91–100 of 249 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Most likely, you'll just be thrown out of the theater.
If you actually dircectly provoke a riot by doing that, then you'll be subject to criminal sanction. Without inciting imminent lawless action, it's protected speech.
> All speech has limits.
Free speech has limits, but the “fire in a crowded theater” example (and the “clear and present danger” rule it came along with) is not an valid example of the limits (or the operative rule).
Ironically, now that G has been ordered by a court to take the content down, keeping it up is a form of protest, i.e. a comment on the law, i.e. political speech.
My journalism teacher used to say that legally speaking, there is no such thing as free speech here.
Either way, I'm sure the Supreme Court has considered this.
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 Mur…
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?
"Equustek Solutions based in Burnaby B.C., which manufacturers networking technology. Equustek had successfully sued another company for relabelling its products and passing them off as their own."
When the evil corp lost in Canada, it moved out of the country and continued the same practice.
Frankly, I'm disappointed in Google for fighting this in the first place. SMH. Imagine if this were Apple rebranding Samsung Galaxies as Apple devices. Of course Google should remove those product listings.
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.
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…
https://news.vice.com/article/a-canadian-comedian-was-ordere...
Basically, a comedian made a comment in reference to a kid who'd sought donations because he was dying. His quip was:
"But five years later, he wasn't dead, he's not dying," he quipped on stage. "The little bastard, he's just not dying."
For that, the courts are making him pay some $42,000.
That would not happen in the United States. You may, or may not, agree with the court's findings - but it's a difference between the two countries and their liberties to express themselves.
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.
If Google doesn't remove this Canadian website from global searches, Canada can force Google to leave the Canadian market and even block google.com in Canada. This - of course - will not happen any time soon...
Is there precedent for ordering ISPs to block a domain like this in Canada? I note that we've always been able to access sites like pirate bay.
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?
> You can prevent a page from appearing in Google Search by including a noindex meta tag in the page's HTML code. When Googlebot next crawls that page, Googlebot will see the noindex meta tag and will drop that page entirely from Google Search results, regardless of whether other sites link to it.
> Important! For the noindex meta tag to be effective, the page must not be blocked by a robots.txt file. If the page is blocked by a robots.txt file, the crawler will never see the noindex tag, and the page can still appear in search results, for example if other pages link to it.
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…
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.
A hypothetical: Company A is in country X and company B is in country Y. Country X declares on behalf of company A that company B be blocked from searches worldwide (including country Y). Country Y declares on behalf of company B that company B cannot be blocked from searches (at least in country Y). Who wins in the global context? Whichever can/will fine the most? Does this give benefits to the overly-regulating cou…
edit: More extensive discussion in this comment and its follow-ups: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14657979