decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Failure to act is the problem for Google | 258 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Failure to act is the problem for Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 31 2012 @ 06:35 PM EDT
Google has not the right to decide what information is false--any conceivable
notion of equity (as opposed to raw use of power to suppress dissent) HAS to
start with that fundamental bedrock principle.

Any concept of free speech has to start from the same place.

So if I, or a federal bureaucrat, or a third-world religio-tribal-fascist
dictator, or an angel from heaven, tells Google to remove something because it's
false--Google must refuse. All of us are, from the standpoint of free speech and
truth, equal before Law.

Now, if I have gone to court, and convinced a jury of my peers that a statement
is libel, then ... I have something to present to Google that is actionable.

Before then, before the court has ruled, I am just as likely (from Google's
perspective) to be slandering when I accuse someone else of libel, as the other
person was.

This ruling would be disastrous for the free interchange of ideas. What happens
if I "inform" the local university library that I regard the Bible, or
Darwin's Babble, or Huckleberry Finn as a personal affront to me, or Mohammad,
or the Touring Tooth Fairy. Does the University suddenly have a responsibility
to study any of the above?

Can we afford a society in which any government thinks the answer should be
"yes"?


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )