Google joins Microsoft, Yahoo and others in agreeing to omit web content the Chinese government finds objectionable.

Google officials characterized the censorship concessions in China as an excruciating decision for a company that adopted "don't be evil" as a motto. But management believes it's a worthwhile sacrifice.

"We firmly believe, with our culture of innovation, Google can make meaningful and positive contributions to the already impressive pace of development in China," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's senior policy counsel.

I imagine Google is going to get enormous flack for this--but not from me.

The reality is that the U.S. also imposes restrictions on Google and other public information systems in a number of ways. One that comes to mind is bomb-making instructions. Sen. Feinstein amendment to a 1997 Defense appropriations bill made it a crime to distribute bomb-making instructions in the U.S. or incur a fine of $250,000.00 and a prison sentence of up to 20 years.

Now, it worth noting that the Feinstein amendment passed 94-0. Now a real hard-core libertarian might argue that this is just evil, but to most Americans the Feinstein amendments seems a sensible action and that being the case, we have to consider that some censorship is acceptable.

The guiding principle here is that censorship serves the interests of the general public--our right to know is outweighed by the public's interest in such information being constrained, which brings me to my conclusion.

The American view of the public interest isn't a universal ethic. Notably we think free speech is a great idea--very few other countries take the same view. The fact is that Americans have a much greater tolerance for persistent public conflict than any country I've ever spent any time in (Canada, western Europe) and those were all soi-disant western-style democracies. In fact most other democracies are characterized by an abiding desire for order.

I'm not sure it is useful in applying an American ethic to a Canadian, Chinese or Dutch situation. The are entitled to determine their own "national interest". China is in tumult at the moment. The economic prosperity is creating both opportunities and problems and any government would have a devil of a time trying to keep the lid on. Relative to the Russians, the Chinese have managed their transformation from a moribund directed economy quite well. They are managing the pace of change and it seems a little ridiculous for Americans to insist on acceleration when they aren't sitting in the wagon.

While "Do No Evil" is a wonderfully idealistic motto, its still rather silly for a commercial enterprise. Google is a public company with shareholders who want one thing from their investment--a return. That is really the sole ethic that Google management should be guided by and yet for all its singularity, its very broad. Lots and lots of things affect a return on investment, including inane issues like whether or not to allow Salvation Army bell-ringers out in front of the store. They can either be in the Chinese market and profit by it, or they can sit on the sidelines eating an empty plate of ideals. Ultimately, its always a mistake to impose private morals into the public sphere.--didn't we learn that lesson during the Renaissance?

The Tension joins me in pragmatist land...

T-Salon notes that Google promises to inform Chinese users when content is censored

The Zero Point disagrees

California Conservative, Michelle Malkin, The Stones Cry Out
Kaiser Snuggle, Vodkapundit