4 ms·
This is to be expected. Defamation law works very differently in the Commonwealth than it does in the U.S. (or in most other legal systems). British and Irish
by rprasad 14y ago
This is to be expected. Defamation law works very differently in the Commonwealth than it does in the U.S. (or in most other legal systems).
British and Irish newspapers have lost defamation cases even though their claims were proven true. Unfortunately, Commonwealth defamation law does not concern itself with the truth of statements--the effect on reputation is what matters.
Edit: Changed UK to Commonwealth, as Australia is a Commonwealth nation but not a UK member.
- rprasad 14y agoYou can downvote all you like, but it is an accurate statement of the defamation law of Commonwealth nations such as Australia. Google would have handily won this case long before trial in the U.S., but this case did not take place in the U.S. It took place in a different country, where the laws allow plaintiffs to prevail in these sorts of situations. If you have a problem with that, become an Australian voter/legislator and lobby for the laws to be changed.
- Nick_C 14y ago> it is an accurate statement of the defamation law of Commonwealth nations such as Australia. It's not accurate for Australia. Truth is a defense here.
- jim-greer 14y agoThe 'truth of the statements' is not in doubt here. Google admits that there's no evidence that he's a criminal. The question is whether indexing a 3rd party site and showing images/snippets makes you a publisher. And whether once notified, you have to evaluate the truth or falsity and take it down if false. That's obviously not a scalable option for Google...
- darkarmani 14y agoIt is in doubt here. The truth Google is affirming is: "does a website say he's a criminal." The only report on what other sites say. I'm not sure how they aren't telling the truth when all of their generated content comes from some source.