[rbanffy]

You can choose between censorship and freedom of speech. You can't have it both ways.

Offensive speech is the small price you pay for your freedom. Enjoy it.

And, BTW, I live in a country where I am not given the luxury of being able to express some impopular points of view without risking being arrested.

[ugh]

What’s Google’s decision whether to sell crap like this got to do with freedom of speech?

It’s not that hard: The police arresting the asshole developers of those themes? That’s an attack on freedom of speech [+]. Google not allowing them to sell their stuff through the Android Market? Not so much. (I very much expect that Google will remove the themes. It’s no big deal.)

I think it’s ludicrous to even bring up freedom of speech in this context. You can install whatever you want on your Android phone. The developers can sell this theme on their own website and there is an officially supported way of installing third party stuff like this — it’s not like they have a right to be in the Android Market.

I really don’t know why Engadget puts this stupid spin on the story. Google might not be as prude or wimpy as Apple when it comes to curating their Market but I’m mystified why people would believe that Google won’t curate their Market at all. Android is freer than the iPhone because the Android Market is not the only way to install Apps, not because of the Android Market.

[+] Little excursion on constitutional freedoms: Their main purpose is to protect you from the state, not other citizens or groups of citizens (like companies).

[rbanffy]

> What’s Google’s decision whether to sell crap like this got to do with freedom of speech?

Everything.

I, personally, find it disturbing. But if it does not breach the ToS of the Android market, Google has no right to remove the materials. More than that: by removing it from the market, Google would be dictating the terms for censorship in the marketplace, making it difficult for neonazis to find material that appeals to them.

And this is a delicate issue: if you segregate against those with unpopular points of view (the neonazis, religious nuts (aren't them all), proto-terrorists, extreme right-wingers) you drive them underground. If their ideas can no longer be debated in the open, they will be debated - and reinforced - in communities with like-minded people.

I don't care about neonazis and other miscellaneous idiots, but I care about a functioning society I am part of. There is not that much difference between segregating on beliefs and segregating on skin color.

[krschultz]

Actually, there is no connection between Google's decision and freedom of speech.

First off I'm not attacking you since you mentioned that you are not from the US, and the majority of people in the US don't understand this either.

Freedom of speech is not the right to be able to say anything you want anytime, anywhere, anyhow.

Freedom of speech is the right to say anything you want without government interference.

Google is not the government. They own the app store, it is their property. If they want to limit what people say, that is not a freedom of speech issue. That is a property rights issue. If I want to go stand on the lawn at Google HQ and have a KKK rally, they have no obligation to allow me to do that. Same goes for the app store.

Google has every right to remove the material. Property rights are the foundation of this country, probably more so than freedom of speech.

As for the difference between beliefs and skin color, actually there is a huge difference. It is in court decisions that there is a difference between things you are born with (skin color) and things you choose (beliefs).

[rbanffy]

> Freedom of speech is the right to say anything you want without government interference.

Indeed. Still, the respect Google gives to people who say things they disagree with reflects what they think of your right to say things they disagree with.

I am bothered with people that really believe nazi crap. I don't agree and I don't like it, but I believe ideas should be exposed in the open and be examined under the light of reason.

[nanairo]

I think it's important to remember though that in most countries freedom of speech explicitly excludes stuff like hate speech.

[ugh]

But this is about Google, not the government. Your local book shop is free to not sell nazi literature and so is Google, freedom of speech doesn’t even come into play here and neither does segregation. Nazis can try to find another book shop or open their own, simple as that.

It is pretty obvious why it is not a good idea to apply freedom of speech not just to citizen-state relationships but also to citizen-citizen relationships. Wouldn’t citizen-citizen freedom of speech, for example, imply that publishers have to publish every manuscript that is sent to them?

Freedom of speech is all about making it impossible for the state to make a law which would, for example, make it illegal to sell nazi literature. Nothing more.

[c1sc0]

Where are you from? As far as I know this particular theme would probably be illegal in Germany.

[cr0atian]

Yes it would be illegal in Germany, but here in the US we do have freedom of speech. From flag burning, to KKK rallys and in this case Nazi insignia are all examples of free speech, and protected by the Constitution.

Google can censor this but that would also be sacrificing free speech.

I think its a disgusting theme but I don't think it should be censored, maybe they should get their keywords sorted so it doesn't show up when looking up "Jewish".

[jon_hendry]

"Yes it would be illegal in Germany, but here in the US we do have freedom of speech. From flag burning, to KKK rallys and in this case Nazi insignia are all examples of free speech, and protected by the Constitution."

The 1st amendment is about Congress, not about what retailers allow into their stores for sale.

[nickpinkston]

The first 8 amendments are all defined as protecting individual rights: speech, self-defense, home, private property, self-incrimination, fast/juried trials, and torture. The others are defining limits on what Congress / states can do against the other undefined rights.

[rbanffy]

> The 1st amendment is about Congress,

Which only means Google cannot be forced by law to remove the offensive material.

[eru]

And they can probably not be forced to keep it, either.

[rbanffy]

No, but removing it is a statement they will not go to great lengths to protect free speech from the government, if it comes to that.

[AndrewDucker]

Which would also be censorship.

Even if Google remove it from their marketplace people could still install it directly. So Google can make the choice not to allow bigotry "in their house" without preventing others from having free speech. Which seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

[krschultz]

And how does freedom of speech apply here?

This is a property rights issue. The existance of these applications damages Google's ability to sell Android phones (see Steve Job's mocking of porn in the Android store as a good example). Google has no obligation to support your speech if it damages their property. They have no obligation to support your speech (i.e. pay to progate it, which clearly they are doing here by paying for the servers).

Basically you are saying you have the "right" to force Google into paying to support your hate speech. Bullshit. That has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

[petercooper]

here in the US we do have freedom of speech. From flag burning, to KKK rallys and in this case Nazi insignia are all examples of free speech, and protected by the Constitution.

To me, Nazi insignia seems like imagery rather than "speech." If you agree it's imagery, do you think that any imagery should be OK to own and distribute, no matter how offensive it is (as with speech)?

[rbanffy]

> Where are you from?

Brazil.

Officially, we have free speech, as stated in the constitution, but the same constitution forbids anonymity (I use to joke I have free speech as long as I have a better lawyer that the folks offended by my free speech). Also, there are laws explicitly forbidding racist and other kinds of hate-speech.

I find this foolish - unpopular ideas will be nurtured, if not in the open, where they can be attacked, far more dangerously, in closed self-reinforcing communities.

But, foolish or not, it's the law here.

[nanairo]

In which countries is hate speech allowed? At least in Europe most countries I know of forbid hate speech that incite racism, violence, discrimination, etc...

I am not saying I agree (I do not) but in case these things would need to be tackled at the parliamentary level.

[adolph]

In that context, are carrier-mandated apps and handset-maker skins forced speech?