This week Google announced it would cave in to demands that the China-based version of its internet service would be censored.  The news set off free speech advocates who branded the company a bunch of hypocrites.

     “How could a company famous for its commitment to make information “universally accessible” sell out?” they ranted.  On the other side of the fence are proponents ranging from Bill Gates speaking at Davos to blogs such as Lawbuzz.

     What’s fascinating about the Google announcement is that it exemplifies a true ethical dilemma.  Usually discussions about misplaced business values involve a right versus wrong legal issue and framing the discussion purely in ethical terms misses out on the opportunity to tap into the spectrum of legal tools than can be used to realign ethics and performance. 

     The Google case is different.  Censorship is legal under the rule of law in China.   It’s the “right” thing to do even though many of us who exercise freedom of speech find it abhorrent.  By the same token walking away from the business and following core values would also have been the right thing to do.  It’s the type of right versus right dilemma explored by Joseph L. Badaracco, Jr. in the book Defining Moments.

    Ethical dilemmas and legal dilemmas both represent reputational risk.  Evidently it’s a risk Google felt justified in taking. I wish them well. 

     A tip of the hat goes to The Wired GC who has discovered LegalLiteracy.com and who will be interviewing me on his Unplugged Show in April about the release of my new book: The Business Guide to Legal Literacy: What Every Manager Needs to Know About the Law.

      More information and links to the podcast will be posted as they become available.