Defamation laws are complicated. In some countries you can be purely factual and still commit the crime of diffamation. An example is talking about someone's in

Defamation laws are complicated. In some countries you can be purely factual and still commit the crime of diffamation. An example is talking about someone's involvement in some criminal activity, implying the person in question is a himself a criminal when he is in fact a victim. It is true, but it is still using deceptive tactics (lying by omission in this case) to damage someone's reputation. Here, what I understood made it defamation is that Google autocompleted the defendant name to “janice duffy psychic stalker”. No "Joe says" here. Victim aside, I think it is an important case, and probably the reason why it took so long. By autocompleting, Google puts up information without context, and I think it is normal to hold the company responsible more than for regular search results. In my opinion, Google simply shouldn't autocomplete people names with accusations, true or not. Not only it opens them to defamation, like in this case, but there is enough negativity in this world that I feel like having autocomplete say bad things on people, even assholes, is doing the world a disservice.