Michelle Obama Pictures UPDATE: Offensive Image REMOVED, Google 'SORRY' (PHOTO)

UPDATE: The offensive Michell Obama picture has reportedly been removed from the website, Hot Girls, that posted the image.

The Hot Girls blog posted a short explanation in Chinese, along with a loosely translated apology in English, explaining, "I am very sorry for this article, and that this is the program automatically issued a document from the article. Do not the subject of race and politics make the discussion too radical and sincere hope that the world is very peaceful." The Guardian also reported that the site took down the offensive image of Michelle Obama.

Google has purchased online ads in an effort to explain to users why an offensive image of Michelle Obama is appearing, and is ranked so highly, in its Google Image search results.

The Google ad, titled "Offensive Search Results," appears directly over the pictures of the First Lady that show up when users perform a Google Image search for "Michelle Obama." (see the screenshot below).

Google's advertisement reads, "Sometimes our search results can be offensive. We agree." It then continues with a longer explanation (read the full text here) on why certain search results appear, and why they may be highly ranked.

Sometimes Google search results from the Internet can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries. We assure you that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google. [...] We apologize if you've had an upsetting experience using Google. We hope you understand our position regarding offensive results.

The image was previously removed by Google on the grounds that the site hosting the Michelle Obama picture "violated Google's guidelines by serving malware to visitors," SearchEngineLand writes.

Now, however, the offensive photo has been posted to another site that does not violate Google rules.

SearchEngineLand points out that Google has taken out ads for other search terms that may turn up offensive results. An ad similar to the one featured with the "Michelle Obama" query turns up for Google searches for "Jew."

Comments

[Brian Beach]

07:42 AM on 01/21/2010

The far right and the Fox News they watching!

[clsmithj]

08:52 PM on 12/13/2009

that picture is back.

[NelsonBig]

01:26 PM on 11/30/2009

1. I'm afraid I'm with Google on this one. They are not the internet police. We want a free internet, this is what we'll get. I, for one, am not willing to have gov't controlled internet so that an "offensive" picture doesn't pop up.

2. If it's so offensive and you feel it should be removed, QUIT WRITING ARTICLES ABOUT IT!

[edopeno]

02:02 PM on 12/01/2009

I would have to agree. We are all well aware that the picture is offensive. Offensive Azifug. But because we continue to write/search/discuss/dialogue/poop all over it, that "trend" will continue to show up in the search engines. Variable search strings and all.

So what's the solution? Uhmm..you can ask Google (and all the other search engines) to delete any traces of Michelle Obama racist images, but honestly, that takes too damn long. Or over time, if we choose to no longer talk about it, it will get buried in the abysmal waste of the internet - also known as "cache."

But I don't know. I didn't know a picture existed befure you all informed me...

[Alexandre Laudet]

06:14 PM on 11/29/2009

would something like this happen were the first lady caucasian? it seem we have been seeing lots of disturbing/offensive caricatures of the president and now Mrs Obama that are not just offensive in the way some political cartoon type depictions can be but in ways that are profoundly racist and thus very offensive even to whites. In addition to the sheer lack of respect to the office of the presidency this is really disturbing because there seems to be a segment of the population who seems unable to accept the fact that Obama has won the election, he's president and there is nothing they can do about it. There was similar sentiment from a different group for bush in 2000 but in that case the results WERE questionable. They are not this time. Why can't people get passed that?

[Julie02]

12:49 AM on 11/28/2009

I don't even understand why someone would waste their energy to try and insult our first lady. She's an awesome first lady even if you do not like the President. She's always busy doing good things and seems like a great mom and supportive wife. I'm so proud of her.

[kedikat]

11:15 PM on 11/27/2009

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it does it make a sound?

Yes. and it will crush a deaf person standing under it. If all the offensive stuff is deleted from casual public view, the public will soon enough think it does not exist. And it will then flourish.
people need to be constantly aware of how vile some people can be. They need to be watching not ignoring.
the ones creating this stuff will have their audience. Their audience seeks it out. We all need to see and know how bad things might be.

[Amock]

02:47 AM on 11/29/2009

There are NO absolute rights and that includes speech!

