Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japanese Court Orders Google To Remove Negative Reviews From Google Maps

Posted by Soulskill on from the because-there's-definitely-nothing-worse-on-the-internet dept.

An anonymous reader writes: As reported by TechCrunch, the Japenese Chiba District Court issued a preliminary injunction forcing Google to delete two anonymous reviews for a medical clinic. Although negative, neither review violates Google policies. "The decision is based on a defamation suit from the clinic, a key part of which included an affidavit from the doctor who interacted with the anonymous reviewers and denied their claims." And here is the key part: "The court ruled that Google not only removes the content in Japan, but across the entire globe too." Google is currently considering it's options including an appeal.

106 comments

  1. Disturbing. by Needs2BeSaid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a terrible ruling. Why are people so insistent on making the internet a Brady Bunch, rainbows and unicorns, version of reality? How are people supposed to make personal decisions when half, or more, of the information is censored? As much as I hate the size and power of Google, I hope they stand their ground.

    --
    Some things need to be said...
    1. Re:Disturbing. by Luckyo · · Score: 2, Informative

      This appears to be more of a bringing "internet way" closer to how things are done in real life.

      As in if someone anonymously puts up a poster on private land that defames you, you actually get to challenge it in court and if it's found to be libel it's taken down.

      This is censorship in the same way as "not allowing libel" is censorship.

    2. Re:Disturbing. by aevan · · Score: 2

      Depends. If it's pursuant to a defamation lawsuit... and slander and libel are things untrue... how is that review of lies helping your personal decision?

      Not entirely germane, but were the reviews involved not anonymous I'd be more inclined to side with them: their reputation versus the reputation that feels slandered. By hiding behind anonymity, they aren't really feeling the burden an unsubstantiated declaration should entail.

    3. Re:Disturbing. by aevan · · Score: 1

      That said, were the clinic to lose the defamation suit, I'd like to see a full public apology to the two reviewers, the reviews reinstated, and admission there is truth in the review. Only fair.

    4. Re:Disturbing. by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is censorship in the same way as "not allowing libel" is censorship.

      Wow, you're making an awful huge leap to libel.

      Because TFS says:

      "The decision is based on a defamation suit from the clinic, a key part of which included an affidavit from the doctor who interacted with the anonymous reviewers and denied their claims."

      It's not libel if it's true, and just because the doctor who was negatively reviewed says "nuh uh, am not" does NOT establish anything at all resembling libel.

      Removal of any kind of public content is troubling, particularly when the process behind it appears to be little more than an on-record denial.

      This is the heart of the problem ... how is the subject of the bad review denying it evidence of a damned thing? You can safely assume the doctor would deny it even if it was true.

      You simply have no basis to conclude libel.

      Have you stopped beating your wife?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't wanna sound queer or nothin', but I think unicorns are kickass!

    6. Re:Disturbing. by ADRA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It's not libel if it's true, and just because the doctor who was negatively reviewed says "nuh uh, am not" does NOT establish anything at all resembling libel."
      If you go to a court of law and the anonymous party doesn't defend themselves then 100% its libel. If you don't stand up for your point, it has zero credability.

      On the flip side, Google should honour the japanese take-down in Japan while allowing for the clinic to follow similar law suits in other nations if they find it necessary for a similar ruling. Having a carte-blanche international force on any entity isn't great without international level of oversight. Japan, the US, China, Tajikstan, etc.. shouldn't carry unilateral control over information that may be politically or economically damaging without reasonable oversight.

      --
      Bye!
    7. Re:Disturbing. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they should just say "no," and make it clear to Japan, if they think the ruling applies outside of Japan, it doesn't. If they want it to apply in the US, they need to come here and get a court here to say that Japanese legal rulings apply here.

      It is actually hilarious that they would think that, given the history of the past 70 years.

      Actually, I think the US State Department should be getting involved at an early stage here. They shouldn't even be putting out preliminary rulings of this nature. Surely it violates our peace treaty for them to make orders about what happens in the US.

    8. Re:Disturbing. by war4peace · · Score: 0

      Have you stopped beating your wife?

