'Publisher' Google ordered to pay $40k in damages for defaming Melbourne lawyer
abc.net.au
abc.net.au
In this case the court found -- paraphrasing a lengthy judgement here -- that having being notified of the defamatory material, and failing to remove it, Google is a publisher of defamatory imputations. As such damages were awarded.
Any more background info? Mostly in terms of the takedown request. A successful suit giving the right to get anything directly based on the source material scrubbed elsewhere seems fair enough.
But how is an entity like Google supposed to supervise the validity of such claims? Seems ripe for abuse and no-questions-asked compliance lest they be sued. Clear ground rules as in the EU seem like the only answer here.
This was the sixth case, including appeals, relating to this specific matter.
> But how is an entity like Google supposed to supervise the validity of such claims?
Without wanting to appear too glib, Google also indexes all the judgements! Otherwise, you raise an interesting question which will perhaps be answered in a subsequent appeal.
That is exactly what the DMCA is and Google does abide by that. This case is about Google's compliance with the law, not whether the law is fair.
There's been a few new articles about people having to pay big damages due to online reviews, social media posts[1] and how it stopped women speaking out over the me to stuff over here[2].
[1] https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/email-spat-between-manly...
[2] https://www.uts.edu.au/partners-and-community/initiatives/so...
There's an editorial reason for Wikipedia summaries. There's an editorial reason why some results are promoted and others are pushed down.
Even Google rules to promote HTTPS sites can be considered an editorial decision. If that is good or bad is interpretation.
Google search results are not just links popularity ranking so it make sense to remove some non-publisher protections.
> "It is designed by humans who work for Google to operate in the way it does, and in such a way that identified objectionable content can be removed, by human intervention.
How are people this stupid allowed to become justices?
According to ABC, George Defteros was charged with the murder of Carl Williams and other underworld figures.
You did read the ToS[0], didn't you?
(Though seriously, did anyone? I didn't, and only opened that page to CTRL+F for a counterpoint right now :).)
--
> "Her Honour has found that Google is a publisher of the defamatory imputations once Google receives notice of a defamatory publication online as a result of the use of its search engine," he said.
I think it is reasonable to argue that Google should remove results if they are notified of defamation. I hope that was the ruling in this case, because anything else would set a terrifying precedent.
> "I could not be satisfied that it was reasonable for Google to rely on Wikipedia as a reputable source, given that its own Guidelines acknowledge the variable quality of Wikipedia pages," Justice Richards wrote.