Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 249 posts

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#71

Post by escapetech »

Analemma_ wrote: post #35
escapetech wrote: post #24

This wouldn't be the first time a government is requiring Google to modify their search results. This case parallels the "right to be forgotten" cases brought against them by the EU several years ago. There is a reason that civil liberties and human rights organizations like the ACLU are concerned about this precedent. In the US, with the murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and subsequent acquittals occur…

It's not going to be the last time either. Sovereign countries are waking up to the dangers of letting the internet be run by 5 huge American companies, and they're not going to continue to take "the internet is global, your sovereignty isn't" as answer for why their laws and court orders can't be enforced. This is the beginning of widespread internet Balkanization, for better or worse.

Yes, with matters like censorship and human rights abuses being allowed to continue under the guise of "national sovereignty" and "states rights", then yes, the Balkanization of information flow is the only outcome we can expect.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#72

Post by [deleted] »

deepsun wrote: post #53
ams6110 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in the US are not "found innocent," they are presumed innocent and found "not guilty." If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder, and understandably and justifiably would not want Google (or anyone else) to portray otherwise.

Should be not , but , I believe.

[deleted]

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#73

Post by dragonwriter »

deepsun wrote: post #53
ams6110 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in the US are not "found innocent," they are presumed innocent and found "not guilty." If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder, and understandably and justifiably would not want Google (or anyone else) to portray otherwise.

Should be not , but , I believe.

"not guilty" is the usual verdict. One is either "guilty" or "not guilty"; the latter is legally innocent, there is no third state.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#74

Post by awa »

vkou wrote: post #55
Matthewiiv wrote: post #19

This is total bullshit. Relatively benign ruling but sets a dangerous precedent.

For which courts? Canadian rulings would not be considered precedent-setting in a Saudi court.

Its precedent settings i.e. if google follows it, then china and saudi court can ask them to do the same since these kind of rulings become fair game.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#75

Post by flamedoge »

syshum wrote: post #62
sunir wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not support your claim Canada has no concept of freedom of speech in the Constitution.

My claim was that Canada as no concept like the 1st amendment... Canada does not offer the same level of protection in their constitution as the US Constitution does Canada's "Free Speech" code is much weaker, to the point that is not a Free Speech Code.. Of course I am a free speech absolutist so...

... Charter, and my understanding is that freedom of expression in Canada is subject to not infringing other rights and freedoms.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#77

Post by redm »

escapetech wrote: post #24

This wouldn't be the first time a government is requiring Google to modify their search results. This case parallels the "right to be forgotten" cases brought against them by the EU several years ago. There is a reason that civil liberties and human rights organizations like the ACLU are concerned about this precedent. In the US, with the murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and subsequent acquittals occur…

"court somewhere rules in the favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a particular murder off the Internet on the grounds that his or her constitutional rights being violated"

"Murder is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought."

So if they are found innocent, it wasn't Murder thus the scenario your suggesting is not valid. The principle of Innocent until Provent Guilty still applies and is a fundamental tenant of American law.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#78

Post by dragonwriter »

awa wrote: post #74
vkou wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For which courts? Canadian rulings would not be considered precedent-setting in a Saudi court.

Its precedent settings i.e. if google follows it, then china and saudi court can ask them to do the same since these kind of rulings become fair game.

Chinese and Saudi courts can do that to the extent the local law allows them to independent of whether Canadian courts do; Chinese and Saudi courts are neither bound nor empowered by Canadian precedent (I doubt either would even treat it as persuasive precedent, much less binding.)

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#79

Post by ramy_d »

seomint wrote: post #76

Why don't they just use robots.txt to keep themselves out of Google's index? User-agent: Googlebot Disallow: / Has Google stopped using that directive?

I would really like an answer to this question as well. Is there something we are missing?

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#80

Post by CobrastanJorji »

endorphone wrote: post #67
syshum wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bigger question is if Canada can enforce their regressive idea of Free Expression on US Service providers simply because of their presence in Canada Canada has no concept of the 1st amendment,Canada as all kinds of limits on Speech that will never be allowed under the US Constitution.

regressive idea of Free Expression Regressive is an interesting choice of wording. Freedoms, as always, are relative -- the classic your right to swing your fist ends at my nose sort of thing. Canada has progressive notions of free speech that fully enables the overwhelming majority of speech, encoded in Charter of Rights. But just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, or threaten the president, you can't inci…

Fun fact: the "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" argument came from a Supreme Court justice explaining why it was okay to imprison people for publishing pamphlets arguing against the WW1 draft. It's not really a great choice of allusion when you're trying to convince others that you're big on free speech.
Post reply on HN