Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Found Guilty of Libel For Search Results In Australia

Posted by Soulskill on from the don't-point-at-that-guy-who-says-mean-things dept.

Meshach writes "Google has been found guilty for refusing to take down a libelous search result in an Australian court (ruling). Music promoter Milorad Trkulja sued Google for refusing to take down links to website articles promoting libelous claims that Trkulja was connected to organized crime in Melbourne. Google told Trkulja to contact the sites on which the offensive materials were posted, as those webmasters controlled the content. But the Supreme Court of Victoria decided Google was responsible for removing the damaging links the moment Trkulja asked them to remove the content. As a result of the jury's decision in the case, Google will have to pay $200,000 in damages to Trkulja."

5 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. Austrailia != Free Country by ilikenwf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, in terms of speech anyway. I don't think this would fly in the US unless some other corporate behemoth was the victim of the libel.

    1. Re:Austrailia != Free Country by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google isn't the perpetrator.

      They are just making it easier to find the perpetrator.

      THAT is who you should sue or prosecute.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Austrailia != Free Country by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google should not be responsible for censoring any content any more than the government should be responsible for criminals using roads to haul stolen goods away.

  2. Chilling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, if you file a claim with Google -- probably not even under oath -- stating that certain content is libel, Google would then have to take down their links to the content, lest the Australian courts find that content to be libel and hold Google liable.

    Which means that if you have access to the Australian courts, you can effectively cause Google to take down any website* without a trial, at little risk to yourself.

    Good to know.

    * Note: Anonymous Coward is not liable for damages incurred in the event that you attempt to take down a website owned by people with more money than you.

  3. A jury who doesn't understand the subject matter.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clearly this isn't a case of Google doing anything wrong. It's a case of a judge or jury not understanding how the internet works.

    Google doesn't own the content. Unless the individual wants to sue every search provider on the planet to get the results removed, he needs to go after the publisher/owner of the content, and not the search engine.

    There are days that I hope the evil corporations are all destroyed in a revolution. There are other days that I think we are getting exactly what we deserve. Especially when 'educated' folks make decisions like this.