Saying the host site was serving malware to users, Google has removed a controversial photo of First Lady Michelle Obama from Google Image Search. The site itself, however, remains listed in Google web search results without any visible malware warning.

Welcome to the murky world of free speech, politics, and Google.

It began last week, when Search Engine Roundtable pointed out a racist image showing as the number one result in Google Image Search for the term [Michelle Obama]. The image was apparently removed yesterday.

In a Google Web Search Help Forum thread discussing the image, a Google employee named Jem explained yesterday that there are three reasons why Google would remove content from its index:

“… Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results, or images from our Google Images results, simply because the content is in very poor taste or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the image, page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the image.“

(emphasis mine)

An offensive photo of Michelle Obama doesn’t obviously violate any of those three guidelines on its own. Google’s press office has yet to respond to our request for an official statement. But in the comments of today’s Search Engine Roundtable post, Google’s Matt Cutts says the site was violating Google’s webmaster guidelines:

“… that page did violate our webmaster guidelines because it was serving malware to users, which violates the quality guideline that says ‘Don’t create pages with malicious behavior, such as phishing or installing viruses, trojans, or other badware.’ I believe that the Images team did a general anti-malware sweep.”

Sure enough, a [site:] search for the site in Google Images produces no results. But the malware sweep apparently didn’t reach the main web search index. As Michael Gray points out on SER, the site itself is still listed in Google.com search results with no malware warning.

Making matters slightly murkier is that, as you see above, the image was hosted on Google’s own blogging platform.

Google’s critics will no doubt call this favoritism toward the Obama administration and be quick to point out the company’s ties to Washington, DC. Google CEO Eric Schmidt endorsed Obama for president, later campaigned with him, and then turned down an offer to join the administration. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Google was the fourth-largest corporate contributor to Obama’s presidential campaign. And we’ve reported about a few notable Google employees who’ve left to work for the Obama administration.

On the other hand, we’ve also written more than once about potential friction between Google and the Obama administration. Christine Varney, the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust has been quoted as saying that Google “has acquired a monopoly in internet online advertising.” See our stories Will Obama Be The Downfall Of Google? and Google’s Anti-Trust Problem Appears Very Real for more.

If, in fact, the blog hosting the offensive image of Michelle Obama also hosts malware, Google’s removal of the image seems justified in light of the company’s stated policies. But, in that case, a malware warning should also be placed on the site itself in Google’s main search results. Until that happens — and perhaps even after — Google’s critics are likely to question the decision to remove this image.

While today’s episode may be a case of Google looking for an excuse to remove an image from the index, it should be said that the same exact image of the First Lady can be found on other sites and remains in Google Image Search because those sites apparently don’t meet the criteria for content removal. There are similarly offensive images of the President himself that can be found quite easily in Google Image Search, too.

Oh, the irony: The People’s Daily, the main newspaper of China’s Communist Party, says Google censored its web site by adding a malware warning to search result listings for the newspaper’s book section.

The paper says the malware warning appeared after it ran an article about a Chinese group that has suggested Google’s book search settlement might violate the rights of Chinese authors. The paper says the malware warning appeared for three days, and claimed that its book section was “maliciously blocked by Google.”

Google called the claims “absolutely incorrect” and pointed out that its malware warnings are generated automatically and without human involvement.

It’s all ironic, of course, due to the long-running battle between Google and China over censorship issues. Usually, though, it’s Google (and others) accusing the Chinese government of censorship, not the other way around. Or, as the Inquirer calls it, this is a case of “wok calls kettle black.”

PC World reports Google has disabled the ability for users to upload videos or comment on videos at YouTube Korea. Google made this move after South Korea passed a new law that requires sites with 100,000 unique visitors per day to require users to provide their real name and national ID card number before posting such videos and comments.

