|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 12:36 AM EST |
try just .vic.gov.au ... there are slight differences between state laws.
However Google does seem to have been a little cavalier in its handling of the
affair ...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Google Australia - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 12:50 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 04:34 AM EST |
heh.
Google could probably put a notice on their .au page saying something like:
"Sorry, but due to your local laws, we are unable to offer you any search
resultys at this time. We will restore service to your area when you fix your
laws."
They's probably get away with it too if they put a link to the court case there.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 06:55 AM EST |
They were told of the false link(s) and did nothing. That makes them accessories
to the offense (libel/slander). All they had to do was kill the link(s).
Surprise surprise other countries have laws which are different from those in
the US. Want to do business in those places then be aware and obey.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: albert on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 01:44 PM EST |
Just because someone requests a takedown, doesn't mean Google need comply. Did
Trkulja goes after Melbourne Crime, the alleged source of the defamation? Did he
get a judgment of defamation against them? Google most certainly would have
complied, had that been the case. Australian judges just don't get it either.
No, Trkulja went after the deep pockets. I suspect there's more to this story
than meets the eye. Google should block .au domains in search results for a
while, to see what the Australian business community thinks about this. Just
kidding....[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|