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???

[Tackhead]

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

Well, that is the problem here, isn't it?

/one ticket to hell, please.

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

[C0R1D4N]

"Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children" Wait...what? Kids are looking up kiddy porn?

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

[Gulik]

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.

It's actually a bit surprising that they missed terrorists.

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.

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

[computational super]

Yes, good idea. If there's one thing you can count on child pornographers to do, it's to obey the letter of the law.

So you were searching for child porn?

[666penvzila]

The ads typically reflect the sites that show up in your search.

Non-starter

[Billosaur]

"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."

The difference being that China is a Communist state, while the United States is a Republic. In China, the government makes and breaks the rules at will, so when they tell Google "ban searches for 'X' or else," Google complies. In the US, legislation is required to ban something and it has to meet the "rigorous" standards of law. See below.

A Google representative said Friday that the company prohibits child pornography in its products and removes all such content whenever the company finds or is made aware of it. "We also report it to the appropriate law enforcement officials and fully cooperate with the law enforcement community to combat child pornography," spokesman Steve Langdon said in an e-mail interview.

Langdon pointed to the content policy for Google's AdWords sponsored links service, which broadly prohibits "promotion of child pornography or other non-consensual material." Langdon also noted that Google offers a filtering tool called SafeSearch that aims to block offensive content in search results.

The availability of such tools could mean that the suit may not go far. Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act protects providers and users of an "interactive computer service" from liability if it can be shown that they took good faith to restrict access to obscene material. It also provides that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

So, in the end, while their cause is just and I think all of us can agree that child pornography is an abomination, the fact is that laws have been passed stating the circumstances required for a company to avoid being charged with a crime for promoting child pornography, and Google is complying. Whether you agree with how the law is worded is a separate issue. This is a lot of wasted time and effort. Hopefully this lawsuit will be struck down and the anti-child-porn people can get back to helping children who are victims of this and hunting down the assholes who make it available and do these despicable things.

Re:Non-starter

[Hognoxious]

The difference being that China is a Communist state, while the United States is a Republic.

I must have missed the memo about those being mutually exclusive. Someone tell us, what does the R in PRC stand for again? Is it the same as the one in USSR?

Re:Non-starter

[TripMaster Monkey]

Well, just because a country calls itself a republic doesn't mean that it is...after all, the United States calls itself a democracy...

Re:Non-starter

[rolfwind]

The cause isn't just, it's made for personal gain, using "child porn" as the excuse and serves to put future, legitimate concerns of this nature in contempt. Warning bells should come as soon as it was said google made "billions of dollars" off this specific criminal enterprise - propaganda and exaggeration is perhaps tools for the con artist here.

Re:Non-starter

[mcc]

The difference being that China is a Communist state, while the United States is a Republic.

They're working on that.

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: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:Non-starter

[DragonWriter]

A republic is simply a government order whose head of state is not a monarch; the PRC is certainly a "Republic". Now its not a "Democratic Republic" like, e.g., the US. But you don't have to be at all democratic to be a Republic.

Re:Non-starter

[rainman_bc]

.after all, the United States calls itself a democracy...

Where 60.7% voted in 2004, and 50% of those elect a president. 30% of your population picks your leader.

And it's always a two party race. Do I vote far to the right, or right of center? No sense in voting center or a little left leaning, because they don't stand a chance.

Make no mistake, the US is a plutocracy now, more than a democracy. It's about who donates to an election campaign, not just the voters now.

Unsurprisingly, money is involved

[darkstar949]

Unsurprisingly this line appears in 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.

However, there is no mention of who would be getting the money. So this makes me more inclined to think that it is not "for the children" but rather "for the money".

Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved

[Chris Burke]

Won't somebody think of the money?!

Another One

[FiveDollarYoBet]

Just another politician trying to get their name in the news to score some extra votes.

Do you really want the gov't to decide what results Google or any of the other engines can return?

insert sig here

Re:Another One

[Trigun]

Why don't they go after the purveyors of said pornography?

Better yet, why doesn't every country get together and decide what a child is? Or how about every U.S. state?

Re:Another One

[GmAz]

The problem is that the age at which a child is a child and no longer is a child always changes. People used to marry 12 year old girls. By today's standards, that is still a very young child. Today, 18 is the legal age at which you are no longer a child, but we see more and more early 20's people acting like they are 12. Exactly how young/old do you have to be to be a child anymore?

