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

131–140 of 249 posts

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

#131

Post by averagewall »

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…

Why can't you rebrand a product? You bought it, you own it, you can resell it.

This case is much more complicated however. It's two business partners who had a falling out and both tried to put each other out of business. The marketing guy kept their own brand and customer base while the tech guy tried to rebrand and sell his products on his own. The marketing guy hired an engineer to make a new product that does the same function. The tech guy accuses him of copying his technology.

http://robertfleminglawyers.com/pdf/2012_BCSC_1490_Equustek_...

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

#132

Post by naasking »

cbhl wrote: post #10
ABCLAW wrote: post #4

Tremendously impactful decision, regardless of which side of the case you support. Interestingly, the majority addressed a Google argument centered upon concerns regarding the possibility of international censorship: "Google’s argument that a global injunction violates international comity because it is possible that the order could not have been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, or that to comply with it would res…

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…

> Should every court and country have the right to demand that things are de-indexed worldwide, now that Canada has done so?

Canadian legal precedent doesn't apply in other countries. This isn't like setting a precedent within your own country.

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

#133

Post by naasking »

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…

> Except Free Speech is a Binary, and that is exactly what Canada is doing,... punishing thought crimes.

A "spoken crime" is not a "thought crime". There's no chip in your head, you're free to think whatever you like, even if you're not necessarily free to say anything you like.

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

#134

Post by oh_sigh »

naasking wrote: post #132
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…

> Should every court and country have the right to demand that things are de-indexed worldwide, now that Canada has done so? Canadian legal precedent doesn't apply in other countries. This isn't like setting a precedent within your own country.

Sure, but China would then have a good suspicion that they could coerce Google into doing this

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

#136

Post by jorrel »

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…

But Google is a just search engine, and this is out of scope. Not being listed in the search will not make that website go away. Equustek should go after the fake company not the indexing service.

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

#137

Post by kofejnik »

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…

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

is it because you have no counter argument?

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

#138

Post by bquinlan »

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…

I disagree that free speech is binary.

For example, I think that a country can be said to have free speech if it disallows people from promising to compensate someone in exchange for murder.

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

#139

Post by 52-6F-62 »

KGIII wrote: post #96
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…

I, too, have dual citizenship. This is something that would never happen in the US. 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 hi…

It would happen in the United States if the victim decided to sue for libel, in which case I'd posture they'd pursue even higher damages (but that, I'll wholeheartedly admit, is pure speculation).

Still in both cases, the public institution would have the final say in whether or not what was said should not be said.

Edit: I was healthily corrected on this point. Not libel, but slander was what I was asserting as a possibility -- in the case we were discussing I was totally incorrect.

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

#140

Post by [deleted] »

averagewall wrote: post #131
danjoc wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why can't you rebrand a product? You bought it, you own it, you can resell it. This case is much more complicated however. It's two business partners who had a falling out and both tried to put each other out of business. The marketing guy kept their own brand and customer base while the tech guy tried to rebrand and sell his products on his own. The marketing guy hired an engineer to make a new product that does the…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN