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

51–60 of 249 posts

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

#51

Post by uiri »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #23
syshum wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bigger question is if Canada can enforce their regressive idea of Free Expression on US Service providers simply because of their presence in Canada Canada has no concept of the 1st amendment,Canada as all kinds of limits on Speech that will never be allowed under the US Constitution.

Canadian here. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your sweeping allegation regarding free expression? As it is, this just seems like some random stab that doesn't concern the topic at hand (which has far more immediate concerns tied to it). Section 1 of the Constitution of Canada (1982) outlines freedom of speech. Just about the only thing you can't do, outside of pursuing damages in the court system for specifi…

Part I of the Constitution of Canada (1982) is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 1 of the Charter outlines that these Rights and Freedoms may have reasonable limits placed upon them in accordance with the principles of a free and democratic society.

This alone - reading each constitution - demonstrates the fundamental difference in approach that each country's legal system takes to its freedoms.

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

#52

Post by kbenson »

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 are leveled on a person and this is high in many search results, or people are defamed through libel and the jurisdiction doesn't allow allow for a legal remedy?

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? Freedom of speech is complicated, and not absolute in the United States. We have laws for libel and slander to prevent just this sort of thing, and I don't usually see those being called a bad idea. Perhaps that should be an indication that this issue isn't as black and white as it's often portrayed, and deserves a more moderate, considered solution.

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

#53

Post by deepsun »

ams6110 wrote: post #47
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…

People in the US are not "found innocent," they are presumed innocent and found "not guilty." If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder, and understandably and justifiably would not want Google (or anyone else) to portray otherwise.

Should be not , but , I believe.

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

#54

Post by shallot_router »

timthelion wrote: post #30
shallot_router wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate? I don't really know much about relabeling. The company seems to be claiming that the infringing company is selling products under company A's name when they have no actual affiliation, which sounds like ordinary fraud to me. edit: Nevermind, I misread. There is no fraud or impersonation occurring.

If the article is correct, I quote "Equustek had successfully sued another company for relabelling its products and passing them off as their own.". That means that the offending company was buying Equustek's product and putting a different sticker on them.

Ah, thanks. I parsed that sentence incorrectly the first time I read it.

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

#56

Post by abc_lisper »

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…

the only thing one can do now is to change their name :(

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

#57

Post by escapetech »

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…

> but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims are leveled on a person.

You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record. The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU.

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

#59

Post by nerdponx »

deepsun wrote: post #53
ams6110 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in the US are not "found innocent," they are presumed innocent and found "not guilty." If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder, and understandably and justifiably would not want Google (or anyone else) to portray otherwise.

Should be not , but , I believe.

"Not guilty" is a common enough phrase in English that you can use it like an adjective and native speakers will know what you mean. Pedantically, you might want to spell it "not-guilty".

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

#60

Post by lowbloodsugar »

havetocharge wrote: post #21
lowbloodsugar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google could comply with the Canadian court. I hope someone in the US sues them for it. Deliberately removing a site from US searches, or from searches hosted in the US is clearly an abuse of its position and unlawful. And then we can have the US Supreme Court decide whether or not the US Constitution applies to Google, or if Iran's does.

Why do you hope that an entity gets sued for something that they have not done yet?

Legal precedent.
Post reply on HN