Re:Another One

[Trigun]

Okay, but say that you're in Michigan. The age of consent is 16 (I believe). You can go to Ontario and have sex with a 14 year old, as long as you a) are not in a position of authority over said minor, b) don't do her in the butt, and c) don't bring her into Michigan.

If a neighbouring state has a restriction of 17 or 18, you cannot bring her into Michigan for the purposes of sex, otherwise you are transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of sex (or something like that), but if she is visiting relatives, then things are different.

To wrap it up, which is more exploitive? Having sex with someone under 18, or photographing it? I don't want to get into a big philosophical debate, but the main point that I'm trying to make, is that if you're going to sue a company that is essentially worldwide, you might want to better ensure that the rules are comparable across the board, or try to make them moreso. It's hard to prevent child pornography if it's only child pornography in one little hamlet. You can filter and control it all you want, but you'll never eliminate it.

Re:Another One

[westlake]

Better yet, why doesn't every country get together and decide what a child is? Or how about every U.S. state?

Let's be honest here, shall we?

When the talk is about child pornography, the discussion is almost certain to focus on the sexually immature child, those age twelve and under. Including those still in infancy.

Why don't they go after the purveyors of said pornography?

They can and they do. But going after the distributer sometimes means you bag the lot.

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.

Fishing expedition?

[winkydink]

...this is looking a lot like a fishing expedition.

No, it's called business as usual at a big tort firm.

Re:Fishing expedition?

[wackysootroom]

Maybe what we need is another "hallmark holiday": Kick a money-grubbing lawyer in the balls day.

Re:Fishing expedition?

[Jaysyn]

I don't think enjoyment of getting kicked in the balls will ever catch on except with a small percentage of the S&M demographic.

Jaysyn

Re:Fishing expedition?

[Ohreally_factor]

That's because it is better to give than to receive, numbnuts.

Re:Fishing expedition?

[modecx]

That's why you mix it up a bit. On Mondays they get kicked in the balls, Tuesday they get poked repeatedly with a sharp stick, Wednsdays, they rip hair off a random body part with very sticky tape, Thursday is honey bath followed by a visit to the local African Stinging Ant farm day, and Friday they get conjugal visits from Bubba down at the state pen.

If they're willing to put up with this, they deserve to be a politician.

Re:Fishing expedition?

[irablum]

um.... no.

first off, child Porn is no more or less rampant than it ever was. whats worse, it is LEGAL in many countries.

secondly, its not so easily found. as long as you don't put things like "rape" and "children" in your search bars, you probably won't find it. I myself, have never seen it on the web in over 10 years of web surfing.

thirdly, images are only considered erotic if you are aroused by the image. Many things which are termed "pornograph" I do not find erotic, hence there is no danger. Unless you are predisposed to finding pre-pubescents attractive, you wouldn't think that naked pictures of them are arousing. I see my pre-puescent children naked on occasion, and it does nothing for me. My wife, naked, is a different story.

Ira

Re:Fishing expedition?

[MullerMn]

And that sentence also works without the comma.

Ironic

[wackysootroom]

Does anyone else find it ironic that this law firm exploits our natural instinct to protect children to try to make a money grab from Google? So who's exploiting who here? It seems like google does all it can to try to remove and filter out any type of child porn here, so how can they be liable?

Re:Ironic

[linvir]

As well as the usual, I think if I were from New York I wouldn't be too happy about the idea of some law firm simply deciding that I, as a member of the public, had had emotional distress inflicted upon me.

Election fodder...

[Stick_Fig]

...this won't go anywhere, but at least Jeffrey Toback will be able to say:

"My name is Jeffrey Toback, and I care about your children. Vote for me this November."

Talk about a knee jerk

[minusthink]

"Toback, self-described as "not the most computer-literate guy," said he learned of the filter three days ago. He said he didn't know if the computers in his home have commercial filtering software that blocks pornography and other material unsuitable for children.

Toback said a lawsuit was his only alternative because Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., is beyond the legislature's control. Toback, a father of three children, ages 15, 13 and 9, filed the lawsuit as a private citizen with no county funds."

He didn't even investigate if there was a filter in google already.
He didn't investigate his own computer even *having* filtering software.
He didn't investigate using filtering software.
He didn't think that he might, i don't know, watch where his kids go on the web.

