1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Google found guilty in libel case

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by julieb, 27 Sep 2010.

  1. julieb

    julieb New Member

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. docodine

    docodine killed a guy once

    Joined:
    10 Feb 2007
    Posts:
    5,084
    Likes Received:
    160
    Even if it's not Google's suggestion, the fact that on their page if you search that guy's name it comes up with such and such is a rapist is pretty libelous.
     
  3. capnPedro

    capnPedro Hacker. Maker. Engineer.

    Joined:
    11 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    4,381
    Likes Received:
    241
    This is so dumb. It's as is people who get to make decisions on technological matters have no understanding of how they work. Oh. Hang on a second...

    I suppose now Bit-Tech will get sued for stating that this guy has links to the word "rape". Good thing he isn't named.
     
  4. eddtox

    eddtox Homo Interneticus

    Joined:
    7 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    15
    Libel laws need revising. Auto-complete based on common past searches cannot be libellous.
     
  5. tristanperry

    tristanperry Active Member

    Joined:
    22 May 2010
    Posts:
    907
    Likes Received:
    38
    That's pretty silly considering it's an automated system, and it's a valid search 'suggestion'

    I could understand if Google Suggest showed up really incorrect and offensive suggestions (didn't 4Chan recently manipulate Google Suggest so that searching for Justin Bieber would suggest 'Justin Bieber Syphilis'? In this case I could understand a lawsuit, but even then I think it'd be harsh)

    But yeah, this particular case is very silly.
     
  6. mi1ez

    mi1ez Active Member

    Joined:
    11 Jun 2009
    Posts:
    1,442
    Likes Received:
    18
    ^ They call it googlebombing.
     
  7. Pete J

    Pete J RIP Teelzebub

    Joined:
    28 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    5,341
    Likes Received:
    329
    Well, he shouldn't have done that then, should he? Scum.
     
  8. Skiddywinks

    Skiddywinks Member

    Joined:
    10 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    930
    Likes Received:
    8
    Are you that thick? You missed out the "Although" at the beginning of your chosen quote, and missed out the ", the court decided in his favour" at the end of it.
     
  9. tristanperry

    tristanperry Active Member

    Joined:
    22 May 2010
    Posts:
    907
    Likes Received:
    38
    Ah yes, of course :)

    That rings a bell now - I remember they did the same to Paris Hilton. With Google suggesting she *is* a [adult filter] when people typed in *isn't* :D
     
  10. mi1ez

    mi1ez Active Member

    Joined:
    11 Jun 2009
    Posts:
    1,442
    Likes Received:
    18
    And there was the famous Weapons of Mass Destruction one too.
     
  11. faugusztin

    faugusztin I *am* the guy with two left hands

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    6,873
    Likes Received:
    248
    Court decided in his favor in case against Google, he was guilty of the criminal offense.
     
    Pete J likes this.
  12. Pete J

    Pete J RIP Teelzebub

    Joined:
    28 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    5,341
    Likes Received:
    329
    Thank you.

    @Skiddywinks: He was found guilty of 'corruping a minor' prior to this case and served time for it. Hence, as Google says, his name is inevitably going to be linked to this case, isn't it? I don't see why Google should be held responsible for some disreputable w**ker's actions.
     
  13. Flibblebot

    Flibblebot Smile with me

    Joined:
    19 Apr 2005
    Posts:
    4,655
    Likes Received:
    151
    Now, now. Play nice. ;)

    The court decided in his favour in terms of the Google case; he was still convicted and imprisoned for charges of corrupting a minor.

    I can see where he's coming from, though - without knowing about the case details, corrupting a minor doesn't necessarily mean rape (it could have been consensual, even though the other party was under-age).

    While it's naive to assume that Google had anything actively to do with an automatic search, it could modify the search suggestions to filter out any potentially slanderous phrases - so it's a difficult judgement to call.
     
  14. cjmUK

    cjmUK Old git.

    Joined:
    9 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    84
    Not in my country it is not.

    Google's suggestions are not google endorsing the pages returned by the search - they are an assertion that that the suggestions are representative of the most popular and accessible content that matches the search - which is a fact.

    In general, if a news outlets reports that X is accused of doing Y, they are not suggesting that X did do Y, merely that someone else is making that claim. Likewise, google is merely reporting the fact someone else is accusing this guy of being a rapist - which is true.

    I'm surprised that this cases succeeded, even in France - I'm fairly sure it wouldn't succeed anywhere else. The implications for other search engines and media outlets are tremendous.
     
  15. memeroot

    memeroot aged and experianced

    Joined:
    31 Oct 2009
    Posts:
    1,215
    Likes Received:
    19
    because we all want fred west - a bit dodgy - to be filtered out
     
  16. cjmUK

    cjmUK Old git.

    Joined:
    9 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    84
    It couldn't.

    How would you decide which information is libellous or not? The very fact that they might start to filter some results would imply that they are deciding that non-filtered results must therefore be true and endorsed by Google - which leaves them wide open for other suits against them.

    Their position will remain the same - they returned the most popular results that match the search phrase but will not seek to credit the returned results with any kind of authority.
     
  17. mrbens

    mrbens New Member

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    4
    Google auto complete is funny. If you type in "Religion is" google suggests "********". and if you type "Google is" it says "watching you". :)

    I wonder how many other people or companies are going to try sue google now for things that people have searched for?
     
  18. DMU_Matt

    DMU_Matt mmmm cheesy

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2009
    Posts:
    680
    Likes Received:
    16
    You're surprised that France did something that no other country would....? ;)
     
  19. eddtox

    eddtox Homo Interneticus

    Joined:
    7 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    15
    From what I hear UK's libel laws aren't great, either
     
  20. cjmUK

    cjmUK Old git.

    Joined:
    9 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    84
    I'm surprised that even France would come to such a judgement. Yes, the French often prefer to plough their own furrow, and they do have privacy laws that favour the individual, but even so, this case was unusual IMHO.

    However, it wouldn't be the biggest shock of my life to find out the case was contrived to p**s an American corporation off...*any* American corporation.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page