Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by DKnoll » Thu, Jun 29, 2017, 11:25 PM UTC

qb45 wrote: post #228

DKnoll wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am careful about what I post. You just put words in my mouth. The idea that referring to someone as the wrong pronoun accidentally could become illegal is absurd. Try to guess the gender of the next baby you see roll past in a stroller.

Also that quote is about police misconduct, not criminal charges.

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

#242

Post by DKnoll » Thu, Jun 29, 2017, 11:32 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #226

DKnoll wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

That's a humanist viewpoint you've described in this comment and I agree to an extent (some people truly benefit from religion and I won't judge them if they don't judge me). But many others see religious people (often of specific religions) as the enemy and not as fellow human beings oppressed by their own beliefs.

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

#243

Post by Eridrus » Fri, Jun 30, 2017, 1:56 AM UTC

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…

I don't have an issue so much with this specific case, so much as the fact that it gives political cover to things like the EU's right to be forgotten which I think is total garbage.

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

#244

Post by syshum » Fri, Jun 30, 2017, 11:14 AM UTC

DKnoll wrote: post #241

qb45 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I am careful about what I post. You just put words in my mouth. The idea that referring to someone as the wrong pronoun accidentally could become illegal is absurd. Try to guess the gender of the next baby you see roll past in a stroller. Also that quote is about police misconduct, not criminal charges.

What about purposefully, what about if someone proclaims I must use Zir to refer to them and I refuse...

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

#245

Post by DKnoll » Fri, Jun 30, 2017, 10:41 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #244

DKnoll wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am careful about what I post. You just put words in my mouth. The idea that referring to someone as the wrong pronoun accidentally could become illegal is absurd. Try to guess the gender of the next baby you see roll past in a stroller. Also that quote is about police misconduct, not criminal charges.

What about purposefully, what about if someone proclaims I must use Zir to refer to them and I refuse...

Then just say you or they, as you normally would. Why talk to this person in the first place if they upset you so much?

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

#246

Post by lawly » Sun, Jul 02, 2017, 4:57 AM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #227

lawly wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So your solution is to have no international business? Brilliant!

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

#247

Post by awinter-py » Sun, Jul 02, 2017, 4:57 PM UTC

tjl wrote: post #185

awinter-py wrote: post #50

Ironically, now that G has been ordered by a court to take the content down, keeping it up is a form of protest, i.e. a comment on the law, i.e. political speech.

That's not how it works.

I don't know any canadian / european case law on speech, so you're probably right w.r.t the law.

In the US speech is one area where the courts (sometimes) enforce abstract ideals over justice over the needs of the state and the demands of law enforcement.

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

#248

Post by ocdtrekkie » Mon, Jul 03, 2017, 9:23 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #205

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..…

> The US prohibits American companies from selling > weapons... Yes, but this is actually instructive. Google is not a Canadian company, so the more accurate comparison would be the US trying to control who the Russian Kalashnikov Concern sells AK-47's to, just because they're also for sale in the US. > The nature of them being an international > corporation should not mean they are immune > to everyone's laws. Nobod…

There's realistically no limit to what a country can require if an international company wants to do business within their borders. Surely, Saudi Arabia could make that requirement, and then Google would need to decide whether or not it wanted to comply, or stop doing business in Saudi Arabia.

Presumably, in your example they would likely pull out of Saudi Arabia, given the scope of the impact on everyone else versus their income from Saudi Arabia. In this case, Canada has ordered one search result, so Google obviously is going to comply rather than losing the Canadian market (and it's three offices there).

Countries have no inherent requirement to make it easy for international businesses to operate, and I don't feel they should. They should be looking out for their citizens first and foremost, and that's exactly what Canada did here.

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

#249

Post by ocdtrekkie » Mon, Jul 03, 2017, 9:25 PM UTC

lawly wrote: post #246

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So your solution is to have no international business? Brilliant!

A lot of people would be better off. Few to no international companies could be found totally innocent of tax dodging schemes and the like.

But rather, my point is: If a company wants to do business in multiple countries, they are going to have to obey multiple countries laws. Nobody's required to do business globally, and no country is required to enable it.

And if the threat of losing access to Google search is such a risk that a country would need to capitulate to a corporation's demands, it would only be more evidence for the need to bust that monopoly up.