UK MPs Threaten New Laws If Google Won't Censor Search

It's not just Japan that wants to regulate how Google displays search results: judgecorp writes "A committee of British MPs and peers has asked Google to censor search results to protect privacy and threatened to put forward new laws that would force it to do so, if Google fails to comply. The case relates to events such as former Formula One boss Max Mosley's legal bid to prevent Google linking to illegally obtained images of himself."

Comments

Illegal images? Not really.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's that Max Mosley doesn't want people to know that in private he enjoys orgies while dressed as a Nazi.

Re:Illegal images? Not really.

[jdgeorge]

The point is, the law already covers this. The defamation is done by the people who post the content, not by Google failing to censor its search results. The people who are posting the content should be sued, not the owner of the wall where they posted the pictures.

Try reading the article

[andrewbaldwin]

First off - this is a report by MPs - not even on the first step of becoming law - despite somewhat hyperbolic reporting.

Second - it clearly states that a free press / freedom of speech are paramount

Third - the only "Censoring" of Google etc. is a requirement to follow the terms of a court order - in the UK the courts are separate and distinct from the government.

Exec summary pasted below [from a PDF document - hence some formatting funnies]

A strong, free and vibrant press is essential to the good operation of democracy. Over the past 12 months, the culture and activities of the UK media have become the focus of widespread public concern, particularly in light of the phone hacking scandal. The balance between privacy and freedom of expression is at the heart of these debates about the role of the media.
We have considered how this balance should be struck, who should determine where the balance lies and how decisions, once taken, can be enforced. In making recommendations, we have been guided by the followingâ"
â The fundamental right to freedom of expression lies at the heart of this debate.
â The right to privacy is equally important. It is universal and can only be breached if there is a public interest in doing so.
â Although definitions of public interest change from time to time, an over-arching definition of public interest is the peopleâ(TM)s general welfare and well being; something in which the populace as a whole has a stake. It is not the same as that which is of interest to the public.
â We support the freedom of the press. The vitality of national and local media, in all its forms, is essential to the good operation of democracy.
â The rule of law in protecting the right to privacy should be upheld by all. If a judge has made a decision, based on hearing the full evidence in a case, that decision should be respected by those who have not heard all the evidence.
â Justice should be accessible to all. Protection of the right to privacy should not be available only to the wealthy few.
â The Press Complaints Commission was not equipped to deal with systemic and illegal invasions of privacy. A strong, independent media regulator is essential to balance the competing rights of privacy and freedom of expression.
â The law must apply equally to all forms of media: print, broadcast and online.
It is important that privacy injunctions are obtained in circumstances which justify the intervention of the law; injunctions should not be too freely or easily obtainable. Departures from the principle of open justice should be exceptional. We believe that courts are now striking a better balance when dealing with applications for privacy injunctions.
We conclude that a privacy statute would not clarify the law. The concepts of privacy and the public interest are not set in stone, and evolve over time. We conclude that the current approach, where judges balance the evidence and make a judgment on a case-by-case basis, provides the best mechanism for balancing article 8 and article 10 rights.
Interim injunctions granted in one of the legal jurisdictions in the United Kingdom should be enforceable in the other two UK jurisdictions in the same way as final injunctions are.
It is important that court orders apply to all forms of media equally. The growth of the internet and social networking platforms is a positive development for freedom
of of expression, but new media cannot be seen to be outside the reach of the law. We recommend that the courts should be proactive in directing the claimant to serve notice on social networking platforms and major web publishers when granting injunctions. We also recommend that major corporations, such as Google, take practical steps to limit the potential for breaches of court orders through use of their products and, if they fail to do so, legislation should be introduced to force them to. An effective deterrent against future breaches of injunctions onli

Re:Try reading the article

[gman003]

That's true, but there's also another bit:

In the UK, the courts have far, far more power than courts in the US. Stuff like super-injunctions ("you are not allowed to tell a member of parliament about this injunction") or ASBOs ("judges can now basically make up laws and apply them to a case") would never fly in the US - the legislature and executive branches would knock them down faster than you can say "constitutional crisis".

Basically, in the US system of checks and balances, the judiciary has no way to go on the offensive. They can block laws and actions, after they've already been passed, but that's about it. In the UK, the courts can actually be proactive instead of just reacting to what the rest of the "government" (US-sense) does.

There's probably a historic reason for the difference, but I'm not enough of a historian to know exactly what it is.