'It's offensive to many people, but that alone is not a reason to remove it from our search index,' Google spokesman Scott Rubin said Tuesday. 'We have, in general, a bias toward free speech.' The image, which depicts the first lady as having monkey-like features, is posted on a blog called 'Hot Girls' without explanation. The blog post also contains several legitimate photographs of Obama. (The image is also posted on other sites that get high spots.) Although Google won't alter the search result process that places the offending image in top spots, the company placed a house advertisement above it with the headline, 'Offensive Search Results.' Clicking on the ad takes the user to a statement that says, 'We assure you that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google.' The statement apologizes 'if you've had an upsetting experience using Google,' but it states that a site is not removed from its process unless the content is illegal or violates the company's webmaster guidelines. Rubin said nothing in the guidelines deals with this kind of imagery. Google has posted similar statements in rare instances, most notably in 2004 when searches on 'Jew' resulted in the top spot going to an anti-Semitic site. Rubin said the statement is sometimes used in situations when there are 'offensive search results on an innocuous query.' The 'Hot Girls' blog has an additional Google connection: It was produced using Blogger, an online tool owned by the search company. And it resides on the Blogger platform, which provides online real estate for blogs and is also owned by Google. Rubin said Blogger users have to adhere to the site's terms of service, including a ban on hate speech, which the agreement defines as 'content that promotes hate or violence towards groups based on race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status or sexual orientation/gender identity.' He would not comment specifically on the 'Hot Girls' site. But Rubin said that a determination of hate speech, under company terms, would rely heavily on whether a site was 'attacking or advocating attacks on a person.' He added, 'An image alone may not provide enough context to constitute a violation of the policies.' A different Web site containing the same depiction was banned by Google several days ago, but only because the site was deemed to contain malware that could spread a virus or similar online malady. When a site is dropped from Google's index, the search engine will not present it as a result. 