      Old one.
      The answer is yes.
      You would say "so you used to beat her!" to which the answer is "no".
      One can stop before performing the action.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    9. Re:Disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay! Rarity rules!

      Signed,
      Spike.

    10. Re:Disturbing. by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Informative

      This appears to be more of a bringing "internet way" closer to how things are done in real life.

      As in if someone anonymously puts up a poster on private land that defames you, you actually get to challenge it in court and if it's found to be libel it's taken down.

      This is censorship in the same way as "not allowing libel" is censorship.

      No, if a poster is found to be libel in Japan, it is not taken down elsewhere.

      In this case, it is protected speech in the US because it is opinions that the reviewers believe to be true. If it is still not allowed under Japanese law, that is fine; I've never heard them accused of supporting Free Speech. But the idea that it would be taken down in the US is, well, "insane."

    11. Re:Disturbing. by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As in if someone anonymously puts up a poster on private land that defames you, you actually get to challenge it in court and if it's found to be libel it's taken down.

      Uh, no. Not even close to how it works in reality.

      If I put up a poster in my front yard (in the United States) defaming a Japanese doctor, a Japanese court has zero ability to make me take it down.

      Look at this from a less "I personally approve of this ruling" angle - If a Saudi court rules that the New York Times needs to recall an issue for an offensive cartoon, would you expect the NYT to actually round up every printed copy in the US, or just to stop the delivery of that day's issue to Saudi addresses?

    12. Re:Disturbing. by Rande · · Score: 1

      I beat her all the time.

      She crap at scrabble.

    13. Re:Disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The original story doesn't actually indicate the comments were or were not libel. What it does say is the lawyer won his defamation case in court, based on his (sworn?) affidavit(s). Implied is that the commentors had opportunity to respond. Until we know more, we must assume that the comments are considered libelous in Japan and could be here, as well.

      The real story is that Google is now expected to go scrub like comments from the rest of the web, not just their search engine. I think if I were Google's lawyers, I'd prepare a letter to that court/judge and to their equivalent of the US DOJ asking for international deputization so Google could go forth and act as the court demands, since Google has no legal authority to do so without it. That should tie the court up for years and cause some serious rethinking.

    14. Re:Disturbing. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      That misuse of "it's" is disturbing.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    15. Re:Disturbing. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Depends.

      Are you advocating the use of adult diapers?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    16. Re:Disturbing. by tomhath · · Score: 2

      The question is whether a review on Google can be accessed by someone in Japan (yes, of course it can).

      The court has ordered that the offending review be made unavailable to someone in Japan. Their proposed method for doing that seems to overstep the court's authority, but now Google has to decide if they want to go along or risk sanctions.

    17. Re:Disturbing. by pr0t0 · · Score: 1

      In US law, libel is a written defamatory statement (as opposed to slander, which is a verbal defamatory statement). So in the US, I believe this would be considered a libel case. Gstoddart is correct in that truth is a complete defense against a libel suit...in the US. I have no idea what the courts consider adequate defense against libel in Japan. The doctor stating "nuh uh" may be all it takes.

      This is the ever-growing problem with a global system of instant communication in a civilization that has no laws to deal with such a thing. Should a lone judge in Japan have dominion over information every human being from now until the end of time sees if it walks into his/her court? If not, and if the court deemed the posts as defamatory and libelous, shouldn't the plaintiff be protected?

      And why didn't anyone warn this physician of the Streisand effect? I would have never known about this clinic or any negative reviews about it. Now, guilty or innocent, I'm not going to any clinics in the Chiba district.

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    18. Re:Disturbing. by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      That misuse of "it's" is disturbing.

      Yes. You'd think that editors would follow a standard routine. The first pass would be cleaning up grammar and spelling, followed then by checking the sources. Are either of those steps built into the routine? Do they have a standard practice?

    19. Re:Disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >If you go to a court of law and the anonymous party doesn't defend themselves then 100% its libel. If you don't stand up for your point, it has zero credability.
      That would actually depend on the court in question, now wouldn't it?

      If you don't make use of the spell checker built into your browser you tend to lose credibility too.

    20. Re:Disturbing. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If I put up a poster in my front yard (in the United States) defaming a Japanese doctor, a Japanese court has zero ability to make me take it down.

