|
|
|
| Authored by: mschmitz on Wednesday, May 15 2013 @ 04:38 PM EDT |
Just in case you were not aware of this - the current German government is a
center-right one (according to common wisdom with respect to the programmes of
the political parties involved) or, if you'd like it phrased that way,
right/neocon (the 'liberal' party actually is more neolib/neocon than what US
citizens understand by the term 'liberal').
So much for political trolling. Unless you meant to say German neocons are still
liberal socialists by your book - in which case I apologise, and vow to never
step on US soil again.
Please do also take note that the right to freedom of speech (just as any other
of the basic human rights) has its limits according to German law (as laid down
in their 'constitution'). In particular, free speech is much more limited than
you may be used to in the US (this has its roots in certain dark periods of
German history which I'm sure I won't have to spell out here. No need to invoke
Goodwin.).
Where execution of your right to free speech infringes on another persons'
equally important rights (such as, to be treated with a minimum of dignity and
respect), your right expressly meets its limit.
(I am aware that constitutional guarantees do not directly apply to interactions
between citizens, but limit how the state can deal with citizens. They do,
however, inform the extent and structure of civil law guarantees.)
With that off my chest - back to the court case. While I think the decision is
most unfortunate, and does reflect limited understanding of the autocomplete
function, I think you are misrepresenting the impact of the court's decision
just a little. Google is called upon to act only when it is notified that
autocomplete suggestions are presented that are quite clearly libelous (as in,
neither grounded in fact nor rumour).
Note that this decision was in a case with quite narrow focus - the appellant
could demonstrate that a combination of terms was presented which could not have
actually been found on his web site (or, apparently, any other). From what I
understood, it wasn't a case of 'we suggest combinations that users have
frequently used in the past', either.
Much more interesting to follow will be the other case against Google
autocomplete before the courts in Germany (I am certain you are aware of what I
mean, since you follow German high court decisions so closely). I don't think
this particular case, due to its rather narrow focus, will set much precedent
for the other.
Disclaimer - I am _not_ a lawyer, and what I know about the law in Germany is
from taking something akin to a law primer in High School, in addition to basic
Civics 101.
-- mschmitz
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 16 2013 @ 01:02 PM EDT |
| If 1 million people search for "Willie
Weber"* and "troll", does that make
Willie a troll? Most likely
they want to find out if he is a troll.
Careful. Willi Weber is actually quite famous. From wikipedia:
Wilhelm "Willi" Friedrich Weber (born 11 March 1942 in Regensburg, Germany)
is
the manager of numerous German racing drivers including seven-time Formula
One champion Michael Schumacher, his brother Ralf Schumacher (until
November
2005) and Timo Scheider. He is also the franchise holder for A1 Team
Germany. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 16 2013 @ 01:09 PM EDT |
| The German court is saying, in effect, that their people
are too stupid to
realize that auto-complete is computer generated data, that
may or may not be
garbage.
That's not what the German court is saying. The court was
saying that auto-
complete, whether computer generated or not, demonstrably
produced results
that were insulting to that person. In Germany, it doesn't
matter for an insult
whether people realise it is untrue or not. What matters
is that something
derogative is said about a person to a third party, and that
was clearly the case
here. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
