Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 220 posts

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#91

Post by colonwqbang »

Symmetry wrote: post #61
Y-bar wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google appears to be still allowed to surface content which is defamatory, but they still have a publisher's duty to remove it once notified, I think this is key from the summary (linked elsewhere in the discussion): > […] because [Google] 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

I don't think it's reasonable for Google to remove content whenever someone just says its defamatory, in the absence of a court finding that it's actually defamatory. Otherwise we'd quickly lose every reference to Biden winning the 2020 election once it was widely known that the rule existed.

But the court did find that it was defamatory.

There is a world of difference, legally, between disparaging a powerful politician like Biden and a normal private person.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#92

Post by Retric »

KomoD wrote: post #78
krisoft wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But how can you notify Google of anything? Same way you notify any other company about anything. Registered letter sent to the corporate headquaters.

Have you tried that with Google? Or are you just guessing?

Legally it counts as notification even if they never open the letter.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#93

Post by jfarina »

petee wrote: post #66
crobertsbmw wrote: post #4

There’s a difference between “settles” and “wins”. Sounds like they settled, but then they talk like she won…

Afaik a settlement against a company like google is essentially win for a couple reasons -- if Google could win on merit, they can afford to do so; but if they were going to lose, the cost of completing the trial would be even higher than a settlement. Particularly, if she got the redactions and compensation she was looking for, thats certainly a win.

I don't know about that. Even with a company like Google, 12 years is a long time. What if the responsible attorney retired? I've never worked in a legal setting, but I could imagine that causing their work being reevaluated for cost effectiveness.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#94

Post by MichaelZuo »

bluGill wrote: post #47
MichaelZuo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would also imply that there is no right for individuals to have a productive life with plenty of free time per day. 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.

There is no right to that. Things that make it impossible should be looked on with suspicion, but the right does not exist. If you were willing to live like 1930 you could have plenty of free time, but 1930 means electric was a luxury most people didn't have.

If there is no right for individuals to have a productive life with plenty of free time per day than a huge number of HN comments on topics such as politics, housing, social welfare systems, healthcare, transportation, etc... are obviated.

Which doesn't seem like an appealing proposition to accept.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#95

Post by jeroenhd »

arp242 wrote: post #58
csunbird wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dr. Duffy posted a web report on the website “Ripoff Report” complaining about her dissatisfaction with the services she had received from the psychics on the Kasamba site. She also commented on the reports of others about the psychics. She created a chat group “kasambavictims” on Yahoo. Dr. Duffy also posted messages under a pseudonym, and began to email the site complaining that her friend’s wife had committed su…

Posting messages and making up that a friend's wife committed suicide is not really "stalking" or "persistently and obsessively harassing". Immoral and possibly illegal? Perhaps. But that's not the same thing. Also, Duffy was ripped off by Kasamba. I think the crux of the matter is: even if you did something wrong, do things like that really need to be preserved on the internet under your real name for the rest of yo…

> Also, Duffy was ripped off by Kasamba.

Can you really be ripped off by psychics? It's not like you can sue a church because your prayers haven't been answered, so I'm not sure of religion or spiritualism can be a "rip-off".

If someone tells you they'll talk to your dead ancestors for money and you don't believe them, who's to say who's speaking the truth? The best you can do is use reasoning like "there's no scientific basis for an afterlife" but that's not a great defence if you're honestly trying to speak to the dead.

I agree with your other points, of course. I'm just amused at the idea of suing psychics for not telling the truth.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#96

Post by 34679 »

petee wrote: post #66
crobertsbmw wrote: post #4

There’s a difference between “settles” and “wins”. Sounds like they settled, but then they talk like she won…

Afaik a settlement against a company like google is essentially win for a couple reasons -- if Google could win on merit, they can afford to do so; but if they were going to lose, the cost of completing the trial would be even higher than a settlement. Particularly, if she got the redactions and compensation she was looking for, thats certainly a win.

She's quoted as saying it's not about the money, just holding Google accountable. A settlement is money in lieu of accountability. A judgement would deter them from doing it to countless others.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#97

Post by eckza »

Lacerda69 wrote: post #6
eckza wrote: post #2

Read another way, > Woman loses 12 years of her life to a legal battle against Google

nah she won and did a great service to her fellow human beings. this was not lost or wasted time. people spend decades on far more "useless" things - not that there is anything wrong with that

Oh, I'm not saying that she didn't do a great thing.

Have you ever spent years of your life tied up in litigation?

It's not fun. It's very frustrating, to feel as though a resolution will never happen. It feels indeterminate; indefinite.

It's a shame that she should have to spend twelve years of her life pursuing justice. What about the thousands or millions that simply won't try, because they can't rationalize the effort?

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#98

Post by nullifidian »

aardvarkr wrote: post #76
Popeyes wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crazy story, so she shit-posted on a dubious forum, they shit-posted back and then she sued Google for defamation.

That’s my take too. It’s pretty ludicrous

That's UK/Australian legal/cultural norms for you.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#99

Post by jeroenhd »

donatj wrote: post #14

Going after Google rather than the company actually making the remarks seems… incorrect Doesn’t seem like it should be Googles job to fact check the internet. Go after the liar, not the search engine. Google seems no more responsible than your ISP for sending it to you or your monitor manufacturer for displaying it.

Google made the situation a bit harder for themselves with their info boxes (that just repeat the first result, but in an authoritative Google voice) but the "secondary publisher" argument used in the lawsuit makes sense to me.

They weren't required to know the truth from the get go, but they had to remove the libel on notice. Perhaps Google disagreed that there was anything wrong with the assertion that this person was a stalker, but that's a rather risky position to take without any criminal convictions to base their claim off, and a stupid one from a business sense.

Furthermore, their autocomplete is entirely their product, you can't go after anyone else for that.

I imagine this approach wouldn't work in other countries, but if the lawsuit really was baseless in Australia, Google would've won a long time ago, rather than settle now.

Re: Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google

#100

Post by amalcon »

adriand wrote: post #19
testplzignore wrote: post #3

https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/duffy-v... has some actual details of what this is about.

This is an interesting detail - Google's autocomplete suggestions for the plaintiff's name were found to be defamatory: > Dr. Duffy became aware that when people searched her name on Google’s search engine, the Google search bar provided an autocomplete suggested search term of “janice duffy psychic stalker”. [...] Google was also found [by the court] to be the “publisher” of autocomplete suggestions that came up whe…

That's a particularly weird one, because it's just populated with phrases people search often (as befits an autocomplete box). The point of search is to find things you don't know, though! I search for e.g. "XYZ scam" to find information to help me conclude whether XYZ is a scam, not to register my belief that it is in fact a scam.

I guess that goes to your point, though: maybe Google needs to make that clearer?

Post reply on HN