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

191–200 of 249 posts

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

#191

Post by thirdsun »

kbenson wrote: post #52
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…

> it might be only a matter of time before a 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 Which in the context of "murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and subsequent acquittals" sounds bad, because it's possibly against your concept of justice, but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims a…

> I mean, if I seed the internet with 20 SEO optimized sites about how you're a murdering rapist, should Google's right to keep that in results be defended?

In my opinion it should.

It makes much more sense to fight the actual source of the offending content, those 20 SEO optimized sites containing false information or the company that counterfeits those products (in Google's case). By forcing Google to alter its index you're shooting the messenger and wrongfully consider the problem solved.

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

#193

Post by ubernostrum »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #141
btilly wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dual citizen here. Canadians and Americans understand free speech to mean different things, and from the US point of view, Canada does not actually have free speech. A standard example is that in Canada, a judge can impose publication bans on information presented in court. These bans can be temporary (don't report on the presented facts until the case is decided) or permanent (the rape victim may not be named). In t…

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…

A large difference between the US and many jurisdictions is the extreme aversion to prior restraint.

In the US it's perfectly possible to go after someone for publishing/saying something, if in doing so they violated a law (for example, if they deliberately falsely described someone as a criminal), and recover damages and possibly an injunction against them preventing further harm to you.

However, it is designed to be as difficult as humanly possible -- verging on impossible -- to prevent someone from speaking/publishing in the first place. Ordering something never to be said or published at all (rather than allowing damages to be recovered after the fact) is prior restraint, and the US legal system is incredibly hostile to that.

So although there are times when it's permitted in the US, they're rare and the standard which must be cleared is very high. Which in turn leads to people from the US being surprised at the (from our perspective) seemingly casual way that prior restraints on speech are handed out in other countries.

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

#195

Post by qb45 »

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…

> crystal clear trademark violations

Nope, it's about alleged trade secrets, not trademarks.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/14/10/2014BCSC1063.ht...

> The current international trademark framework means that the majority of nations in the world would actually require compliance with this order

Given the above, I'm not sure if it's still true. And even if it was, I fail to see why Canadian court should be allowed to effectively make this decision for others. Have all countries in the world obliged to recognize Canadian censorship orders yet?

> I am confident in stating that the freedom of speech concerns arising from this case are not as dire as portrayed.

Meh, it's not exactly reassuring if you say that this ruling doesn't matter because it's business as usual.

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

#197

Post by qb45 »

jussij wrote: post #151
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…

Not quite the same thing, because as the judge said in the summation: "This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites that are in violation of several court orders."

The problem is that these websites operate outside of this court's jurisdiction and the de-indexing is supposed to happen outside of this court's jurisdiction. It ought to be none of the court's business.

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

#198

Post by qb45 »

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.

> Canadian legal precedent doesn't apply in other countries.

Legally, yes. I bet Chinese courts don't recognize Canadian precedents. However, China is now free to claim that if Canada chooses to enforce censorship in China, they will be free to enforce censorship in Canada by similar means, if they ever feel like doing so.

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

#199

Post by silver7017 »

gordon_freeman wrote: post #37
kodablah wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider this the nuclear option and one that is unlikely for a large corp if we're just talking about fines (as opposed to purely opposing laws as in my hypothetical). For a normal company if the ROI of their presence > the negative ROI of complying with orders, they will remain. My question was more targeting the public and whether they accept that more restrictive regional rulings will win out. This also comes i…

if that (the ROI of their presence > the negative ROI of complying with orders) were true, would not Google keep their business going in China? In reality, it is not easy to measure such RoIs positive or negative.

the reason is that refusing to comply with chinese censorship laws is not a fine, it is a prison sentence.
Post reply on HN