31–40 of 220 posts
Pretty interesting ruling that a search engine is basically liable for autocomplete (and thus the content they index). The original website seems pretty shady and not being indexed should basically destroy their business model long term.
>"In dismissing the innocent dissemination defense, which required that the publisher be a subordinate distributor who did not know or ought not to have known that the matter was defamatory, the Court stated that the defamatory nature of the content was self-evident from an examination of it." (extracted from https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/duffy-v... ) I am no fan of Google, but this seems bizar…
>"In dismissing the innocent dissemination defense, which required that the publisher be a subordinate distributor who did not know or ought not to have known that the matter was defamatory, the Court stated that the defamatory nature of the content was self-evident from an examination of it." (extracted from https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/duffy-v... ) I am no fan of Google, but this seems bizar…
>"In dismissing the innocent dissemination defense, which required that the publisher be a subordinate distributor who did not know or ought not to have known that the matter was defamatory, the Court stated that the defamatory nature of the content was self-evident from an examination of it." (extracted from https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/duffy-v... ) I am no fan of Google, but this seems bizar…
> and, because it was on notice that the material was defamatory and refused to remove the information, it could not be found to have innocently circulated the information.
So in very least this is not just about linking to something, but about not removing defamatory content when being put on notice. The obligation to respond to requests and remove certain content from a search engine sounds a lot less unreasonable than merely being guilty of linking to something.
>"In dismissing the innocent dissemination defense, which required that the publisher be a subordinate distributor who did not know or ought not to have known that the matter was defamatory, the Court stated that the defamatory nature of the content was self-evident from an examination of it." (extracted from https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/duffy-v... ) I am no fan of Google, but this seems bizar…
Just because it can’t scale, doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. There is no right to a scalable business model. If you can’t figure out how to do your business without doing it right, you shouldn’t be doing it. Our local coal fired power plant has been yelling for decades that they can’t possibly make a profit and meet all the environmental obligations. Well… guess what.
Since burdensome, long-lasting, legally required procedures can also be imposed by a court on an individual.
Seems like a slippery slope to be honest.
>"In dismissing the innocent dissemination defense, which required that the publisher be a subordinate distributor who did not know or ought not to have known that the matter was defamatory, the Court stated that the defamatory nature of the content was self-evident from an examination of it." (extracted from https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/duffy-v... ) I am no fan of Google, but this seems bizar…
Just because it can’t scale, doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. There is no right to a scalable business model. If you can’t figure out how to do your business without doing it right, you shouldn’t be doing it. Our local coal fired power plant has been yelling for decades that they can’t possibly make a profit and meet all the environmental obligations. Well… guess what.
That. I'm so tired of this excuse being used which basically amounts to complaining that you wouldn't been able to get so big and fat if you didn't break the rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first party is not even the first party, since this "Ripoff Report" site is user-contributed content. It looks like this plaintiff and some American woman were shitposting on that site, and Google indexed it, and the Australian woman sued Google. Full Streisand. https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/janice-duffy-psychic-st...
And it's only defamation if it's false, which I'm not sure was investigated.
2) Ironically, I think the stronger the defamation laws, the worse the problem of defamation becomes because more people become likely to believe dumb random claims they hear are true or otherwise nobody would risk saying it. I believe that a hypothetical society with no defamation laws would be the safest from people believing false random claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because it can’t scale, doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. There is no right to a scalable business model. If you can’t figure out how to do your business without doing it right, you shouldn’t be doing it. Our local coal fired power plant has been yelling for decades that they can’t possibly make a profit and meet all the environmental obligations. Well… guess what.
> Just because it can’t scale, doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. That. I'm so tired of this excuse being used which basically amounts to complaining that you wouldn't been able to get so big and fat if you didn't break the rules.
>"In dismissing the innocent dissemination defense, which required that the publisher be a subordinate distributor who did not know or ought not to have known that the matter was defamatory, the Court stated that the defamatory nature of the content was self-evident from an examination of it." (extracted from https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/duffy-v... ) I am no fan of Google, but this seems bizar…
> because it was on notice that the material was defamatory and refused to remove the information, it could not be found to have innocently circulated the information This is the second case she launched against Google. The first one determined that Google was publishing defamatory information, they settled, but continued to publish the information. So this is probably a situation where they should have had a human l…