6 ms·
I have an idea. Ignore them. Let them enforce their own edicts, rulings, and laws. If enough people disobey, it becomes impossible to enforce. That's why civil
by maratd 15y ago
I have an idea. Ignore them. Let them enforce their own edicts, rulings, and laws. If enough people disobey, it becomes impossible to enforce. That's why civil disobedience works. Now, if Google grew a pair and told the judge to get lost ... well ... I'll be mighty impressed and they would earn my respect.
- lukesandberg 15y agoI don't think it is cowardly for Google to obey the law and court orders. At least they publish information about this kind of activity http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/US/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/...
- maratd 15y ago> I don't think it is cowardly for Google to obey the law and court orders. I do. I would never comply with any government request unless it was preceded by a court order. And if a court order had been obtained, I would use common sense to determine if the request should be granted. Anything less IS cowardly. If you don't stand up to abuse, the abuse will simply continue.
- adgar 15y ago> I do. I would never comply with any government request unless it was preceded by a court order. ... isn't the article in question about a court order?
- gwright 15y agoWhile I realize that there are defensible reasons to actively reject some government directives the benefits of a lawful society should not be underestimated. Bad laws should be fixed via legislative action. Sometimes this means complying with the bad law in the interim. Selective enforcement and/or selective non-compliance may be justifiable as a tactical response but if taken too far then we no longer have the rule of law.
- gnaritas 15y agoBad laws should be rejected via jury nullification; you can't count on legislators who were the ones to enact the bad law in the first place.
- lukesandberg 15y agoThe other clear distinction to make here is that it isn't exactly Google's fight since the content that is being targeted is merely being indexed by Google not created by Google. So logically it is the content owners/creator (website owners) who should be standing up to this kind of action. Unfortunately such fights are often extremely lopsided (small publisher vs. huge corporation), so people expect Google to step in to help because it is tangentially involved, but most of the time it is simply not practical.
- buff-a 15y agoIts absolutely Google's fight. Google does nothing but publish links. Linking is absolutely protected speech. Google's entire business is being threatened by a judge ignorant of the law.
- dedward 15y agoYou would a good lawyer too.
- rbanffy 15y agoThe larger you are, the harder it gets to disobey their rulings. Google can fight if the ruling is illegal or obviously unfair, but they can't hide and pretend it's not with them after being mentioned.
- maratd 15y ago> The larger you are, the harder it gets to disobey their rulings. Imagine Google replacing google.com with a clear statement denouncing a particular government action and naming names? Imagine Google de-indexing the government instead? They have so many more options available quite simply because they have such massive exposure.
- gte910h 15y agoInstead? No. Also? Sure!
- rbanffy 15y agoVoluntarily delisting something is unthinkable. It would violate the most basic principle for a search engine - to present the information without distortion. Voluntary censorship is a step too far.
- gte910h 15y agoA court order is not voluntary. A court order is the step before a judge tells cops to break down your door to do what the order says.
- talmand 15y agoImagine the U.S. government taking google.com from the DNS list and making it a felony to link to not only the domain but the IP addresses that belong to Google as well.
- andrewflnr 15y ago