4 ms·

Which is exactly what happened: the Montrealer did indeed ask Google to remove the defamatory search results, but they refused. So he took the matter to court a

by mdrzn 4y ago

Which is exactly what happened: the Montrealer did indeed ask Google to remove the defamatory search results, but they refused. So he took the matter to court and obtained a ruling from an elected judge and jury. The court's decision to order Google to pay $500,000 in damages shows that there are consequences and you can't ignore them forever just because you're Google. I'm also sure that the Montrealer tried to take down the original source directly, without succeeding.

jtbayly 4y ago
You can’t ignore what forever? Your position simply requires Google to remove anything that anybody asks them to from their results, doesn’t it?
- mdrzn 4y ago
  If Google allows defamatory content to be displayed on their platform, knowing that it is defamatory, it cannot continue to promote it and be exempt from any consequences. While I am not suggesting that every reported link should be removed, when a Judge makes a ruling, it must be taken seriously and given value.
  - wildrhythms 4y ago
    I agree with you, but my understanding in briefly reading this case is that the plaintiff (via their 'lifelong friend' Mr. T. U.) interacted with Google; not a judge with a ruling. But perhaps I'm missing some part of it. The correspondence with Google begins at line [66] http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=8DC675577FCB5A9703ACA18C78BF1609 http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=8DC675577FC...
  - jtbayly 4y ago
    When is the first time a judge made a ruling on whether this was defamatory?
- richbell 4y ago
  > Your position simply requires Google to remove anything that anybody asks them to from their results, doesn’t it? There's a notable difference between "anything" and results that have been deemed as defamation in a court of law.
  - jtbayly 4y ago
    I can’t find any indication this was deemed defamatory in a court of law until this ruling. Did I miss it? My whole point is that Google has to remove anything the moment somebody asks, because if it is later determined to be defamatory by a court, they’ll be liable. That appears to be what happened here, unless I missed something.
    - richbell 4y ago
      That's a fair point. It's implied to be defamatory but not explicitly cited as legally defamatory. If that's so, then I completely agree with you. I'm going to try to search around and see if there's more information about this. For example, did the man in question try to sue the website and get it removed? (I realize this isn't always possible.)

by mdrzn 4y ago

jtbayly 4y ago

You can’t ignore what forever? Your position simply requires Google to remove anything that anybody asks them to from their results, doesn’t it?

mdrzn 4y ago
If Google allows defamatory content to be displayed on their platform, knowing that it is defamatory, it cannot continue to promote it and be exempt from any consequences. While I am not suggesting that every reported link should be removed, when a Judge makes a ruling, it must be taken seriously and given value.
- wildrhythms 4y ago
  I agree with you, but my understanding in briefly reading this case is that the plaintiff (via their 'lifelong friend' Mr. T. U.) interacted with Google; not a judge with a ruling. But perhaps I'm missing some part of it. The correspondence with Google begins at line [66] http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=8DC675577FCB5A9703ACA18C78BF1609 http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=8DC675577FC...
- jtbayly 4y ago
  When is the first time a judge made a ruling on whether this was defamatory?
richbell 4y ago
> Your position simply requires Google to remove anything that anybody asks them to from their results, doesn’t it? There's a notable difference between "anything" and results that have been deemed as defamation in a court of law.
- jtbayly 4y ago
  I can’t find any indication this was deemed defamatory in a court of law until this ruling. Did I miss it? My whole point is that Google has to remove anything the moment somebody asks, because if it is later determined to be defamatory by a court, they’ll be liable. That appears to be what happened here, unless I missed something.
  - richbell 4y ago
    That's a fair point. It's implied to be defamatory but not explicitly cited as legally defamatory. If that's so, then I completely agree with you. I'm going to try to search around and see if there's more information about this. For example, did the man in question try to sue the website and get it removed? (I realize this isn't always possible.)