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

111–120 of 249 posts

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

#111

Post by 2preserve »

syshum wrote: post #104
2preserve wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (…

Except Free Speech is a Binary, and that is exactly what Canada is doing,... punishing thought crimes. >Lots of Americans like to think that as soon as you moderately curtail freedom of expression, you've crossed some threshold You have crossed a Threshold >and you're now North Korea. Nice strawman you have there..... >it's possible to have reasonable constraints on expression! Proving you do not have or support Free…

> Proving you do not have or support Free Speech, you support "Reasonably Restricted Speech" which is not the same thing

See, this is exactly what I said. I didn't need to build a strawman. You did it for me.

I'm free to run down the street swinging your fists, but if I swing my fist into someone's face and break their nose, that's bad. I think we can all agree on that, right? What if I told you that swinging my fists was a form of "artistic expression", or was part of my religion? Should I be free to express myself at the expense of the rest of society?

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

#112

Post by dragonwriter »

DKnoll wrote: post #108
syshum wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally. There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others. I sh…

> I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment.

Since the threshold for libel in the US is higher than at common law specifically because of First Amendment restrictions, “despite the existence of” would be more accurate than “regardless of”.

(This is a minor correction; your broader point is valid.)

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

#113

Post by kodablah »

_delirium wrote: post #100
kodablah wrote: post #7

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…

The decision did discuss that hypothetical, though the linked article doesn't. The court said that if Google presented evidence that complying with a specific Canadian order might violate the law of a specific other country, the Canadian court would take that into account, and that might well be a good reason for modifying the order. But since in this case there wasn't any such evidence presented, they felt the hypot…

So to rephrase my question(s), "Who wins in the global context? Whichever can/will enforce the most?", the answer is yes? "This is enforceable worldwide until you show that it isn't" doesn't seem sane to me. It's backwards. You should not have to provide somewhere where a ruling is illegal to prevent that ruling from applying worldwide.

So a government can censor a website worldwide because the company can't provide a law saying it's illegal for them to self-censor?

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

#114

Post by protomyth »

2preserve wrote: post #81
protomyth wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (…

What exactly is your definition of hate-speech? I fail to see how a tasteless joke makes the cut. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/07/mike-w...

History has been pretty clear that curtailment of rights leads to government overreach and leaders using such power against people they don't like.

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

#115

Post by throwaway2048 »

KGIII wrote: post #87
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The presumption is innocence within the criminal justice system. It is not proof of innocence, nor a statement of innocence.

This has legal ramifications in the civil justice system (the one where somebody sues another), where the barrier of judgment is a "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

OJ Simpson escaped a murder charge with a verdict of not guilty, but was found in civil court to have committed the tort of "wrongful death", and had to pay a lot of money (civil court cannot jail you).

Does anyone really think OJ Simpson was actually innocent?

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

#116

Post by greglindahl »

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…

Google has been ordered to do stuff by courts many times -- that's not new. The unusual thing about this case is that Google is being ordered by Canada to do something worldwide, for a bunch of people who have nothing to do with Canada.

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

#117

Post by labster »

kbenson wrote: post #106
michaelmrose wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google isn't portraying otherwise they are a neutral 3rd party providing a conduit for others to communicate. Having an unbiased conduit is essential for the truth else the conduit for nearly all information in the world will say only what people with money and influence say is correct. Having bad people say damaging untrue things is a necessary cost we must be willing to bear in order to have a truly free internet.…

> Having bad people say damaging untrue things is a necessary cost we must be willing to bear in order to have a truly free internet. Is it? It's not a necessary thing that we must be willing to bear to have freedom of speech in the United States (if you believe we have freedom of speech in the United States). We have libel and slander laws, and other exceptions. I don't see people shouting those down often. Do you b…

Libel and slander laws can only be applied if you know the identity of the person who did it, and have enough money to hire an attorney to go after the person.

Right now if you google my name, there's a forum out there that says I'm a child molester based on zero evidence, and the only reason it's up is because I am following my legal requirements as a website operator per the ToU to not release personally identifying information on one of my users. I've talked to attorneys about it, but the consensus is that I'd need at least $30k to chase the guy down, with no guarantee of a return at the end, and that in the meantime harassment from this guy would get worse.

So maybe people saying damaging untrue things is a necessary cost for freedom of speech, but it's sure as hell a pain in the ass if you're on the wrong side of it.

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

#118

Post by kodablah »

ABCLAW wrote: post #40
cbhl wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should every court and country have the right to demand that things are de-indexed worldwide, now that Canada has done so? Does China have the right to demand Tiananmen Square be de-indexed? Germany and Nazi symbols? Russia and satire about Putin? North Korea? The United States? If not, how do we decide? The previous framework was, "you can demand whatever you want within your borders; if it is unacceptable, Google w…

I touched upon this, but honestly this is a very, very large subject that requires familiarity with the Berne Convention and TRIPS/ACTA in order to fully explain. In the Canadian decision, the de-listing order is contingent on that order not being contrary to compliance requirements elsewhere in the world. However, the SCC doesn't have knowledge of all of those laws, nor should it. Accordingly, it stated the burden u…

Can you help me understand something. Why do they have to cite laws this ruling is in contravention of instead of citing laws that Google is in convention with to prevent worldwide dissemination? One would think that you don't have to prove what the government proposes you do in region X to be illegal there, but rather prove that what you are already doing in region X to be legal there.

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

#119

Post by [deleted] »

2preserve wrote: post #81
protomyth wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (…

[deleted]

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

#120

Post by DKnoll »

dragonwriter wrote: post #112
DKnoll wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally. There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others. I sh…

> I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment. Since the threshold for libel in the US is higher than at common law specifically because of First Amendment restrictions, “despite the existence of” would be more accurate than “regardless of”. (This is a minor correction; your broader point is valid.)

Thanks, 'despite the existence of' fits better with the point I was trying to make. The 1st amendment would definitely be regarded in a libel lawsuit.
Post reply on HN