounds rather ominous.

A Wall Street Journal op-ed by Ajit Pai, a Republican FCC commissioner, published Feb. 10 doesn’t mince words — the study will “thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country.”

Participation is voluntary, but as Pai noted, “the FCC’s queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years.”

We’ll see how this story develops — provided government regulators allow the Gazette to report on it.

-30-