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

221–230 of 249 posts

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

#221

Post by B-Con »

vkou wrote: post #27
skybrian wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a question of jurisdiction. Should any country's courts be able to restrict what happens in other countries?

I don't know if they should, but de-facto they can. American companies are, for instance, forbidden from doing business within Iran, North Korea, etc. Likewise, nothing stops the US from passing an enforcing a law that requires any foreign companies that do business with the US to follow US laws, even in their operations outside the US.

I don't follow the examples.

The Iran example is due to political trade embargos, which apply not only unilaterally to all companies but are also often a part of international trade agreements via NATO, the UN, and the EU. It's a very different nature than the CA ruling in this case.

The second example, they can't actually pass that law. They can have requirements that companies must comply with to get/keep government contracts, but that is very different because the company can stay in the US and simply not try to win a contract.

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

#222

Post by icebraining »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #157
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...

This is a very tough subject. I don't think it will stop being tough anytime soon. I'm going to put on my brute hat, so I might earn some downvotes for simplicity or unpopular opinion here but I'll take a stab at it anyway: It seems that many people often conflate what makes a right and what makes a freedom. That is, people want what they call freedom to do something, but what they mean is that they want the right to…

In Canada, you are free to say whatever you want. If it comes into contrast with what is socially (and subsequently legally) acceptable at the time, then you may or may not face consequences for your actions.

Same as in any other country, from Switzerland to North Korea.

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

#223

Post by qb45 »

dagenleg wrote: post #213
qb45 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose it's for convenience when yandex doesn't find what you are looking for. Don't worry, Russia isn't exactly a freedom of speech heaven and if the government had a serious issue with these other search engines they wouldn't be there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Service_for_Supervisio...

At the same time you don't see google or bing linking to other search engines. So I think linking to the competitors for your users convenience is a pretty neat thing to do, which probably irks countless top managers daily. Don't belittle that little neat touch just because it's a russian website.

True and I don't dispute that.

I'm not even sure if what I posted makes much sense, I was somehow stuck in the context of using alternative search engines to evade censorship and figured that parent suggests that these links may have something to do with it.

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

#224

Post by syshum »

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…

>I remember feeling that way, and wondering how a rational person could see it otherwise.

Because history has proven time and time again that government can not, and should not be trusted.

>The presumption in the USA is that government is fundamentally untrustworthy and our enumerated rights exist as a protection against the government.

The presumption in the USA is that rights are not enumerated at all, we do not have enumerated rights. The Bill of rights is not designed or intended to list all of the rights a person has.

The constitution is a document outlining what government can do, if the constitution does not give the government the authority, the government is prohibited from acting.

This is almost the exact opposite of however other nations government is authorized where the government is giving total power and then some government powers are prohibited or limited.

I do not see how any rational person would want to give government near unlimited power.

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

#225

Post by syshum »

djrogers wrote: post #177
Forlien wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There should not be protected classes..

All people should be treated the exact same under the law

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

#226

Post by syshum »

DKnoll wrote: post #187
djrogers wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You really flipped the script, eh? Marching down a city street saying you hate an entire religion is threatening. I said intolerance won't make you many friends here, which I'm sure you've discovered.

Self Awareness Zero....

So if I oppose all Religion, if I believe All Religion is a threat to the safety, security, and mental health of people. If I believe indoctrinating children into any religion to be a form of child abuse. And I wish to give a talk, or wish to write a book on said subject, you believe I should be barred from speaking or publishing said book in Canada as "hate speech"

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

#227

Post by ocdtrekkie »

lawly wrote: post #208
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, Canada can complain about whatever they want (according to their laws), that affects a company that hopes to do business in their country. The US prohibits American companies from selling weapons to it's enemies. By your logic, this transaction, which takes place outside of the US, is none of their business. But you had better believe they make it their business. Google is free to tell Canada to shove off..…

That's all good and well, but what about when national laws conflict? Which they do, all the time.

I would argue that in that case, it's up to the international corporation to decide which country they'd rather do business in.

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

#228

Post by qb45 »

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…

> The thing about 'misgendering' now being a crime is an absurd farce.

IANAL and dunno if it formally passes as "a crime", but

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1694958/54-dawson...

[270] I also find that, when Ms. Dawson was referred-to with male pronouns in the report of the occurrence on June 18, 2010, it amounted to discrimination on the basis of sex. Notwithstanding that her legal name was Jeffrey, she advised the officers that she was a transsexual female and was not treated as such.

I suppose C-16 will now allow this to be called discrimination on the basis of gender, not sex. Whatever.

I wonder if it's a hate crime in Canada to claim that the problem of misgendering is not a crime and "an absurd farce". Be careful what you post :)

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

#229

Post by ramy_d »

tjl wrote: post #184
ramy_d wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

whoa that's messed up, I think google is right in that this is between Equustek and Datalink. This does indeed seem like a bad precedent.

Except, they've fled the country and only can continue business because of Google's search results. So, Google is basically contributing to their business existing. That's why the order was granted.

That is indeed a tough spot to be in. What about Bing? and what if google didn't have an office in Canada? Who would get sued then? tough call.

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

#230

Post by 52-6F-62 »

djrogers wrote: post #161
52-6F-62 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very tough subject. I don't think it will stop being tough anytime soon. I'm going to put on my brute hat, so I might earn some downvotes for simplicity or unpopular opinion here but I'll take a stab at it anyway: It seems that many people often conflate what makes a right and what makes a freedom. That is, people want what they call freedom to do something, but what they mean is that they want the right to…

You can't contrast rights and freedoms when the right in question is a right to free speech. If one has a right to a freedom, and a third party enforces consequences for exercising that freedom, then one's rights are being infringed.

Well if we are talking Canada with this point, it is not a right to a freedom of speech. It's a freedom to speak whatever you may want to speak. The wording of the 1st Amendment is quite different so I can see how the interpretation would vary.

The Canadian constitution states that everyone "has the following fundamental freedoms [...] (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication."

I'll pose a couple of analogies to illustrate how I'm interpreting it:

If I wanted to tell my the CEO off at the company I work for in a grotesque manner, I'm entirely free to do so, but I'd likely lose my job. If he decided to fire back at me, HR would likely intervene to resolve the issue, but not before we're cordoned off to prevent further controversy. (I realize companies aren't quite analogues of countries, I'm taking a bit of a stretch for the sake of illustration).

If I picked a stranger out of a crowd and degraded him publicly, I'm free to do that as well, but I'd probably get punched. If instead of punching me, he decided to throw similar words back and a third person intervened to arbitrate and calm the situation down -- is my freedom then being imposed upon? What if the intervening individual was a police officer or a panel of people, or a body of interested people?

I see these things (like most things outside of technical fields) as far more gradient than binary, so I maintain a pretty strong bias, I know.

Post reply on HN