Slashdot Mirror
First Amendment Protection For Search Results?
An anonymous reader writes "A legal paper (PDF), commissioned by Google and written by Eugene Volokh and Donald Falk, makes the case that search results should be protected under the First Amendment, thereby making regulation of search results illegal. The authors say a search engine 'uses sophisticated computerized algorithms, but those algorithms themselves inherently incorporate the search engine company engineers' judgments about what material users are likely to find responsive to these queries.' Cory Doctorow's reaction: 'I think that the editorial right to exercise judgment is much more widely understood than the sacred infallibility of robotic sorting. I certainly support it more. But I wonder if Google appreciates that it will now have to confront people who are angry about their search rankings by saying, "I'm sorry, we just don't like you very much" instead of "I'm sorry, our equations put you where you belong." And oy, the libel headaches they're going to face.'"
The notion that an elected set of representatives would create a baseline secret test to check google's results is an excellent and needed one. a light weight check process could be easily designed and periodically launched to *measure* the results.
Really? ...
Gadaffi was elected, as was Mubarak, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Kim Jong-il,
If you don't like Google search results go use Bing or Baidu.
In the mean time, I prefer results that are algorithmically determined based on the words I enter rather than some politicians idea of what I should be searching for.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
So... where, oh shill-who-just-made-an-account-to-post-this-the-second-the-story-came-up (hi bonch!), does Google say they are entitled to 1st amendment protections because they are a person? Hint: they don't, because the 1st amendment doesn't just apply to people, it applies to, well, everything, including corporations. It has nothing whatsoever to do with corporations being "people." Please, there is enough to bash Google on without having to drag in completely irrelevant stuff.
And if that person was "blocked" from publishing, clearly he made an agreement with Google that required their permission to publish: otherwise, they wouldn't be able to block it. Clearly, he shouldn't have, and I don't know why you would.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Google's results aren't algorithmically determined, they handpick them too. Algorithms themselves are also based on Google's and their engineers political agenda.
I just searched "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Am I ok?
It is well-established that commercial speech is protected under the first amendment. There are limits to that protection--it is not as protected as core political speech by individuals--but it is protected.
Look up the Virginia Pharmacy Board case.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
He seems to think that pretty much all expression should have First Amendment protection. It's almost as if he takes that "inalienable rights" and "Congress shall make no law" stuff seriously.
Actually, they get it both ways.
If it is protected speech, then the gov't can't shut them down.
But when someone sues them for libel (or the like), they can equally claim that their search results are their opinion, which they are entitled to express, and not facts, which could be subject to dispute. As it happens, there has already been a case just like that. In their response, Google said something along the lines of
In that case, Google prevailed.
I propose that here at /. we equate "bonch" with "shill" as new slang.
This piece may be a reaction to the "Google Suggest" lawsuits in France.
Google has been sued several times in France because of Google Suggest.
1. Google your name. If you're actually a crook, Google Suggest results will expose you as such.
2. Sue Google for defamation.
3. Profit!
French courts have repeatedly sided against Google and with the crooks, err victims.
Which shows how much such a provision is needed.
While I disagree with the "corporation is a person" argument, I do recognize that a corporation is an assembly of persons who should not be stripped of their consitutional rights simply because they get organized. In fact the US Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to assemble to petition the government.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
I don't see how it's any different than Consumer Reports, JD Power, etc. that do reviews of products. Sure, there are companies that might object to the final results and rankings especially when they have crappy products, but the bottom line is that these product review are protected by their authors' First Amendment rights. The only time libel might be involved is if they produced reviews without any factual basis. Google does have a factual basis for their search results - their ranking algorithms, which attempt to figure out for what a person is truly searching. And it's in there best interest to keep it that way, else people move on to another search engine.
Google results are algorithmically determined.
Only after their algorithms detect spammers gaming the system are some tiny fraction flagged for human review. This work is farmed out to Leapforce. They have lately been crowd sourcing the spam nomination process by algorithmically mining personal block lists. This has done wonders for filtering out the content scraper sites that provide zero original information, and simply hang ads all over other people's pages.
Sites that do not employ Spammer tricks or page rank manipulation techniques never get selected for human review. The engineers have nothing to do with it. Political agenda? Please. What political topic does not appear in search results?
Further, Much of this is dictated by law. Are you suggesting Google should violate the law serve up child porn to you? Wouldn't you be one of the first in line screaming if Google ignored the laws that force them to restrict some results? You know you would.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Google's results aren't algorithmically determined, they handpick them too. Algorithms themselves are also based on Google's and their engineers political agenda.
I can plainly see that your hatred for Google is strong.
You are correct though. Google should make sure that their search results are approved by governmental regulators in each of the countries in which they are presented. Only through careful governmental committee approval can we ever find real truth.
P.S.
You are an idiot.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
There is no need for the Government to do any such testing. People do this for free and much better. Remember when Bing came out and the huge amount of press it generated when you searched for "Microsoft Sucks" and Google showed at the top of the list? That was nothing to do with some secret Government group, that was a bunch of normal people testing the search engine's capabilities.
Look, I'm no fan of politicians, massive corporations, lobbyists, etc... Capitalism in this case is something that works very well without regulation to curb bad players. Take note, you probably can't get me to say that about any other type of business.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Hi Bonch. New sockpuppet already?
You're correct, the algorithms are handpicked by engineers. So you think you'd rather have politician's pick the algorithm, than engineers who spent years researching the problem? And where there is a very straight-forward check on how much bias they can inject (any other search engine)?
As someone else already said: "You're a moron." And that's a statement of fact.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Yes, but it also guarantees the rights of everyone else. I remember in my 7th grade civics class learning that my rights end where another persons start.
When a corporation consolidates too much power, it can abuse others rights. We have every right to defend ours and if that means ripping that corporation apart, so be it. It is protecting the rights of those individuals that work there as well. Not everyone will work for Google, Apple and the other big dogs forever.
We need to protect individual rights of everyone. Not just those that choose to organize. Petitioning the government for a redress of grievances is different than lobbying for more laws to favor your position of power.
No sig for you!!
While I disagree with the "corporation is a person" argument, I do recognize that a corporation is an assembly of persons who should not be stripped of their consitutional rights simply because they get organized. In fact the US Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to assemble to petition the government.
A big part of the corporate personhood debate is whether a corporation has a right to anonymous speech. The 1st Amendment doesn't specifically cover anonymity, so the courts have to weigh the pros and cons of accepting anonymous speech as protected speech.
For individuals, a big benefit of anonymity is not having the Pinkertons come and beat the shit out of you for speaking your mind about labor laws. This societal benefit outweighs the societal costs of protecting anonymous speech (increase in slander, libel, and the general spreading of falsehoods)
When it comes to corporations, however, the balance shifts. I do not think the benefits of protecting anonymous corporate speech outweigh the costs.