Go go gadget out sourced parenting.

(From: http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzgoog0505,0,26 01653.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)

Re:Talk about a knee jerk

[Trigun]

I think that you have one too many words in the subject line. Try taking out 'knee' and see what happens.

Re:Talk about a knee jerk

[barzok]

And yet the TV manufacturers aren't being held responsible for what "slips through" when the V-Chip isn't enabled.

Why should filtering software/websites be different?

Re:Talk about a knee jerk

[nstlgc]

He didn't even investigate if there was a filter in google already. He didn't investigate his own computer even *having* filtering software. He didn't investigate using filtering software. He didn't think that he might, i don't know, watch where his kids go on the web.

That's great and all, but what does that have to do with the fact that Google is making money off advertisements served on child pornography pages? Pretty much any similar service I know has very strong rules as to content served, and while I have asked Google to revoke accounts that were clearly in error, I have yet to see them take action.

Had this been MSN's (future) advertisement service, this whole place would be crammed with comments about how this is typically MS and why they can't be more like Google.

What is Google doing?

[digidave]

The real question is whether or not Google is knowingly allowing ads for sites with child pornography. Obviously if they knew about these sites they should have been removed.

I somehow doubt any company would do that since it is a sure way to get in trouble and lose lots of customers. I imagine a few ads may have slipped under the Google radar that looks for this sort of abuse, but if Google has a system in place where people can notify them of these ads and if they take immediate action to remove the ads, then I don't see them as being 'evil'.

Do it for the children!

[Old Man Kensey]

I wish these people would quit trying to protect everyone else's children and stick to worrying about their own.

Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA...

[LaughingCoder]

Oops ... Mr Tolback is a Democrat. How inconventient.

Load of rubbish

[malsdavis]

Yea right Billions.

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

What rubbish.

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

Sponsored Links

[BigDumbAnimal]

Kiddie porn?
Whatever you're looking for
you can get it on eBay.
www.eBay.com

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:Sponsored Links

[linvir]

I compiled some more

Re:Sponsored Links

[Krach42]

I had a friend tell me he got an eBay link for "Vasectomy".

Who ever buys a Vasectomy from eBay though, probably needs one so they stop spreading their genes.

Let's Be More Like China

[Trick]

"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."

Yeah. Let's use China as a role model. I know they're just trying to get in a cheap shot at Google, but the implication that we should somehow control companies the same way China does scares me. Is that where we're heading?

interesting to note

[to_kallon]

"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."

spurious and pointless as this lawsuit may be, i find it interesting that in the same sentence he faults google for blocking search terms and not blocking search terms. no, i'm not advocating child pornography or think that it shouldn't be blocked, i'm just saying people should really pick an agenda and stick with it. oh, but wait, this is america where politicians can say three things and do a fourth.

Nice generalization....

[tinkerghost]

"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."

Translation: Hey they put a line of code in that says =~ s/'democracy'//ig but they won't spend a X billion dollars to create an image filtering process that can accurately determine the age of an individual in a nudie picture that can be in any of 50 different image formats.(That DARPA can't do with govt backing with standardized formats.) Oh, and elect me this fall.

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:Real Threat to Children: myRedbook

[FuzzyDaddy]

Hey great link! Thanks!

Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[dada21]

As a free market promoter and anarcho-capitalist, child porn is one grey area that I don't have a good answer to. Slashdot usually has good opinions from either side of the statism coin, and this is one place that I don't doubt that both sides of the pro/anti-government debate can offer some real insight to.

I believe that our governments haven't shown any ability to fix anything they want to -- the unintended consequences of every piece of regulation seem to create preferential treatment for some elite group rather than actually solve any problems, protect those meant to be protected or reduce "crime" as they define it. Drug wars, porn wars, family value wars, oil wars, a War on Everything seems to just make Everything worse.

I think child porn is disgusting, but the victims in this case have never seemed to be helped by the law. Lawsuits by the government that are titled "The People v. Google" seem to never help The People, harm Google, and in the end the lawyers win and the government wins a case that helps it grow in power without having to be any more accountable to those paying the bills in the end.