Google still allows videos to be uploaded and comments to be added while in Korea, as long as you change the YouTube Korea site to a non-Korean version, within the YouTube settings section. This is Google’s way of “skirting around” the new law. YouTube said:

We have a bias in favor of freedom of expression and are committed to openness. It’s very important that if users want to be anonymous that they have that chance.

There is additional commentary about this story at Techmeme.

A California lawmaker has introduced a bill that would limit what Google Maps and other online mapping sites are allowed to show, on the basis that these online tools help terrorists plan attacks.

We’ve been here before: Late last year, the Indian government suggested that Google Earth should be censored after terrorists involved in the Mumbai attacks reportedly admitted to using Google Earth when planning their missions.

According to The Industry Standard, the new California bill would prevent Google and others from showing “aerial or satellite images of schools, places of worship, government buildings and medical facilities unless they have been blurred.” Says legislator Joel Anderson, who introduced the bill:

“What my bill does is limit the level of detail [in Google Earth]. It doesn’t stop people from getting directions. We don’t need to help bad people map their next target. What is the purpose of showing air ducts and elevator shafts? It does no good.”

A Google spokesperson is quoted in the article, saying they’d like to visit with Anderson to discuss his concerns. Earlier this year, Google Earth chief John Hanke defended Google’s mapping tools, saying they aren’t “tipping the balance in favor of the bad guys.”

Comparing it to blaming car makers for deadly car bombs, Google Earth chief John Hanke recently said Google shouldn’t be blamed for terrorist use of Google Earth. Hanke defended his online mapping tools in a recent interview with the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper.

“You have cars; you have car bombs,” Hanke said. “You have GPS transceivers that help you navigate; those GPS transceivers could be used for lots of nefarious purposes. Cell phones have all kinds of benefits; cell phones can be used to detonate a remote explosive device.”

His comments are in response to ongoing concerns over Google Earth — concerns that flared late last year when terrorists involved in the Mumbai attacks reportedly used Google Earth to help plan their missions. The Indian government responded by suggesting Google Earth should be censored because it “aids terrorists in plotting attacks.”

Hanke sees it otherwise:

“I don’t really think it’s tipping the balance in favour of the bad guys…. The evilness is in the philosophies and the desires of those that want to do evil. They will use the tools at hand to do that, whether it’s throwing a Molotov cocktail, or shooting a rifle or using some piece of technology as part of the process”

The Associated Press reports that China has begun a process to “purify the Internet’s cultural environment and protect the healthy development of minors.” This has resulted in the Chinese government finding that both Google and Baidu have failed to take “efficient” actions to remove content from their results after being notified of issues.

The AP added that China said violators will be “severely punished,” but did not say how they might be punished.

Cui Jin, a Google spokeswoman in China, told the AP that Google does not have any pornographic content in Google China and added, “if we find any violation, we will take action. So far, I haven’t seen any examples of violations.”

Popular Chinese web portals Sina and Sohu have also been cited with violations.

The Financial Times also has some more history on this topic.

On the heels of the tragic terrorist attacks in Mumbai last month, legal advocates in India are asking the country’s High Court to demand that Google blur sensitive locations on Google Earth.

The Times reports that the Indian petition says Google Earth “aids terrorists in plotting attacks” and offers “absolutely no control to prevent misuse or limit access” of the service, particularly access to photos of sensitive locations such as the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre.

In the wake of the attacks, there were many reports that the terrorists used high-tech tools — including GPS — to plan, execute, and monitor the attacks. The only gunman captured alive has reportedly told police that the terrorists used satellite imagery to learn about the city of Mumbai.

Security concerns over Google Earth go back years. In 2005, Australian officials asked Google to remove the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor from Google Earth. Just last month, USA Today wrote about governments that are concerned about easy access to satellite photos on Google Earth and from other sources.

(And it’s not just Google Earth: Earlier this year, the Pentagon banned Google StreetView cars from taking photos on U.S. military bases.)

No word on if/when the Indian High Court may respond to the petition.

