Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules Google's Search Results Qualify As Free Speech
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
I think the quote from UCLA law professor Eugene Volok in the article stated it best:
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.
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"
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?