Google not liable for defamation in search results, rules high court (in UK) | Hacker News Reader

Google not liable for defamation in search results, rules high court (in UK)

guardian.co.uk

19 pointscredo8 comments

FYI Train2Game is a complete con, £5000 for a 'course' of second-hand (read: plagiarised) materials and freeware tools, as well as offering 'loans' to help finance the course itself. They are notorious for spamming false PR pretending to be contented customers. I have a friend that almost fell for it, to the point where a salesman came round his house to sign him up; scary stuff.

http://forums.digitaltrends.com/showthread.php?s=e0e28e34157...

Glad to hear the decision stayed on the side of common sense re: search snippets and censorship.

"However, Eady did say that Google has a responsibility to block or take down content if it is notified with a legitimate complaint about libellous material."

More fodder for the chillingeffects database? Libel laws have no place on the web.

I noticed that too. Is google supposed to now decide if something is libelous or not?

Suppose the author claims it's not libelous - how is google supposed to decide which way to go?

At least with the DMCA the posting party gets to file a counter claim. Is there such a procedure here?

I'm in the US, so it doesn't affect me, but if I was there I would be OK with a law like: After notification google must contact the other party, if no response after 3 businesss days take it down. Otherwise leave it up and let a judge decide. Of course google now has to figure out how to contact random poeople.

Libel laws have no place on the web.

What is the difference of NYT publishing a defamatory article and huffington post? According to your logic the former should pay a lot of money while the later is free to be as defamatory as it wishes. I do not think that is sane, the public whether on the internet or wherever else has the right to maintain their reputation and not be injured unfairly.

The point of libel laws is that 50 years ago, the NYT could make libelous accusations against someone and they would have had no platform to defend themselves. Thus they were given a legal platform.

Now, if someone says mean things about you in a forum, you can defend yourself on that very same forum. You don't need a legal platform.

It shouldn't be my responsibility to defend myself in each and every forum in which I might be attacked, should it? Because if that were the case, whoever had the most posters and websites could say whatever they wanted about the people who didn't have those resources.

I do not think the case in question is about a forum. Even if it was no one should be free to proliferate malicious and false information which may injure the reputation of an individual or company. Reputation is a valuable thing to an individual, perhaps one of the most valuable, and society would not be civilised nor able to function well if we were free to injure other individual's reputation, whether that is online, in a cafee, or on paper.

As for your point of platform, that may be true, NYT still is very powerful and can crush an individual, but then so is hufington post, and perhaps even a highly regarded individual who makes a post in a forum. You may then come to the forum and state that the information is false, yet I doubt the previous individual would come back saying, oh yes it is, I beg your pardon. So the point of libel law is so that you may go to court and get an impartial individual who decides whether it was defamatory or otherwise.

..hmm, very interesting considering Justice Eady's track record. Read almost any Private Eye edition and they'll mention some bizarre ruling he has made.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com