CENSORSHIP GOOGLE-STYLE

"Show me the money."

That's the bottom line.

Google is in the business of making money, not adhering to moral principles.

BEIJING -- Google Inc. CEO Eric Schmidt on Wednesday defended the search engine's cooperation with Chinese censorship as he announced the creation of a Beijing research center and unveiled a Chinese-language brand name.

Google is trying to raise its profile in China after waiting until January to launch its Chinese-language site Google.cn. Activists have criticized the company for blocking searches for material about Taiwan, Tibet, democracy and other sensitive issues on the site.

"We believe that the decision that we made to follow the law in China was absolutely the right one," Schmidt said at a news conference.

He said Google had to accept restrictions in order to serve China, which has the world's second-largest population of Internet users after the United States, with more than 111 million people online.

From a business standpoint, of course Eric Schmidt would say Google made the right decision. Google's money-making potential in China is enormous.

...Schmidt was speaking at a ceremony to announce Google's Chinese- language brand name _ "Gu Ge," or "Valley Song," which the company says draws on Chinese rural traditions to describe a fruitful and rewarding experience.

Talking to reporters later, Schmidt said Google's managers were stung by criticism that they accepted Chinese censorship, but said they haven't lobbied Beijing to change its rules.

"I think it's arrogant for us to walk into a country where we are just beginning to operate and tell that country how to operate," he said.

Asked whether Google might try to persuade Beijing to change its restrictions, Schmidt said he didn't rule anything out, but said it hasn't tried to change such limits elsewhere. He noted that Google's site in Germany is barred from linking to Nazi-oriented material.

"There are many cases where certain information is not available due to local law or local custom," he said.

Schmidt is a capitalist.

I'm pro-capitalism. I don't criticize him for seizing a new market. However, making money shouldn't blind one to principle.

Schmidt it trying to rationalize censoring "evils" such as Taiwan, Tibet, and democracy. In reality, he's promoting the Chinese "local custom" of oppressing people.

The Google CEO didn't help his cause by comparing the blocking of searches on democracy with Germany cracking down on Nazi-oriented material.

The world saw what Nazism wrought -- 62 million deaths, including the systematic extermination of millions of Jews, as well as Polish civilians, Russian prisoners of war and Russian civilians.

I think we can agree that there is global consensus that Nazism presents a danger.

Thus, any such blocks that Google provides in Germany is not the same as Google's willingness to block searches about Taiwan or democracy.

Schmidt is obviously trying to present a case that Google is fair and balanced. But, being fair is not the same as being immoral. Schmidt really is suggesting that Google operates in a moral vacuum.

Capitalist pursuits do not require the abandonment of principles.

The fact is Schmidt and Google put the dollar first. Is there anything they wouldn't do to increase profits?

I find the way Google Inc. chose to move into China to be dishonorable.

However, in the long run, I believe that when it comes to the Internet and censorship, the Chinese government is fighting a losing battle. It is virtually impossible to keep the Chinese people from having access to Western ideas. A block on "democracy" or "Taiwan" is a drop in the bucket.

As long as the Chinese have Internet access, there is no way that the oppressive Chinese can control the flow of ideas into the country.

In the end, the Google deal won't serve to discourage the desire for freedom in China.

What the Google deal does is prove Schmidt and his cohorts to be unscrupulous. That characteristic is a good thing among immoral capitalists; but human history shows that the moral way eventually conquers the immoral.

I do not believe that capitalism needs a moral vacuum to thrive.

Schmidt and I differ on that.