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

Post by escapetech » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 10:35 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #70

escapetech wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims are leveled on a person. You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record. The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU.

> You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record. So your assertion is that no baseless claim can make it to court only to be defeated or dismissed later and become part of the public record? > The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to b…

Post by vkou » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 10:36 PM UTC

gboudrias wrote: post #93

awinter-py wrote: post #50

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.

No irony to it, freedom of speech is way more limited in Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada 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.

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 10:38 PM UTC

escapetech wrote: post #101

kbenson wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record. So your assertion is that no baseless claim can make it to court only to be defeated or dismissed later and become part of the public record? > The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to b…

> Let's not lose sight of other potential dangers just because we're focused on one that's getting a lot of attention in the moment. Sure, the Cosby trial might be an example of another danger. He was found not guilty despite claims that were ultimately found by a jury of his peers to be baseless or questionable. But this really isn't about the spectrum of abuse of allegations, but rather the danger in how someone ma…

Post by syshum » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 10:42 PM UTC

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…

Post by 2preserve » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 10:44 PM UTC

xxpor wrote: post #64

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…

Section 33 (the notwithstanding clause) makes most of the charter weak at best.