I'm not a fan of regular porn, either, but I don't really see how anyone can stop something that has an obvious market (including child porn or the odd varieties of porn). As a believer in the Bible, I truly believe that the best way to fix society is one relationship at a time. I've helped a few friends overcome their porn issues as best as I can, by offering my time and love and helping them become accountable to someone (voluntarily). I don't think we can eradicate porn of any kind through the law, and I also believe in people's inherent right to view porn in the privacy of their homes. Is the criminal the person looking at porn, the person making it, or the person who connects the two together? I would have to say that the person who is violated would be the kid, and the perp would be the person making it. Wouldn't it be wiser to go after the real criminal?

Just because there is a black market for something doesn't mean that the person who consumes the black market product is the problem. You can't fix the drug problem by jailing non-violent drug users. You can't fix the problem by jailing non-violent drug dealers. You can only create a fair justice system by prosecuting and jailing people who committed real acts of violence regardless of the reason -- shoot someone (drug war, aggression, whatever) and you've violated someone. Run someone over with your car (drunk, aggression, whatever) and you've violated someone. The base reasoning that "it was over drugs" or "it was because of alcohol" is not a just reason -- it is the violation of the person that was the criminal act, not the base reason behind the violation.

I think the enter War on Child Porn doesn't protect the children, but it does seem to give government more and more power over our lives. If we are to criminalize an act, it should be against the perp of the act and on behalf of a real victim. "John Doe (minor) versus Crazy McCracken (perp)" is the only lawsuit I ever want to see. The People versus lawsuits should be thrown out, and we need to return tort laws to finding a real victim and a real perp.

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

[sfjoe]

As a free market promoter and anarcho-capitalist, child porn is one grey area that I don't have a good answer to.

I like to look at porn and do so fairly regularly. I mostly download Usenet porn and have for ~10 years or so. In all that time, I have never once seen child porn. Although I don't go looking for it, I would expect at least once to have accidentally stumbled upon some. It never happened. All this makes me wonder if the hysteria around child porn is actually just people pandering to parent's fears in order to advance their own agenda. It begs the question: is all this mindless panic in proportion to the severity of the problem?

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

[rolfwind]

The people viewing it are creating the demand for it, thus being inextricably linked to the cycle.

Replace your argument about "child porn" with the word "snuff films." Yes, the original perp would be jailed for murder and no additional laws would have to be created there.

But would the audience be less accountable than anybody else aiding and abbetting murder? Would they be an accomplice, just like a mafioso who orders hits against people, but never does the actual crime?

I'm not talking about people who catch a voyueristic glimpse here accidently or whatnot. I'm talking about people who actively participate in the process. Just because they are "only viewing" something, should they be completely absolved from accountability their part plays? They are already breaking the law by not reporting the crime (felony) to the police in the first place - individual citizens are actually accountable for the type of society people live in.

And the second thing about child porn, laws are on the books because of the right to privacy. They did not and cannot consent to being viewed in the first place and as minor should be protected from such things. You probably understand this, but it's important to acknowledge the victim has a right to dignity too.

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

[Phroggy]

the unintended consequences of every piece of regulation seem to create preferential treatment for some elite group rather than actually solve any problems,

What do you mean "unintended"?

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

[fishybell]

So now, according to you, merely seeing a snuff film, or other illegal content, would be a crime? I aggree that if the person bought the video, they would be culpable, but just seeing it?

What else? If I watch videos of illegal street racing on Google Videos am I responsible for the racer's actions? No. I'm merely witnessing a crime. If I were to purchase a video of the race at a car show I'm now actively supporting the actions of the people who made the video, and potentially the people who starred in it.

The same thing goes for any "taboo" or illegal content. The idea that someone can be prosecuted for witnessing a crime is preposterous. The fact that we do prosecute these people (and according to the news and your local sex offender database, it happens a little too often for my comfort) is just horrendous. The idea is now the same as if I were to witness a murder, and be offended, I'd be fine, but if I were to watch a video tape of the murder to get my jollies I'm now a criminal. We can't throw people in jail because of what goes on inside their heads. If they act out any of these thoughts in real life, or in any other way support a crime, they're guilty, but as long as it stays in their head, they should be innocent.

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:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Material that is obviously child portn also gets Usenet cancelled very, very fast indeed: servers that do not support cancel messages for the various alt.binary groups where most Usenet porn winds up are begging to be deluged and overwhelmed by spammers. So the likelihood of such messages being found on a normal Usenet feed has dropped, especially with the advent of websites, anonymizing proxy servers, and popular pirate software resouces such as the old "FSP" servers.

