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

81–90 of 249 posts

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

#81

Post by 2preserve »

protomyth wrote: post #41
52-6F-62 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canadian here. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your sweeping allegation regarding free expression? As it is, this just seems like some random stab that doesn't concern the topic at hand (which has far more immediate concerns tied to it). Section 1 of the Constitution of Canada (1982) outlines freedom of speech. Just about the only thing you can't do, outside of pursuing damages in the court system for specifi…

How do you square the Constitution of Canada with the Human Rights Commission that fines comedians and authors? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commissi...

It's actually a great example of how freedom of speech is not a binary. It's possible to curtail some forms of expression, such as hate-speech, without turning the country into an autocratic regime that punishes thought crimes. Lots of Americans like to think that as soon as you moderately curtail freedom of expression, you've crossed some threshold and you're now North Korea. Turns out that with a strong judiciary (that isn't corrupted by money and politics) it's possible to have reasonable constraints on expression!

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

#82

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> But just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theater

This is example comes from dubious (in terms of it's accuracy in reflecting even the then-current state of Constitutional law) dicta in a since-overturned case upholding suppression of core political speech.

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

#83

Post by jakub_g »

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?

To nitpick: FYI robots.txt is not enough. In fact, to make sure stuff doesn't show up at all in Google, you must not use robots.txt blocking, but allow everything, and use noindex meta tag.

Otherwise you might have uncrawled, but indexed entries in search results, if a URL is popular for some reason (linked somewhere else etc.)

See https://youtu.be/KBdEwpRQRD0

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

#84

Post by subroutine »

ramy_d wrote: post #79
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?

Yes, Equustek obtained court orders requiring Google to remove Datalink websites from its Canadian search results. That is, Equustek does not own the Datalink website, but wants it de-indexed.

And just to clarify, this article was about Equustek obtaining a further injunction from the court ordering Google to remove the websites from its global search results.

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

#85

Post by sbarre »

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?

This isn't about keeping themselves off Google it's about removing someone else's results (someone who was stealing and re-labeling their products).

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

#86

Post by endorphone »

dragonwriter wrote: post #82
endorphone wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theater This is example comes from dubious (in terms of it's accuracy in reflecting even the then-current state of Constitutional law) dicta in a since-overturned case upholding suppression of core political speech.

This is example comes from dubious

Utterly irrelevant, though this is the copy/paste regurgitated reply whenever it's mentioned.

Go yell fire in a theater right now. You will be hit with a variety of fun charges. Just as you have absolutely no right to announce threats against other persons, most defended being the president or any other politician.

All speech has limits.

Because speech has worldly consequences.

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

#87

Post by KGIII »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #68
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.

> If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder. That is not the case. You are describing "found innocent." "Not guilty" is just that: the absence of having been found guilty of a crime. In other words, legally that person has not been found to be guilty of murder, but they also have not been found to have not committed murder. Nothing has been found one way or the other…

Hmm...

In America, we find people not guilty. We also uphold the innocent until proven guilty thing. Perhaps your jurisdiction is different?

If they are not found guilty, the presumption is innocence.

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

#89

Post by jakub_g »

sbarre wrote: post #85
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?

This isn't about keeping themselves off Google it's about removing someone else's results (someone who was stealing and re-labeling their products).

Now it makes more sense. The article did a terrible job of explaining that.

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

#90

Post by ramy_d »

subroutine wrote: post #84
ramy_d wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, Equustek obtained court orders requiring Google to remove Datalink websites from its Canadian search results. That is, Equustek does not own the Datalink website, but wants it de-indexed. And just to clarify, this article was about Equustek obtaining a further injunction from the court ordering Google to remove the websites from its global search results.

whoa that's messed up, I think google is right in that this is between Equustek and Datalink. This does indeed seem like a bad precedent.
Post reply on HN