[sharmaine73]

10:50 PM on 11/27/2009

Actually don't go to a black neighborhood and hold that picture. You're asking for trouble. Just take my word for it. It's a bad idea...

[maniswil1]

05:00 PM on 11/28/2009

Are you trying to say blacks are prone to violence when shown something offensive ?

[JaCar]

12:12 AM on 11/29/2009

So you now admit this is offensive. Great, now we're getting somewhere.

Apparently you have a problem with businesses deciding how they want to run THEIR businesses. Does Huffinton Post have a right to censor material on this forum they host? I would say "yes". It's their's and they can set the rules of engagement. If I don't like it I can use another forum. From your previous posts I would assume that you would consider this an infringement on YOUR free speech. Can a restaurant ask a drunk, beligerant individual to leave THEIR establishment? Again, I would say "yes" and you of course, based on posting history, would see this as an infringement on the drunk's free speech. I would see Google perfectly in their rights to determine how THEIR business should function, you see this as an infringement on your right to free speech. Based on your history it's clear that you have very little regard for how others decide to use THEIR property and decide to run THEIR business. I would say that you are confusing public with private property, and tell you that you have no right to expect to eat at a restaurant if you're screaming profanity. That said, why don't you prove how big an advacate of free speech you are? I'd like to put signs in your yard calling your wife (or Mommy) a more offense term than tramp. I'm sure you wouldn't want to infringe on my right to free speech, right?

[sharmaine73]

10:48 PM on 11/27/2009

Freedom of speech does NOT mean you can say anything you want, in any manner you want, in any context you want. There is not absolute first amendment protection for all utterances or expressions. Most people don't really understand this. Here's a simple example. You can't yell fire in a movie theater. Why? It should be clear to you, but inciting mass panic or a riot does nothing to further public discourse. It's just dangerous.

You can't yell bomb on a plane.

I am willing to argue that the KKK would not be given a permit to hold a rally in Compton, California.

Often, expressing yourself in a way that paints a person in a negative light, especially if it is offensive, can land you in a lot of trouble. Libel/defamation are illegal and might earn you jail time.

Everyone who see's that photo of Mrs. Obama knows that it is HIGHLY offensive, given the history of this country. People all OVER, know that America, the land of the free and the brave, for many years kidnapped and enslaved blacks and in order to justify the horrible treatment of these people, called ignorant, simple, animals, apes. The person who made this image of our first lady, wishes to see blacks returned to that position in this society. It does not reflect well on the American people. It's hypocritical given our need to tell everyone else in the world to live up to our ideals.

[mrobins3]

07:30 AM on 11/28/2009

I agree with your analysis of the limits of freedom of expression under the First Amendment, however, libel and defamation are civil and not criminal and no one would ever go to jail for them.

[maniswil1]

05:06 PM on 11/28/2009

Almost all of humanity has ancestors who were enslaved... What is your point, and should that be taken into consideration? You also make absolutely baseless accusations about to proprietor of the art, saying : "The person who made this image of our first lady, wishes to see blacks returned to that position in this society."

Apparently freedom of speech has it's limits, and you are so wrong. If the theater is on fire scream, "the theater is on fire". If not we call that a nuisance. That is not a restriction on freedom of speech, that is an unwritten law and held up by common decency. There is no limits on freedom of speech, you can libel, slander or otherwise defame someone. But that is basically a form of purgery which is against the law and has nothing what-so-ever to do with freedom of speech.

[JaCar]

11:40 PM on 11/28/2009

Are you for real? You do not have the right to slander, libel or defame somebody (Quick what's the difference between libel and slander? $100 says you didn't know until you looked them up). True our laws typically make it harder to pursue cases of libel and slander than in other countries, however, at one time the record jury award for libel was $227M, in regards to an article in the Wall Street Journal that brought down a Houston brokerage firm.

"There is no limits on freedom of speech, you can libel, slander or otherwise defame someone. But that is basically a form of purgery which is against the law and has nothing what-so-ever to do with freedom of speech." ?What?! Have you been drinking? Do you know what perjury is? Putting the poor grammar aside, does this really make sense to you? Wow, very poor.
The creator of this photo is a racist and your weak defense does nothing to change that. contradict that. Th

[Amock]

02:54 AM on 11/29/2009

Let me guess FIRST year Law Student? I have been there too.