Only a complete idiot will post child porn on Usenet these days, since NNTP messages started generally including the posting host's IP address.

Billions? Who's the profiteering scumbag here?

[nick_davison]

Toback claims Google has made billions by allowing child porn and 'other obscene content' providers to use sponsored links."

Google's 2004 revenue was $3.19b
Quarterly revenue by late 2005 was up to about $1.5b

So, at a rough estimate, Google's total lifetime revenue as a company is in the ~$10b range.

To have made "billions" in child porn related sponsored links, even if we assume all of Google's revenue is from sponsored links, we'd be assuming 1/4th of all sponsored links Google has ever served were child porn? Assume 50% of their revenue is sponsored links and that jumps to a full 50% of all sponsored links Google has ever served are child porn.

Wow. The internet is a sick place. At least 25% of Google's entire business model is purely about child porn? They're evil!

Or, alternatively, the "billions" claim is completely made up by someone who saw a company with an apparently huge revenue stream and figured he could either:

a) Get rich by blowing a minor issue out of all proportion and then suing for a chunk of that revenue stream for himself.

b) Make a name for himself as the protector of all the little children, taking on the giants, and wouldn't you really like to vote for him for D.A. next year? After all, he cares about the children. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN, PEOPLE!

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. So I'm going to go with self aggrandizing shyster as my guess.

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.)

this is dumb...

[DoctorDyna]

While everybody is so enthralled with suing google over being able to access stuff, why don't they start suing domain registrars for allowing websites with questionable content to register domains.

While they are at it, let's sue the ISP on the other end of the server the content sits on for allowing the data to pass through it.

Let's also sue the company(ies) that made the routers too, they don't filter child porn.

Let's just make a list of all the companies that participated in the delivery of the content, from the companies that developped the components inside the servers the people that supplied the silicon, the companies that developped the teflon insulation in the cabling, the copper miners for making cable that could be used to transmit child porn...the list goes on and on for people that, by this same ruleset could be held accountable.

Fucktards, suing google is assinine. All they do is provide a service for people to search what is on the internet. They profit from EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET. You can't sue them because of what the internet contains. Send the people who create child porn to jail.

This whole issue is simply passing the buck. They realise it's hard to keep porn producers in check, so they sue sue sue big dollar Google to try and win a company that will help them fight their battle? It's very plain to me that most people that hold a political office of some kind have no fucking idea how the internet or computers really work, and insist on sensationalizing things like this that make grandma and grampa think they give a fuck, but the people who actually use the internet always see right the hell through it.

How can this guy file suit

[usurper_ii]

If I know of a Constitutional violation that has happened or is happening, but it didn't actually happen to me, 99% of the time, the suit is thrown out of court. That is why it is incredibly difficult to win on a Constitutional argument, no matter how valid the violation happens to be. But this one little person can just up and sue Google on what looks like, if the charges or true, that an offical agency of the federal government should be prosecuting.

Not that I'm shocked to find a double standard with our judicial system, but it looks like to me that this should be thrown out unless the guy can show proof that he was harmed, somehow.

Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowadays there is not much difference between a Democrat and a Republican, is there?

If there's not much of a difference, why didn't you say "but I'm sure that Google neglected to "donate" to Republicans and/or Democrats."?

Making uninformed, strongly opinionated statements makes you look like a dumbass.

Congratulations, dumbass.

Re:Why can't Google just stop accepting porn ads ?

[u16084]

Last time i checked, porn sites were not illegal, and are protected. Theres no way of defining "Porn"

More offtopic ranting about tagging

[heinousjay]

I see the 'fud' tag showing up on a lot of stuff. I would like to let the intrepid tagger know that the word does not mean 'I don't like this article.' I know that's hard to understand. It's kind of the same as the fact that the 'Troll' moderation does not mean 'I don't agree.' As such, I don't expect this lesson to stick.

Please mod me down.

Whose Fault?

[NittanyTuring]

Isn't child porn illegal? If so, then Google shouldn't be at fault, but the pornographers.

Re:Why can't Google just stop accepting porn ads ?

[ultramk]

Google is the gateway to porn right now, and that needs to change.

