Slashdot Mirror
In Germany, Offensive Autocomplete Is No Laughing Matter
itwbennett writes "We've all had a chuckle over Google's autocomplete results for various search queries. But one German businessman had a less funny experience when he searched for his name on Google.de: The autocomplete suggested search terms where his name was tied with 'Scientology' and 'fraud' (in German, of course). This was back in 2010. In 2012, a German court ruled that the autocomplete terms did not infringe the plaintiff's privacy. Now, a year later, the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe has overturned that ruling and ordered that Google remove offensive search suggestions when notified."
The notion that McDonalds cheeseburgers are delicious is offensive to cheeseburgers everywhere.
So don't do this in Germany.
Google are not writing that though. What they would effectively be writing is "'Herr Rolf is a fraud' is one of the most commonly searched terms in our search engine" which would be pretty easy to prove and hence it is not defamatory.
I think that's why the court required the "when notified" part. I don't agree, but at least it is feasible to implement.
I'm curious how German law determines what is an "offensive" search. If there's a legal definition, then maybe you can work something, but if "offensive" is determined by the "offended", then Google might as well disable the entire feature as anyone who doesn't like the autocomplete result for their name or term begin banning just about every potentially offensive combination out there.
Freedom of speech is not dead in Germany. The constitution just put a different (higher) weight on personality rights.
In this case, googleing the name "Bettina Wulff" of the first lady would autocomplete to things like "escort" and "prostitute", because some people wrongfully tried to make a past life as a prostitute stick to her public image (which has been shown is just nonsense).
Now, I would agree that it is perfectly reasonable to put a higher weight on the right of free speech. But personality rights, and the right to be protected from libel are also important. Those are two legally protected values that have to be carefully balanced.
Germany already has many anti nazi laws in place. For example holocaust denial is verboten. Google has removed many neo nazi and old style nazi sites for Germany.
TODO create witty sig.
freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like, nor does it mean you get an audience.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I have a dictionary online.
I have perl.
What's the API for the "notify Google of offensive autocomplete words"?
You don't get this. It's not about "offensive words" but about connecting YOU to things you have nothing to do with just by suggesting completions others have searched for.
So the API is: Type your name into the Google search field and if you get completions that would be libel if published as a headline with your name in it in a newspaper, notify Google as you would notify the newspaper. It's not about search hits or things said on other sites Google just indexed. It's about what Google publishes about YOUR name in the completions and your rights.
If I start searching for "muslim teachings" Google will offer me "muslim terrorist" as soon as I type the first "t".
How long will that hold up if google is held liable for what it's autocomplete algorithm does.
German courts have their heads up their asses on this one. Autocomplete is nothing more than a basic statistical lookup. Germany is basically making the use of statistics a thought crime.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Actually it does, at least in terms of ideas. That's why where freedom of speech is limited in the states, it's not broad but very specific. The idea of fires in theaters, whether in fantasy or theories or reporting on actual fires is not forbidden in the US, just yelling it in cases which can cause a deadly stampede.
Germany otoh, has a free speech clause in it's constitution but has a whole host of illegal ideas, which is the exact opposite of free speech.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
...
If you're referring to Mein Kampf, you're mistaken. Publishing excerpts of it is prosecuted in civil courts, but only because the Bavarian state claims the copyright. When Hitler killed himself, his estate went to the state, including the publishing rights of that book. The copyright is about to expire after which everybody will be free to print copies in Germany.
On the other hand, distribution and use of some symbols commonly associated with Nazi ideology is a prohibited by the law. If and how much freedom of speech is restricted by these laws is a matter of debate. Certainly, the US is more permissive in this regard, but one should not forget that these laws grew out of denazification regulations instituted by the Allied occupation forces after World War 2.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
If a lot of people are entering the search query "Bob Somelastname pedophile" then Google autocomplete will add the word "pedophile" whenever someone types "Bob Somelastname". Google is not trying to be offensive, its just an algorithm that is based on the most common searches.
Sorry, but no. Google already filters out LOTS of things, among them many words related to porn and many things Google doesn't like to see connected to its name if you start to type "Google". Nobody knows what else they filter here. Basically Google is redacting its auto-completion heavily already.
If this were indeed a plain algorithm I would tend to agree with you. But it isn't.
Didn't you know, "freedom" is whatever USA has at any given moment? As the liberties change, the definition of freedom changes with it. This is how we can say "land of the free" without choking on the words.
The general complaint is still true: in Germany (and most other EU countries), the freedom of speech is generally limited to what the majority finds acceptable.
That is not true at all. One can claim the same about the US and just be as correct as that.
In the U.S. the opposite is true. For example, the idiots of the Westboro Baptist Church can say and protest as much as they want, even though 99.999% of the U.S. population absolutely hates them (that includes me). Whould they have lived in Germany, they would have been in jail a long time ago.
Can you name me a law that would have put them in jail? I might be missing what they do, but if they only put those pesky "God hates fags" signs, then I see nothing applicable.
But I will defend their freedom to express themselves
Please, stop that pathetic slogan. You are not defending their freedom. You are defending your misunderstanding of the world.
, in that regard (note the 'in that regard', I'm sure other things are better in .de).
Like in Germany you have a codified freedom of opinion. An matter of opinion can not be an insult and cannot otherwise be against any law (as freedom of opinion tops any other law). From what wikipedia claims with all your "freedom of speach" you do not even have that in the US.
Are you really telling me you wouldn't get a bit offended if Google autocompleted pedophile onto your name?
I am offended by lots of things I read and hear everyday. That does not justify censorship. There is no "right to not be offended."
I was originally talking slander, the person who replied to me said they wouldn't be offended (which I found unlikely), but the original complaint was and still is about slander.
If someone googles your name and they see 'pedophile' come up, they're going to get a strong negative impression of you (especially if it's a somewhat unique name). If your livelihood or reputation is strongly tied to what people see when they look for you online that can have pretty drastic consequences and I'd say that's potentially slanderous.
The fix, telling Google, 'pedophile' and 'fraud' are both really ugly terms and I don't want them suggested with my name since I'm neither, sets a potentially pad precedent but it's particularly damaging to Google.
I stole this Sig
You are correct in that the nature of free speech limitations can be different in the US vs. Germany. However, the limitations to free speech in the US are actually more broad rather than more specific. In the US, limitations are only based on broad categories such as libel, rather than making specific ideas illegal. For example, I can not legally publicly say that you enjoy frequent coitus with your mother. If false, it is libel/slander, and if true, a violation of your right to privacy (assuming you consider dissemination of such information damaging). But publicly proclaiming you to be a motherfscker is illegal not because statements regarding maternal copulation are explicitly outlawed, but because they fall under a restricted category.
OTOH, the topic of TFA is regarding a category, not a specific idea, specifically speech that violates ones right to privacy. As such, it is conceivable that a US court could make the same ruling that the German court did in this case.