Googly may turn out to be a wrong 'un.

I don't like the term "hate crime" or "hate speech". It can be interpreted in so many ways and can be used at the discretion of those that wield the power of the word.
Sure, their are some things that are said that I find terrible. When people of any side of the political spectrum start spouting words of a threatening nature, I get offended. I particularly dislike words encouraging slaughter of innocent people.
Many times in the early days of live chat discussion on the web, I would hear people who expressed a wish to "wipe out the Jews" or "bomb all Arabs back to the stone age". I would be one of the first to challenge these people, usually asking why they would say such a thing and then bury myself in the argument at the root of the problem.
While shocked at times, I would never censor what anybody says. I of course hold the right to challenge them.
In the real world, so called "hate speech" is everywhere.
The President of Iran for one,with his opinions on Jews, is a prime example of what I find offensive.
When I traveled in Israel, I heard things said about Arabs that shocked me.

So where does that leave the internet?
I suppose it's important not to upset people so much they resort to violence.
But where do you draw the line?
The film "Clockwork Orange" was banned in England for many years, fearing it might encourage young "lads" to get into ritual violence for fun.
The "Mohammed Cartoons", were censored around the world, to stop escalating violence.

I have seen both of the above examples and I didn't hurt a mouse.
Personally I think "anything goes". But I, very conceitedly I must add, am smarter than some fools out there. ( Except after my second bottle of Vodka).

So.

Do you think google had a right to suspend the "new media journal", from it's search engine?
I don't think so.
Let me know your opinion.