OK, I'll bite.

Why?

M-

They regularly remove illegal content...

[MasaMuneCyrus]

Apparently these people have never seen the huge list of links that Google removes from their search engine due to request/legality. There are literally thousands of links to child porn that they have removed.

Re:Not to worry

[smoker2]

I googled this "Jeffrey Toback" guy, and he's apparently a nobody.

But apparently you can buy him at eBay !

Convenience and politics - whoo-hoo !

Well, it makes sense, doesn't it?

[khasim]

If a kiddie cereal is one packed with sugar and marketed to children.

If a kiddie movie is one packed with fart jokes and marketed to children.

Kiddie ride, kiddie menu, etc.

Therefore, kiddie porn must be porn that is marketed to children.

Who needs facts or investigation when you can just launch a lawsuit? I'm betting these guys are hoping for a quick settlement from Google just to make the allegations go away.

I'm hoping that Google fights this.

Re:Well, it makes sense, doesn't it?

[Open Mohawk]

I'm hoping the judge throws this thing out on it's (probably) meritless @$$ and doesn't waste a moment or a dime more of my taxpayer's money. And a big fine on law firm that filed the suit. Was it a slow day or something, these lawyers couldn't find something else to do?
"Got anything?"
"Nah...you?"
"Nah."
"Kiddie porn is a hot topic.."
"Yeah, and Google is everyone's favorite money maker..."
"I'm gettin' an idea...ya with me???"

"cool...."

What's the problem?

[c0d3h4x0r]

Child porn is illegal. Google is the advertiser. The advertiser should be held responsible for advertising illegal things. Seems pretty straightforward to me, but maybe I'm missing some legitimate argument to the contrary.

What's wrong with holding an advertiser responsible for promoting illegal things? Doesn't the burden of responsibility ethically lie with the advertiser to ensure that advertisements submitted to their system aren't advertising illegal things? If NBC runs a TV commercial advertising child porn, shouldn't NBC be held responsible for negligence at the very least (for not bothering to check the content of the ad that was submitted)?

Re:What's the problem?

[plague3106]

The problem is that he hasn't offered any proof that they are in fact taking advertising dollars from these people, nor has he offered proof of such an ad at all.

Re:US is a democracy?

[terrymr]

aghhhh.

You can be a republic and a democracy, a republic and communist, comunist and democratic and a republic, a monarchy and democratic and/or communist ... you can't however be a republic and a monarchy.

Kleenex Sued for Allegedly Profiting From Porn

[NoSuchGuy]

Fake news in an other dimension:

"Kleenex Sued for Allegedly Profiting From (Child) Porn!"

The suit accuses Kleenex® that the consumation of porn is made more handy by Kleenex®
Bla bla bla bla....

Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA...

[Spy der Mann]

Nowadays there is not much difference between a Democrat and a Republican, is there?

Yes. They're two sides of the same coin. And with "coin", I mean "money".

My conspiracy theory:

[Stephen Samuel]

His wife caught him "doing some research", and now he has to cover his butt by spending thousands of dollars on a frivolous lawsuit.

bla

[Tom]

I'm pretty sure that Google faces bogus lawsuits like this every other month. The US justice system is a big, fat, ugly "get-rich-quick" scheme for a lucky few, so it isn't much of a surprise that many are trying.

Just another idiot who - my personal belief - should be shot as a service to mankind.

Public distress?

[AviLazar]

The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public

Well I access Google all the time, even for pr0n (especially for pr0n). Since this is the case, will get $100,000 for my distress about having child porn go across my screen?

I am pretty sure Google allows automated inclusion of a link from a website, but they try and scan the MILLIONS of sites to filter out the bad ones. I doubt Google wants to ruin their business for a sick minority who enjoy watching naked children. This guy is just trying to sue so he can make a buck.

Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA...

[sumday]

There are a hell of a lot of differences. However, they do share some traits.

Both democrats and republicans lie, steal, coerce, extort, and slander to further their ideals. They both think they're right all the time and rarely listen to each other. They both care deeply about the welfare of those close to them.

It's the story of human existence. Who would you rather see in power; someone who agrees with your politics and follows your religion but is an idiot, or someone who promotes things you find abhorrent and doesn't share your religious convictions but is relatively smart?

