Google Sued for Allegedly Profiting From Child Porn

skinfaxi writes "Filed in New York, Jeffrey Toback claims Google has made billions by allowing child porn and 'other obscene content' providers to use sponsored links." From the article: "The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public, requests monetary damages to be determined at trial. It also accuses Google of violating federal statutes relating to child pornography and calls for the court to order that Google cease "advertising, promoting, or distributing" child pornography through its site or otherwise providing any links to such content."

Comments

Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFA:

"Defendant is willing to accede to the demands of the Chinese autocrats to block the search term 'democracy,'" the complaint states, "but when it comes to the protection and well-being of our nation's innocent children, Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children."

Wow...Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz managed to fit human rights in China, child pornography, and availabilty of porn to children in one sentence. A veritable trifecta of outrage.

From the above quote, you might get the idea that Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz earn a large percentage of their income from spurious lawsuits based upon righteous indignation. A quick glance at their litigation history would seem to bear out this assumption.

Again, from TFA:

Other recent lawsuits filed by the firm have sought at least $10 million for alleged sex discrimination against Atlantic City, N.J., casino cocktail waitresses and $600 million from the maker of an ephedra-based dietary supplement claimed to cause the death of a Baltimore Orioles pitcher.

Now, I'm against child porn as much as the next guy (or most of them, anyway), but this is looking a lot like a fishing expedition.

Just one more quote from TFA:

Toback, the politician backing the action, describes himself in his biography on Nassau County's Web site as a "quality of life guy" who has focused on legislation promoting open space and recreational areas. He has also co-sponsored a law designed to protect teenagers from tanning beds and has planned this year to pursue a ban of toy guns in the area.

Oh, that's right....it's an election year.

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[BakaHoushi]

That's because terrorists make money in the "regular" porn business. What did you think those sexy co-eds took their tops off for money, did you?

Remember, everytime you masturbate to porn, a terrorist beheads an infidel. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the Heathens?!

But in all seriousness, these guys are just your typical ambulance chasing sacks of crap who should be disbarred. In fact, I can think of a number of problems in America that would get so much better if we could disbar lawyers who file frivilous lawsuits... Either that, or just use them as anchors. Whichever is easier and/or more entertaining.

Real Threat to Children: myRedbook

[Anonymous Coward]

The real threat to children is myRedbook. myRedbook facilitates the sale of sex across state lines. That sex is being provided by prostitutes who come from a variety of countries and who have a wide range of ages .

Re:Load of rubbish

[RobinH]

So Google has made more from Child Porn alone than it's actual net yearly income?

Someone needs a crash course on income vs. revenue. Google's *revenue* is in the $2.25 billion range for a single quarter of a year. If they spent $1.65 billion per quarter in expenses, then their income would be around $600 million. The plaintiff (or whatever he is) is claiming that substantial amounts of *revenue* is coming from child porn.

Source: here

Re:Non-starter

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Not a republic, are you perhaps suggesting Bush has taken on the title of King Bush?

But since I can make a guess at what you really meant; It seems to me the United States likes to call itself a democracy, while technically true it would be more accurate imo to call it a federal republic with a efficiently two-party system. Not something I'd consider a 'democracy'.

Re:Sponsored Links

[linvir]

They've realised their mistake alright, but they still haven't fixed it completely yet. I literally took this screenshot right now for the purpose of this post (and I realise that I'm giving away a lot of extra info in it)

Re:Non-starter

[TripMaster Monkey]

are you perhaps suggesting Bush has taken on the title of King Bush?

Given that Bush has repeatedly and persistently held himself to be above the law, suggesting that would be an excercise in redundancy.

Re:Another One

[DragonWriter]

I always got a kick out of that exchange. Because the sad fact is that politicians can't be made to agree on anything.

That's not true. Through enough corporate contributions around, and politicians can be made to agree on anything.

Re:What's the real agenda here?

[jargoone]

Oh. My. God.

Are you suggesting that Microsoft has something to do with this? Seriously?

That has to be some sort of record, even for a slashdot comment.

Just so no one is confused...

[deblau]

FTFA: The suit was filed in the New York Supreme Court.

Unless you're a lawyer or have some twisted interest in these things, this probably isn't the court you're thinking of. States usually have three levels of courts: trial court, court of last appeal, and an intermediate appellate court. (Some states do away with the latter.) Normally, the Supreme Court is the court of last appeal, but in New York it's backwards. The New York Supreme Court is really the trial court, then comes the Appellate Division, then finally the New York Court of Appeals at the top of the ladder.

Just FYI.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[RPoet]

Let's keep the debate within the confines of reality. There are no such things as snuff films.

Re:Billions? Who's the profiteering scumbag here?

[Stanislav_J]

Given I've not seen a single sponsored link for child porn via Google amongst the dozens of How To Make Money On EBay, How To Get Gold In WoW and various home business ads, I'm guessing a full quarter to a half of their business model is not built on child porn.

Tell me about it -- I mean, I spend hours a day on the Web, and I have never seen a link, sponsored or not, to anything that could remotely be considered child porn. Nor have I ever stumbled onto any such material, even when looking for adult erotic material. If this stuff is actually out there, it's well obfuscated -- I'm sure ther don't put links around the Web reading, "Get the newest kiddie porn!! Click here!!" Any site peddling that crap is probably hidden behind multiple URL redirects and passwords, and doesn't advertise openly. So where are the hordes of people who are supposedly "stumbling" onto this stuff? I think you'd have to be actively looking for it, plus know someone who knows someone who knows someone, etc., who provides a link.

(Not that I haven't seen a lot of perfectly legal websites whose motives I question seriously. Like the hordes of "child starlet" tribute sites -- detailed and obsessive -- run by adult males. Nothing pornographic or illegal.....but very creepy.)