Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Rules Google's Search Results Qualify As Free Speech

Posted by timothy on from the hey-man-it's-what-we-feel-about-those-results dept.

wabrandsma writes with this news from Ars Technica: The regulation of Google's search results has come up from time to time over the past decade, and although the idea has gained some traction in Europe (most recently with "right to be forgotten" laws), courts and regulatory bodies in the U.S. have generally agreed that Google's search results are considered free speech. That consensus was upheld last Thursday, when a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Google's right to order its search results as it sees fit.

21 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. I am sure there will be a challenge by rossdee · · Score: 2

    Maybe it will get appealed to the SCOTUS. Or congress will change the legislation relevant to this. Remember what happened to Rick Santorum...

    1. Re:I am sure there will be a challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why would there be a challenge? And if there were, why would SCOTUS agree to hear it? Both the Supreme Court and Republicans love the idea of corporations as people, hence free speech rights for these groups. If the liberal jurisdiction supports big corporations' free speech rights, how much more will SCOTUS and the Republican majority?

      --MyLongNickname

    2. Re:I am sure there will be a challenge by rmstar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The whole point of incorporating is to separate one's person from the running of the company. If the company does wrongdoing, then the individuals involved are protected.

      Uh, no, that's not true. Incorporation allows to move around companies independently of the people owning and/or running it. Also, they protect the individual to some degree from bad luck affecting the company. Obviously, if the company does something illegal the people behind it will be prosecuted, too. At least, that's the way laws are constructed, so for example, if you incorporate a company in the US that trades cocaine with Colombia, don't expect to be immune from prosecution when the company gets caught.

    3. Re:I am sure there will be a challenge by dywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      No I dont remember what happened to Rick Santorum.
      Elighten me.

      The only thing I can remember about Rick Santorum is how he repeatedly makes a fool of himself, by saying things like "President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob."

      Or how he was pro choice until he ran for Congress....
      Or compared the ACA to apartheid....
      Or how he to believes global arming is a hoax and junk science....in his so very expert scientific opinion....
      Or how its also his, very expert, opinion that is tons of tons of coal and oil left, more than enough for centuries of use....
      Or how he though they were just killin old folks in the Netherlands...
      Or how he proposed that the National Weather Service not be allowed to release weather data to the public for free...even though we already paid for it via taxes and it's their job, cause it might compete with for profit companies who sell weather data...
      Or how wants to change the American Legal system so it aligns with the Bible...while at the same time opposing the idea of Sharia Law, and somehow maintaining that his goal is totally different...
      Or how he stated that the Right to Privacy doesn't exist in the Constitution, which was how he defending the banning of homosexuality under sodomy laws (you know, "what happens in private between consenting adults is no one's business"....well Santorum thought it was his business)...

      Guess I remember more than I thought.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    4. Re:I am sure there will be a challenge by dywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, he is also opposed to libertarianism within the Republican Party and wants to kick it out of the party.
      So there's one plus in his favor.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    5. Re:I am sure there will be a challenge by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay, let's enlighten you, since you asked.

      Some technically inclined homosexual people, who were tired of Santorum using them as both a legal and verbal punching bag, got together and decided that they'd name something kinda gross after him. Then they used their technical prowess to make that the new definition for "Santorum" the top google result for that search.

      The OP thinks that this kind of political protest is a reason why the governments wouldn't view google search results as free speech, but it's quite clear that the opposite is true.

    6. Re:I am sure there will be a challenge by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Another way to put this (as I understand it - IANAL) is that the corporation shields individuals from civil liability (getting sued) but not from criminal liability (going to jail).

    7. Re:I am sure there will be a challenge by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Obviously, if the company does something illegal the people behind it will be prosecuted, too.

      Umm, no. Hence the Limited Liability Corporation.

      Note that anyone who owns stock is one of the "people behind it ("it" being the corporation)", so your view of the way corporate law words would make YOU liable for the actions of any corporation whose stock is part of your 401k....

      Fortunately, the rest of us live in a world of Limited Liability Corporations, where the owners are not held liable for the actions of the managers....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:I am sure there will be a challenge by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Another way to put this (as I understand it - IANAL) is that the corporation shields individuals from civil liability (getting sued) but not from criminal liability (going to jail).

      No. Individuals, including directors and employees, can still be sued for their actions on behalf of the corporation. Incorporation only limits the liabilities of the shareholders for the debts incurred by the corporation.

    9. Re:I am sure there will be a challenge by dywolf · · Score: 2

      that is kind of funny.
      I wasnt really ranting against the OP, just against Santorum.
      I just had no idea what he was referring to as I had never heard that story and google wasnt turning anything up.