It's just a shame when both sides use the general public's fears and convictions for monetary/political gain or whatever. Which is what i think you were talking about.

Wha?

[humungusfungus]

Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children.

From reaching children? Is that the biggest problem here?

This seems a case of...

[phorm]

Won't somebody please think of my children

...because I'm too busy with cocktail parties and late meetings to bother myself. Thanks!

Scumbucket's contact info

[mbius]

http://www.nassaucountyny.gov/agencies/legis/LD/07 /index.html

I can't find it in my heart to be as level-headed as parent. From CNET:

Langdon pointed to the content policy for Google's AdWords sponsored links service, which broadly prohibits "promotion of child pornography or other non-consensual material." Langdon also noted that Google offers a filtering tool called SafeSearch that aims to block offensive content in search results.

The availability of such tools could mean that the suit may not go far. Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act protects providers and users of an "interactive computer service" from liability if it can be shown that they took good-faith measures to restrict access to obscene material. It also provides that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public...

I know it's not really PC, but I hope they have a special room in hell for this guy. He knows what he's doing, and he knows that we know he knows it.

Re:Scumbucket's contact info

[Fordiman]

"acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public"

How, exactly, do you intentionally do anything by acting negligently?

Re:Big surprise

[tomhudson]

Nobody's defending paedophiles ... get over it (and yourself). The guy sponsoring this is a politician.

We're not in China ... the whole "claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public" is bullshit, as is the politician behind the lawsuit. Go after the producers. Oh, wait ... that would mean admitting its a job for the police ... so much for an opportunity for wrapping himself in the flag over an apple-pe issue.

Hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - lets sue the politicians - they're always "acting negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public".

come on, you're not even trying!

[Thud457]

underaged cloned Hitler kiddie porn

The boiz from Brazil, if you will.

Re:US is a democracy?

[Ohreally_factor]

I'm sorry, but it's a well known fact that reality conforms to Civ II.

this is great

[penguin-collective]

"The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public, requests monetary damages to be determined at trial.

That seems to fit the behavior of the current administration excatly--negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress; can we get some monetary damages from them?

Several trillion dollars might cover at least cover two of their big disasters that come to mind immediately: Iraq and debt, although there are many other items we could add.

Google is a law enforcement tool

[bigpat]

really. How the hell does Jeffrey Toback think that the authorities find the child porn in order to track down the people producing it? If it is easy to find through google, then it is easy for the police to find and stop. Sue the police if nothing is being done about it.

well

[McGiraf]

"to block child pornography from reaching children."

i don't think that children are the audience for this.

WTF?! Are you KIDDING me?

[MindPrison]

I'm no Google activist by any means, but if there's one impression that google has given me is that they're so anti-child-porn as any search engine could ever get!

Even with SafeSearch Off (with their picture search facility) you can't find a singe image like that (not that I'm searching - mind you), but my experience with searching for literally anything - I've yet to come across something even remotely related to child-pron with this search facility, that I have to give them.

I'm old enough to remember the days of the Altavista search engine - and that one where relatively uncensored - so you'd stumble across the odd weird-off image now and then, but google? Nah! These people specialize in keeping such images off the engine.

However - that said - I also think that google strives to be the ultimate search engine, and therefor will have some issues on censoring just about anything. Even with thousands of people working for them - it would be literally impossible to control EVERYTHING streaming trough the net, so if anything slips by - it's most likely through the text-search and NOT the IMAGE search (they're pretty thourough - try it yourself...it's even work safe in SafeSearch OFF)

I'll be the first one to Blame Google for just about anything, but for them to make profits of Child Pron? Nope - not even by an unforseen loophole. These guys take such stuff VERY seriously - that I have to give them!

Is this payback?

[stry_cat]

For this
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/19/13 32207&tid=217

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.

The More benign conspiracy theory:

[Stephen Samuel]

It just hit me, rereading the article, that what happened is that he picked up some spyware that is messing with his 'results' and making it look like his google searches are resulting in porn ads. If so, then the company that is running the spyware could find themselves joindered in as a third-party defendant...

The charges that I can see being rendered against the spyware company would include: interference with contractual relationships (with the people paying for the real targeted google ads), libel (making it look like google is serving porn), unfair business practices ... and I'm sure that an actual lawyer (of which google probably has many) could come up with some even more interesting causes of action.