2 ms·
Actually, it is how we have traditionally defined liability in defamation cases. This is like suing the newsstand because the local paper is defaming you.
by gozur88 11y ago
Actually, it is how we have traditionally defined liability in defamation cases. This is like suing the newsstand because the local paper is defaming you.
- will_brown 11y agoExcept, according to the article, in this case the Court found Google published and promoted the defamation vis-a-vis its search results. A newsstand may in fact be liable if they took a defamatory statement out of a paper and published that false statement like an ad/signage attached to the newsstand.
- ori_b 11y ago> Except, according to the article, in this case the Court found Google published and promoted the defamation vis-a-vis its search results. And the point is that this is stupid. This is like suing a newsstand for displaying the headlines from a local newspaper that is defaming you. This is not publishing.
- mentat 11y agoI think it's a bit of a stretch to just call Google a "newsstand". If the same company owned all the newsstands and they all carried the same papers, at what point are they publishing? (Especially if they're excerpting papers to promote them.)
- ori_b 11y ago> If the same company owned all the newsstands and they all carried the same papers, at what point are they publishing? At the point that they're producing the content. Anyone that's simply regurgitating someone else's content is not publishing.