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

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

[spun]

Damn, you beat me to the punchline. :-)

Re:Fishing expedition?

[kneeslasher]

This'll be off-topic.

You do know what will happen if anything like that were ever instituted don't you? This type of thing (i.e. instituting insulting practises or designations for those in high office or in power) has been tried before. Invariably, what starts off as an insult, degradation or shame ends up being ceremoniously revered. Let us say that here in England, we decided to rename all MPs "Lords of the lice that live under lavatories.", you can bet your bottom dollar it would work for only a little while before becoming an honorific. This is because you can label a station or position however you like, evetually that name will end up corresponding to whatever is _behind_ the name, even if it means that the meaning of the word changes. So if we did have a day when we kicked all lawyers in the balls, soon a natural heirarchy would spring up where it would become a privilege to be kicked in the balls! Lawyers could even insitute a system whereby the best lawyer received the biggest kick. Or a kick from the head of state. It could be that instead of being called to the bar, barristers were called to be kicked. Or something. Note that I do not hate lawyers and am merely illustrating the pointlessness of labelling, regardless of original good intentions, high office with derogotary terms that do not correspond to the heirarchy in society.

You will not that there is a body of opinion which describes the origin of kingship in the similar way: in matriarchal societies, kings were chosen merely as military leaders who led soldiers to battle for a year before they were sacrificed to prevent them becoming too powerful. As the natural power of the king grew, eventually, it became death after ten years rather than one. Finally, a boy was chosen as a substitute sacrifice instead of the king. Eventually, that boy was replaced with a creature or some ceremonial object.

See what I mean? Of course what this has to do with the topic, apart from rambling, is beyond me.

I hope i'll never be rich

[McGiraf]

I hope i'll never be rich.