4 ms·

" But for Google to say that unionization information violates their terms of service [1] may be defamatory" No, it isn't. Because that would require google ha

" But for Google to say that unionization information violates their terms of service [1] may be defamatory" No, it isn't. Because that would require google having said that. Google in fact, has said or written nothing as far as anyone can tell. "On top of that, Google's action may violate the National Labor Relations Act.[2]" No, again, it almost certainly doesn't. This is a pretty ridiculous claim, backed up by roughly no case law. It's pretty easy to see it would swallow pretty much all law if it was read the way you are :) "So Google could have a hard time in court over this, since a pattern of illegal anti-labor activity has already been established." This would pretty much be inadmissible in court to show anything, as evidence of "bad character" is not permissible to show someone did something in a different case.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
DannyBee 11y ago
In particular, on the last part, see FRE rule 404: "(a) Character Evidence. (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. ... (b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts. (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character." (Note the above is basic federal evidence law :P, if you wanted to sue over the NLR act. Most state evidence rules are similar in the civil realm, and differ a bit in the criminal realm)
strathmeyer 11y ago
> No, it isn't. Because that would require google having said that. Google in fact, has said or written nothing as far as anyone can tell. When you tried going to the site Google would give you a page saying it had been removed for violating the TOS.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  TL;DR It's not defamation, and even if you could plausibly make out a claim, you'd lose First, i was talking about the statement that the parent claimed was made that google felt unionization information violated it's TOS. Google has made no such statement that anyone has seen. This is in fact, one of the main reason's it almost certainly can't be defamatory. Here, it looks like (and i say looks like because i still haven't seen real evidence. The links go to an error page that you can get to at any time :P) Google stated it took the page down for violating its TOS. If that is a true statement (it is irrelevant whether it violates the TOS, only if the statement is literally true), it's not defamation in any jurisdiction. Let's assume for a second that such a thing would be something actionable under defamation law (probably not). Truth and statements of reasonable opinion based on facts are defenses are defenses to defamation in almost all jurisdictions (including CA) On the truth side, if Google removed the site because it believed it violated the TOS (and not for some other reason), then this is not a defamatory statement, as it is factually true that this is why google removed it. The secondary implied statement that it violates the TOS is almost certainly non-actionable[1]. For this view of teh statement, it's irrelevant whether it did violate the TOS, it matters is the statement literally true - ie is this why google removed it. Further, the law does not require absolute truth, and in fact, in a defamation lawsuit like this one (a matter of public concern), the plaintiff will be the one having to prove the statement is false. The defendant will not have to prove it is true[2] So someone is going to have to prove that google did not in fact, take it down for violating the TOS (again, it's irrelevant whether google was right or wrong about whether it violates the TOS). Or prove that the possibly-implied "it is a tos violation" is not a valid or reasonable opinion. In a case like this, depending on the circumstances, the plaintiff may also have to prove Google acted with actual malice (IE knew it was a false statement). This is all a long way of saying: Defamation isn't what people think it is. I am allowed to state all the facts i want. Defamation by implication is not a thing in california. The closest you come is defamation per se. You'd have to claim false light or something in california (and in false light, the implication would have to be not just false, but highly offensive to a reasonable person. You'd fail this test since most reasonable people don't give a crap if i brand you a tos violator, and in fact, joke about violating EULA's and TOS's.). You'd also have to prove negligence. Good luck with all that :) [1] If you state the facts on which you are basing your opinion, and the opinion you state could be reasonably drawn from those truthful facts, you will be protected even if your opinion turns out to be incorrect. This also assumes you are in a defamation by implication state. California is not one of them. [2] *As a matter of law, in cases involving public figures or matters of public concern, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove falsity in a defamation action. Nizam-Aldine v. City of Oakland, 47 Cal. App. 4th 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

DannyBee 11y ago

In particular, on the last part, see FRE rule 404: "(a) Character Evidence. (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. ... (b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts. (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character." (Note the above is basic federal evidence law :P, if you wanted to sue over the NLR act. Most state evidence rules are similar in the civil realm, and differ a bit in the criminal realm)

strathmeyer 11y ago

> No, it isn't. Because that would require google having said that. Google in fact, has said or written nothing as far as anyone can tell. When you tried going to the site Google would give you a page saying it had been removed for violating the TOS.

DannyBee 11y ago
TL;DR It's not defamation, and even if you could plausibly make out a claim, you'd lose First, i was talking about the statement that the parent claimed was made that google felt unionization information violated it's TOS. Google has made no such statement that anyone has seen. This is in fact, one of the main reason's it almost certainly can't be defamatory. Here, it looks like (and i say looks like because i still haven't seen real evidence. The links go to an error page that you can get to at any time :P) Google stated it took the page down for violating its TOS. If that is a true statement (it is irrelevant whether it violates the TOS, only if the statement is literally true), it's not defamation in any jurisdiction. Let's assume for a second that such a thing would be something actionable under defamation law (probably not). Truth and statements of reasonable opinion based on facts are defenses are defenses to defamation in almost all jurisdictions (including CA) On the truth side, if Google removed the site because it believed it violated the TOS (and not for some other reason), then this is not a defamatory statement, as it is factually true that this is why google removed it. The secondary implied statement that it violates the TOS is almost certainly non-actionable[1]. For this view of teh statement, it's irrelevant whether it did violate the TOS, it matters is the statement literally true - ie is this why google removed it. Further, the law does not require absolute truth, and in fact, in a defamation lawsuit like this one (a matter of public concern), the plaintiff will be the one having to prove the statement is false. The defendant will not have to prove it is true[2] So someone is going to have to prove that google did not in fact, take it down for violating the TOS (again, it's irrelevant whether google was right or wrong about whether it violates the TOS). Or prove that the possibly-implied "it is a tos violation" is not a valid or reasonable opinion. In a case like this, depending on the circumstances, the plaintiff may also have to prove Google acted with actual malice (IE knew it was a false statement). This is all a long way of saying: Defamation isn't what people think it is. I am allowed to state all the facts i want. Defamation by implication is not a thing in california. The closest you come is defamation per se. You'd have to claim false light or something in california (and in false light, the implication would have to be not just false, but highly offensive to a reasonable person. You'd fail this test since most reasonable people don't give a crap if i brand you a tos violator, and in fact, joke about violating EULA's and TOS's.). You'd also have to prove negligence. Good luck with all that :) [1] If you state the facts on which you are basing your opinion, and the opinion you state could be reasonably drawn from those truthful facts, you will be protected even if your opinion turns out to be incorrect. This also assumes you are in a defamation by implication state. California is not one of them. [2] *As a matter of law, in cases involving public figures or matters of public concern, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove falsity in a defamation action. Nizam-Aldine v. City of Oakland, 47 Cal. App. 4th 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).