Google's unofficial motto is "Don't be evil." But sometimes it's challenging for managers to tell what path is "most right" or "least wrong." Google operates in countries that require the firm to screen and censor results. Short term, this is clearly a limitation on freedom of speech. But long term, access to the Internet could catalyze economic development and spread information in a way that leads to more democratization. Investigate and consider both of these arguments and be prepared to argue the case either for limiting work in speech- limiting countries or working within them as a potential agent of change. What other pressures is a publicly traded firm under to choose one path or the other? Which path would you choose and why?