In response to court orders, Yahoo and Google are censoring search results in Argentina about a variety of celebrities, including public officials, models, actors, and sports stars. According to an in depth article on OpenNet Initiative, this has been going on since 2006 and more than 100 people have succeeded in getting Google and Yahoo to filter search results in Argentina.

Astonishingly, a search on Yahoo Argentina for [Diego Maradona] — one of the world’s most well known soccer stars and the current national team head coach — produces zero results, along with a message from Yahoo that’s roughly translated as follows:

“On the occasion of a court order sought by private parties, we have been forced to temporarily remove some or all of the search results relating to it.”

According to OpenNet, both Google and Yahoo are following court orders to filter their search results, but only Yahoo is completely scrubbing search results (as seen above). The article says both search engines have appealed the court orders that force them to block search results and have been fined on occasion for not following court orders closely enough.

The article goes on to explain that all of the individuals who are seeking to have web pages removed from search results are represented by one lawyer, Martin Leguizamon Peña, who claims to have an 80% success rate in getting the court to force Google and Yahoo into blocking search results for his clients:

“Peña is reportedly obtaining new restraining orders for the same clients, week after week, with revised lists of websites, articles, blogs, and keywords that must be blocked. Many of the orders contain specific web pages to be blocked, however, some also ambiguously order the search engines to block all sites containing defamatory or scandalous portrayals of Peña’s clients. It is then presumably up to Yahoo! and Google to determine which content is defamatory — a task that neither company wishes to or is qualified to perform.”

The OpenNet article takes Yahoo to task for waiting until this week to add the explanation of why search results are blocked. It also points out that Argentinian searchers can use other Spanish-language search engines, such as Yahoo Mexico or Yahoo Spain, or Google’s country-specific search engines in Mexico and Spain, to find information about the individuals who’ve successfully fought to have Google and Yahoo censor results for their names.

India’s National Newspaper reports that India’s Supreme Court is suing Google, Yahoo and Microsoft for allowing “sex selection” ads. India has a law that does not allow the sale or advertisement of services that allow people to pick the sex of their unborn child. India has virtually stopped all advertisements on TV, newsprint and radio, and are now trying to ban the ads online.

India’s “The Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act” disallows ads for services or products that aid in the selection of an unborn child’s sex. Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices P. Sathasivam and J.M. Panchal filed a notice on a “writ petition filed by Dr. Sabu Mathew George,” said the Hindu paper. The Doctor wants to sue the three companies for punitive and deterrent action.

Dr. George told IDG News:

These companies are making money by breaking Indian laws.

In other legal news, Google ‘Ransoming’ Customers Searching For Trademarked Brands, Lawsuit Claims from InformationWeek reports on the third Google lawsuit for fraud and unfair business practices for selling ads on low-quality Web pages. I am honestly tired of covering these stories, so feel free to read it at InformationWeek. Also, Gary Price emailed me a link to the PDF of the filinghere.

US Senator Joe Lieberman asked Google’s Eric Schmidt to remove terrorist videos, including those of Al-Qaeda, from YouTube. In response, Google has removed some of these videos.

Lieberman, in his role as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, explained “Islamist terrorist organizations rely extensively on the Internet to attract supporters and advance their cause.” In a report released by the committee, we learn that these terrorist outfits use “online media operation,” including YouTube, to recruit new members.

Lieberman shows that if you search on YouTube for related videos, it will “return dozens of videos branded with an icon or logo identifying the videos as the work of one of these Islamist terrorist organizations.” “Islamist terrorist organizations use YouTube to disseminate their propaganda, enlist followers, and provide weapons training – activities that are all essential to terrorist activity,” added Lieberman.

Joe Lieberman then asked Google “to immediately remove content produced by Islamist terrorist organizations from YouTube.”

Google responded on the YouTube Blog with the removal of select videos. Google said, “We examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines.”

Further coverage on this topic can be found at Techmeme.