      On the one hand I hope he runs again, for the entertainment value.
      On the other hand...there is a danger, remote, but it exists, that he could win.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    10. Re:I am sure there will be a challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Libertarians are disliked because they're selfish arrested-development cases, not because they're somehow better than civilized people. If you're over 25, and are still a dumbass Libertarian, you fail at life.

    11. Re:I am sure there will be a challenge by bws111 · · Score: 2

      Holy crap that is stupid. Here is what would really happen.

      Creditors would be extending credit essentially risk-free. Great for creditors.

      Rich people and large investors would have people constantly looking for signs of trouble (much as they already do), and would dump their ownership at the drop of a hat

      Ordinary investors (retirees, 401Ks, etc) would be left not only losing the value of their investment (which happens today), but would be on the hook for all the debts of the company? What fucking sense does that make? In what world is that 'nicer'?

  2. Responsibilitiy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, if Google's search results are considered free speech, do they also have the same responsibilities as other forms of free speech.
    What if you search for a person and the results incorrectly suggests that the person is a pedophile? Does that qualify as libel, or is that suddenly not Google's problem?

    1. Re:Responsibilitiy by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, if Google's search results are considered free speech, do they also have the same responsibilities as other forms of free speech.

      Hey I've just looked this theater up on Google and it says that it's on FIRE!

    2. Re:Responsibilitiy by gurps_npc · · Score: 2

      They have a specific law protecting them, so they don't use Free Speech as a defense. Free Speech does not defend against false statements - slander or libel.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  3. Nothing to do with freedom of speech of 1st amendm by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

    While I agree with the ruling, I don't see how the first amendment applies. It states that "Congress shall make no law..." but since this was a civil case, and did not involve congress, how does the first amendment apply? Google should win the case simple because Google can do whatever they want in their search results. It is as simple as that. Applying the term "free speech" or "first amendment" to a computer generated algorithm seems like a slippery slope to me.

      I just read the ruling: the case was dismissed because "the claims asserted against it arise from constitutionally protected activity..." so nothing to get excited about here...

  4. Re:Nothing to do with freedom of speech of 1st ame by bws111 · · Score: 2

    It was a lawsuit claiming Google broke a law. If there can be no law, there can be no lawsuit.

  5. Re:Nothing to do with freedom of speech of 1st ame by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think the quote from UCLA law professor Eugene Volok in the article stated it best:

    ”Newspapers, guidebooks—and, for that matter, Ars Technica—have a First Amendment right to choose which stories are worth publishing, and which businesses are worth covering,” Volokh wrote to Ars in an e-mail. “Likewise, Google (a modern heir of the guidebook) can choose which pages to prominently display (and thus implicitly recommend as relevant and interesting) to readers and which pages aren’t worth displaying so prominently—or aren’t worth displaying at all.”

    Think of Google as a massive guidebook. You ask it for information on X and it returns a list of results that it thinks (based on the algorithms) best match X. If someone made a list of "Top 10 Restaurants in New York City" and a restaurant owner was upset that his restaurant didn't make the list, would he be able to sue to get his included as the #1 restaurant in NYC? Of course not. The list publisher has the right to determine who they think are the top 10 restaurants. Likewise, Google has the right to determine who they think are the top matches for any given search.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  6. Re:Ah, more of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tell that to any of *MANY* organzations which have incorporated such as Debian (Software in the Public Interest, Inc.), the FSF (Free Software Foundation, Inc.), the American Cancer Society (American Cancer Society, Inc.), the ACLU (ACLU is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation and the ACLU Foundation is a 501(c)(4) corporation), not to mention many news organizations. Banging on the "corporations aren't people" theme is a mark of frustration; keeping it up is pretty much an exercise in petulance. If you want to complain about the strength of the voices of groups of people, find other ways to do it.

    Our courts have it right. There are lots flaws in the U.S. system, but I am damn proud in our preference for the right to free speech. Threats to abrogate free speech are dangerous.

  7. Re:Ah, more of this by Pablew+Nopl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Individuals can work in groups, and yet individuals working in groups someone lose their rights just because they're not working as individuals? How authoritarian of you.

    You can still exercise your rights outside of the collective.

    Where does the US constitution say you lose your free speech rights if you work in a group?

  8. Re:Nothing to do with freedom of speech of 1st ame by tlambert · · Score: 2

    It was a lawsuit claiming Google broke a law.

    Not it was not. No one claimed Google broke any law, and the government was not on either side of the case. This was a civil case, where someone thought Google was treating them unfairly.

    Are you kidding?!? It was specifically a claim that Google broke a law - 15 U.S.C. 1–7 by not ranking using the same criteria as Bing and Yahoo (which is ridiculous anyway, since Yahoo is "powered by Bing!" so of course it has the same rankings).

    You can read more about the Sherman Antitrust Act here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...