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

171–180 of 249 posts

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

#171

Post by 52-6F-62 »

btilly wrote: post #158
52-6F-62 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for chiming in. This comment was really helpful. The difference in the Bernardo case is that in Canada persons detained or charged with an offence are innocent until proven guilty. I'd wager that reporting on a case against a judge's orders creates the presumption of guilt, counter to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is hardcoded into our law here, whereas it is not in the United States where it…

Here is the key difference. The presumption in Canada is that there is a balance to be found between different kinds of rights, and the government can be trusted to do a reasonable job of finding it. I remember feeling that way, and wondering how a rational person could see it otherwise. The presumption in the USA is that government is fundamentally untrustworthy and our enumerated rights exist as a protection agains…

Thanks for the context. That's a tough one. Of course there is no stopping Americans from doing what they want in this case, especially pursuing information.

I honestly have no immediate answers for situations like this. Our current frameworks don't allow for it.

Frankly, I support the idea of global democratic bodies working on issues like this for willing members. But I'm a natural born humanist, so I'm extremely biased!

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

#172

Post by djrogers »

downandout wrote: post #126

I wonder if this decision can be used as a framework to kill extortion-based sites such as RipoffReport.com that Google has aided and abetted for more than a decade. That would be wonderful.

>aided and abetted

I'm not sure that phrase means what you think it does... Or perhaps you simply misunderstand what Google does?

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

#173

Post by Forlien »

djrogers wrote: post #163
naasking wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You cross the line into thought crimes when you ascribe intent and presume to know the state of mind and thought process behind a given piece of speech.

Hmm, do you think there are some things you can say that would classify as an action you could be arrested for rather than an idea?

For example, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building, offering a bribe, and threatening someone all seem like actions you could be arrested for in the USA where the only evidence is your speech (or a recording of it). Would these qualify as thought crimes to you and if so do you think there is a developed nation with free speech where they are accepted?

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

#174

Post by blazespin »

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.

No but judges are absolutely influenced by foreign decisions. Why wouldn't they be? Smart people on the supreme court, similar laws, why not consider what they arrive at?

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

#176

Post by djrogers »

DKnoll wrote: post #169
djrogers wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Googling the phrase “smuggling hate speech on their iPad" came up with a host of links, as does the phrase "hate Speech calling someone the incorrect pronoun" (specifically wrt Canada’s Federal Bill C-16), and the fining of comedians and speakers in Canada has been covered ad nauseam in many forums, including this very thread. [1] https://medium.com/@KelemenCari/american-speaker-arrested-in... [2] http://thehill.com/…

What a perverse lens you are looking through... He was refused and detained at the border and not criminally charged. He has no right to enter Canada and can be turned away for any reason, but right-wing extremism is as good as any. There any many first hand accounts of Canadians trying to cross into the US for the inauguration and being rejected because their political views. The thing about 'misgendering' now being…

I am I fact a Canadian citizen, not sure why you’d assume otherwise.

Also, I fail to see how providing a few links as context for the GPs last paragraph as the P requested should elicit such a rude and threatening response from you.

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

#177

Post by djrogers »

Forlien wrote: post #173
djrogers wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cross the line into thought crimes when you ascribe intent and presume to know the state of mind and thought process behind a given piece of speech.

Hmm, do you think there are some things you can say that would classify as an action you could be arrested for rather than an idea? For example, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building, offering a bribe, and threatening someone all seem like actions you could be arrested for in the USA where the only evidence is your speech (or a recording of it). Would these qualify as thought crimes to you and if so do you think ther…

How about threatening violence against a member of a protected class? Is the crime worse because of that persons protected status, even if that didn’t matter to the perpetrator?

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

#178

Post by visarga »

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…

Wait 'till Erdogan has something to add to that list.

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

#179

Post by visarga »

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…

I suppose limitations apply by Google's TLD. Why don't Google block by geo-IP? If request comes from Canada, on any Google property, apply the filter. If request comes from China, it has nothing to do with Canada, so they should have nothing to complain about. I don't like geofencing, but this court decision is absurd.

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

#180

Post by naasking »

djrogers wrote: post #163
naasking wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You cross the line into thought crimes when you ascribe intent and presume to know the state of mind and thought process behind a given piece of speech.

The intent isn't relevant to actually breaking the law in this case. At best, it might be relevant to sentencing. So no thought crime.
Post reply on HN