[sharmaine73]

10:45 PM on 11/27/2009

Those of you on the far right (because I am guessing this sort of image did not come from a liberal), would do well take your own advice. I hear many of you Glen Beck fans talking ad nauseum about the need to return to the ideals in the constitution that made this country great and how it is being slowly eroded. Apparently some of you seem to think that only applies to people who are white.

Anyway - to those of you who think this is a freedom of speech issue. I challenge you to go to a historically black neighborhood. Stand outside a church while holding that photo. Most people will leave you alone, but some one might come along and pop you in the noggin'. Guess whose going to jail? Yes, the person who hit you AND YOU for instigating it in the first place.

You do not have absolute freedom of speech. Trust me.

[Clairemont]

07:32 AM on 11/28/2009

Whoever did it learned from the Bush monkey image makers. Those would of course be liberals.

[JaCar]

12:35 PM on 11/28/2009

Ah, the somebody did it to poor G.W. defense. Where are the pictures of Laura Bush as a monkey? Could you please share those? Isn't that a more accurate comparison?

You can try to pretend this isn't about race all you want, but I'm guessing even you know better. Depicting African Americans as monkeys has been done hisotically to dehumanize them. Certain characterizations are not the same for people of different races or ethnic groups, and to pretend that they are is ridiculous. It's not unlike calling a white person the "N" word vs. using it to refer to a black person. For the latter it carries far more weight, given the historical use of the word to demean that person's racial group.

Again, please find all of the demeaning pictures of the former first lady on the internet. Let me know how many picture of her as a monkey you're able to find. After 8 years in office, shouldn't there be some of Laura Bush as a monkey? Michelle Obama's husband has only been in office for 10 months and already there are these offensive pictures. Gee, I wonder why?

[Amock]

03:00 AM on 11/29/2009

Comparing BUSH to a monkey does grave injustice to the MONKEY!

[maniswil1]

05:09 PM on 11/28/2009

I have read multiple times about blacks apparently willing to commit violence over a picture. I'm guessing your not black, and you shouldn't slander anyone or pontificate an outcome. That's is called prejudice and I wouldn't tacitly implicate any involvement of anyone in it (even if only a minority position).

[naluca]

10:00 PM on 11/27/2009

Live with it, Michelle - it's the duty you signed up for. If you don't know by now that you live in a tasteless sulture, it's high time you learned. You're not the only one being mistreated, and both you and your husband are only temporary help for the public, many of whom don't think you should have been hired.

[yankee452]

10:25 PM on 11/27/2009

Do you really think Michelle and Barack didnt see this sort of disgusting behavior coming ?

It is stunning that even now you still think they're anywhere as dim as you are.

This is America !

Of course they expected this ....not just from fellow Americans, but also from their fellow man.

[JaCar]

09:24 AM on 11/28/2009

Did Michelle say anything about this BS? Are you a whittle upset that there's a reaction from the other side regarding the overt bigotry and racial hatred shown by the tea partiers? You can live with it. We'll point out how pathetic the tea party movement and their followers are, with their year long temper tantrum at seeing a black man elected President. Enjoy your racially demeaning emails, but be careful of who you send them to. Not all caucasians see the humor in your BS and somebody might just be making a list and checking it twice. Amazing how many people send offensive material from company email addresses.

[lastep]

09:06 PM on 11/27/2009

Does this mean all offensive pictures of me will be removed too?

[Amock]

03:12 AM on 11/29/2009

For YOU - NO! We have every right to MOCK you!

[Taylor Lauder]

08:40 PM on 11/27/2009

Thanks dana for the feedback your comment's link was an "eye-opener" indeed

"And the Racism issue continues. One should realize that even Google can't prevent it.
Don't believe us? Just go "safe search off" and you will even see more monkey photos appearing on google...

Racism is over the internet and not even BIG G can stop it. A review: http://tiny.cc/monkeyobama

[research]

07:21 PM on 11/27/2009

Freedom of speech, no matter how offensive, it our only protection form tyranny.

Only direct incitement to violence, and overt accusations are subject to restriction.

As it should be.

[Healthwatch2010]

07:57 PM on 11/27/2009

That was NOT freedom of speech. *SMH*

[research]

08:03 PM on 11/27/2009

Yes, it is.

[Amock]

03:19 AM on 11/29/2009

Great to see that you feel that way. Now please provide me with your address so I can plant signs ALL over your property exposing how your Wife was the best I EVER had until I met your DAUGHTER! I have my absolute RIGHT to say what I want when/where/how I WANT. RIGHT? Ignorance is what Ignorance does!

[maniswil1]

03:03 PM on 11/27/2009

Speaking of which, where is the outrage for the war, spending, torture ? Oh that's right, save the energy so we can forcefully remove pictures from a private domain. Personally I always thought she was more akin to look like a klingon from Star Trek... Just sayin ...

[JaCar]

04:43 PM on 11/27/2009

"Forcefully remove"? Disingenuous much? Google is a publicly traded company, shouldn’t they have the right to decide how their Search engine works and what material it directs people to? Why do you think they are obligated to lead you to offensive material? If promoting these defamatory images results in the loss of market share for Google, don’t they have the right to protect their business?

[NHGranite]

04:58 PM on 11/27/2009

Exactly the reason to get rid of their Wikki thing that shows up on websites that they don't own. You can't have it both ways. People who wish to protect their business through their websites are being subjected to side wiskies where every and anybody can comment with no regard to the truth.

[JaCar]

04:59 PM on 11/27/2009

Once upon a time you wrote, "Perhaps maybe putting others down that contain more integrity then you is a way of elavating your self-esteem." Interesting how you so easily demean Michelle Obama and forget your own apparently flexible beliefs. Or did you just need a self esteem boost?

[JaCar]

04:59 PM on 11/27/2009

Once upon a time you wrote, "Perhaps maybe putting others down that contain more integrity then you is a way of elavating your self-estee­m." Interesting how you so easily demean Michelle Obama and forget your own apparently flexible beliefs. Or did you just need a self esteem boost?

[maniswil1]

03:01 PM on 11/27/2009

It was ok to make monkey pictures of Bush, why wasn't that racist? I'm a libertarian, and to look at some of the comments on this thread are just downright comical. Remove the racist pictures !!!! Ohh my since when did the left/right want to throw out freedom of speech. Isn't free speech a cornerstone of this country and the "liberal" philosophy. Or now that there is a democrat president it's now a return to - "do as we say, not as we do". Grow up Michelle is hideous, it has nothing to do with color. It has to do with natural features and attraction.

Also since when did making someone look like a monkey border on being racist? Are we not decedents of monkeys, or is the left/right both going to battle for the title of most fickle and contradictory?

[JaCar]

04:29 PM on 11/27/2009

I've mentioned this a number of times. You do not have the right to defame, libel, or slander another individual. Depicting blacks as monkeys is racist, while depicting whites is not, because historically racists have used this imagery to demean and dehumanize blacks. To not understand this is being willfully ignorant of history. If G.W.’s ancestors were enslaved by the lazy white south, if his ancestors had been raped, tortured, dehumanized, and then when finally “freed” continued to be marginalized and discriminated against, your comment wouldn’t sound so asinine.
I love how the Repubs seem to draw a parallel between photos of G.W. and Michelle Obama, while the more accurate parallel would be between Michelle Obama and Laura Bush. Now scour for all of the pictures depicting Laura Bush as a monkey and supply the links, I’d love to see them.

[zantetsuken199]

09:26 PM on 11/27/2009

Hustler v Falwell 1988 prohibits public figures from taking legal action against citizens for slander and libel. Not saying Im supporting the picture, but it is legally protected.

[NHGranite]

05:01 PM on 11/27/2009

The right to freedom of speech is a freedom from the government taking your right. You can say whatever you want, but you may have to defend that speech from those it hurts, or those who defend the abused, but is not the same as govt stopping you from saying it.