An attempt to force Google to stop censoring its search results in repressive countries has been rejected by its shareholders.

The office of the comptroller of New York City, which oversees New York City pension funds, proposed the motion at the search giant's annual shareholder yesterday.

The proposal called on Google to resist attempts at censorship, tell people when it is censoring search results, and tell people what data it is retaining.

It won support from Amnesty -- one of many human rights groups who criticised the company in early 2006 for bowing to pressure from the Chinese government and censoring its search results in China.

The motion also named Belarus, Burma, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam as countries where governments restrict access to Internet content.

New York's pension funds own 500,000 shares, giving them a stake worth $235m. Google's total market capitalisation is $144bn.

Patrick Doherty, representing the comptroller's office, told the meeting that censorship ran counter to the corporate values of Google, whose informal corporate motto is "Don't be evil."

Mr Doherty received light applause from his fellow shareholders, according to the San Francisco Chronicle who attended the meeting at the search giant's Californian headquarters.

But Google's top management, who cast 66% of its votes, did not support the plan, and thus it was rejected.

Co-founder Sergey Brin admitted earlier this year that the Chinese censorship had damaged the company.

"On a business level, that decision to censor ... was a net negative," said Mr Brin, speaking at the Davos World Economic Forum in January.

Those who invested in the company at the time of its flotation have seen their stakes rocket in value. Its shares have risen from $85 to $461, fuelled by rapid growth in revenues from internet advertising.

But with chief executive Eric Schmidt and co-founders Larry Page and Mr Brin controlling two-thirds of the voting power, today's vote shows that smaller shareholders have no realistic hope of forcing the company to accept a policy that they disagree with.

The trio own around 31% of the stock between them, but as Class B shareholders they get 10 votes per share. Class A shareholders get a single vote per share.

An attempt to end this was defeated at last year's shareholder meeting, by the very top executives whose power it would have diluted.

In other news, shares in Yell were up nearly 2% in morning trading in London, amid market talk that the directory firm could be a Google takeover target.