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

121–130 of 249 posts

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

#121

Post by dragonwriter »

labster wrote: post #117
kbenson wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 identifyin…

> 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.

The latter part is true, the former part is less so; you can use John/Jane Doe lawsuits and then subpoena third parties to discover the specific identities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_subpoena

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

#122

Post by 2preserve »

protomyth wrote: post #114
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 (…

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.

Are tasteless jokes really something that needs to be protected? Sure, if he was making a joke about the government being corrupt , or the over-reach of courts (ironic), I would be on your side. But are you really gonna die on this hill? You will fight for the right of comedians to insult the personal appearance of disabled people? I don't think it contributes much to the democratic discourse. And don't give me any of those "slippery slope" arguments.

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

#123

Post by dragonwriter »

2preserve wrote: post #122
protomyth wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are tasteless jokes really something that needs to be protected? Sure, if he was making a joke about the government being corrupt , or the over-reach of courts (ironic), I would be on your side. But are you really gonna die on this hill? You will fight for the right of comedians to insult the personal appearance of disabled people? I don't think it contributes much to the democratic discourse. And don't give me any o…

Just to point out, the long dominance of the restrictive “Clear and Present Danger” rule in US free speech analysis was ended in favor of the “inciting imminent lawless conduct” rule (which makes mere theoretically dangerous speech still protected) in case in which KKK leader was challenging a conviction for televised advocacy of “revengeance”.

I don't think most people that are happy about the rule would find the particular actor or action sympathetic; you fight for free speech not because the actor is popular or sympathetic, but because you might need it when you and your actions are not popular or sympathetic.

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

#124

Post by escapetech »

jacquesm wrote: post #105
escapetech wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You are confusing a mistrial with a not-guilty verdict.

Considering that the DA threw everything but the kitchen sink at the Cosby case, a retrial would be either unlikely or unfruitful, given the judge's intentional leaking of juror's names to the press and hinging his judicial career on a guilty verdict prior to the trial, a second trial could result in legitimate claims of malicious prosecution, making any conviction easy to appeal and ultimately overturn by a higher court.

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

#125

Post by protomyth »

2preserve wrote: post #122
protomyth wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are tasteless jokes really something that needs to be protected? Sure, if he was making a joke about the government being corrupt , or the over-reach of courts (ironic), I would be on your side. But are you really gonna die on this hill? You will fight for the right of comedians to insult the personal appearance of disabled people? I don't think it contributes much to the democratic discourse. And don't give me any o…

Yes, and here is a whole movie to explain why: http://canwetakeajoke.com/

> But are you really gonna die on this hill?

Yep, its tasteless, but the alternative allow folks like you to edit what I read and eventually think. I rather deal with the filth then the sterile world of what is acceptable to you with only approved targets of derision and protest. Being in fear of every word uttered to be outside the bounds for some person who might hear would be the purest kind of horror.

Freedom of speech is there to protect the ugly not shine the widely accepted.

> And don't give me any of those "slippery slope" arguments.

Why not? Since that is the whole course of history. People don't lose rights overnight, it comes one drop at a time.

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

#127

Post by redm »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #94
redm wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

You're confusing murder and manslaughter. Murder requires a level of intent. Manslaughter does not.

I believe you misunderstood my point/opinion.

The original comment stated a murderer (alleged in this case) is tried and found innocent of Murder by a court of law and then, due to this ruling, may take down information to the extent it defames them.

My point was that if a Judge/Jury acquited the alleged murderer, then they are, by definition, not guilty of murder.

Of course, it's rarely that black and white, i.e. OJ Simpson or someone getting off on a technicality, but since were discussing this at a high and abstract level, the alleged murderer should not be considered and treated as a murderer.

Furthermore, my second point was that everyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and be innocent until proven guilty. The fictitious person in question should never have been called a murderer in the first place, just an alleged murder.

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

#128

Post by toomuchtodo »

redm wrote: post #127
toomuchtodo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing murder and manslaughter. Murder requires a level of intent. Manslaughter does not.

I believe you misunderstood my point/opinion. The original comment stated a murderer (alleged in this case) is tried and found innocent of Murder by a court of law and then, due to this ruling, may take down information to the extent it defames them. My point was that if a Judge/Jury acquited the alleged murderer, then they are, by definition, not guilty of murder. Of course, it's rarely that black and white, i.e. OJ…

I believe I did misunderstand your point. Thank you for the clarification.

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

#129

Post by jacquesm »

escapetech wrote: post #124
jacquesm wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are confusing a mistrial with a not-guilty verdict.

Considering that the DA threw everything but the kitchen sink at the Cosby case, a retrial would be either unlikely or unfruitful, given the judge's intentional leaking of juror's names to the press and hinging his judicial career on a guilty verdict prior to the trial, a second trial could result in legitimate claims of malicious prosecution, making any conviction easy to appeal and ultimately overturn by a higher c…

The only thing that we have right now is a mistrial based on a hung jury, no more, no less.

What the judge did (which I agree was despicable) and what the DA did (which doesn't matter) has no bearing on whether or not there will be a re-trial in 4 months. Cosby will appeal if he's convicted so from that point of view you could skip the trial entirely, his best bet is that he may be found not guilty.

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

#130

Post by lsaferite »

danjoc wrote: post #95
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?

It wasn't their site. From the article: "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…

I'm confused how buying a product, relabeling the product, then selling it is illegal? I know I sound naive, but really, what's illegal about that?
Post reply on HN