      That's true, but the doctor could sue you in a court in your local jurisdiction, and if your poster was found to be libelous, then you could be required to take it down.

      Google operates in Japan. They can decide how they want to respond to this demand, but they certainly can't ignore it. I presume that they will appeal, since that's typically what one does when one can and when one has lawyers in one's pocket.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Disturbing. by Ark42 · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, in Japan, it doesn't mater if it's true. You cannot post anything that would bring financial harm to a company. True facts or not, if you post negative things just to hurt a company, you're breaking the law in Japan. I don't see how Google can win this actually. Of course, they're free to keep showing the negative reviews in other countries.

      --
      Morphing Software
    22. Re:Disturbing. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      100% agree!

      Sometimes information is incorrect, or out-of-date.

      Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.

    23. Re:Disturbing. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you are single, the "correct" answer is mu which means "not applicable."

      As in, the question _presupposes_ conditions which are not true. If you are single, you are not married by definition.

      Truth is not a mutually exclusive binary state of True / False.

      > One can stop before performing the action.

      No, one never started

    24. Re:Disturbing. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The law in Japan is that if the defendant doesn't show up they usually lose by default, and since they chose to remain anonymous they lost. The only really controversial thing here is that they are trying to force Google to take the material down world wide.

      I'm not an expert on that part of Japanese law (or most of it to be honest, just the defamation part because of 2ch) but it's possible that it allows the court to hold the Japanese Google subsidiary responsible for a world-wide take down. If the parent fails to do it, the Japanese subsidiary could be fined... Arguably it's a bad law, but the court is just there to enforce the law as written, and it was probably written many years ago before the internet, so don't blame them. Blame the legislators for not updating.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:Disturbing. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's not insane at all. There is a Google subsidiary in Japan. If it doesn't comply it will be held subject to Japanese laws, say by being fined. Google could close its Japanese operation down to avoid the fine, but that would lose it billions of dollars in revenue.

      That's just the way the world is. If you do business somewhere you are subject to that place's laws, or at least the subsidiary you set up is. Some places, like the EU, seem happy for you to just comply with local laws when serving content to their own citizens. Some grant themselves more power. Either you comply or leave or pay the penalty.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:Disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Amazon a Japanese company?

    27. Re:Disturbing. by bsolar · · Score: 1

      It's not libel if it's true

      This might be the case in the US, but in other countries the law might be different. Not sure about Japan, but countries in which proving "truth" is not a valid defence against an accusation of defamation do exist.

    28. Re:Disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Lawyer here.

      Based on your spelling of "honour," I am assuming you are not a U.S. citizen.

      Under U.S. law (with some exceptions under the libel laws of various states), a statement of opinion is per se not libel, as long as it does not express factually inaccurate information. Whether the utterance is anonymous or not, and whether the person making the statement shows up to "defend themselves" has no bearing on whether a statement is libel.

      Japanese defamation law is somewhat different in that even true statements can be found civilly and criminally defamatory if it damages the victim's reputation and is not in the public interest. But even in this case, the fact that a statement is defamation (not libel - Japanese law makes no distinction between types of defamation, despite the language used in TFA) is a product of the type of statement and intent and has nothing to do with whether the person "showed up in court."

      And no, Google should not take down the reviews in other countries. Japan's courts absolutely do not have jurisdiction to enforce this in any other country other than Japan, and Google would have to be a bunch of idiots to cave to this court, since it would only embolden other courts, not only in Japan, but in every other country in the world, to attempt similar shenanigans.

    29. Re:Disturbing. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      and slander and libel are things untrue...

      This is true under US law, but not necessarily under the laws of any particular other country.

      Note that a quick google-fu indicates that bad-mouthing someone in Japan is defamation, EVEN IF TRUE!

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    30. Re: Disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are people supposed to make decisions when half or more of the information is nonsense? My wife has run a successful therapy business for 6 years. They see 400 special needs kids a week and excel at what they do. She employees some of the top people in their field.

      She has 2 reviews on Google. One from a parent whose had great experiences there and another from a woman who has never set foot in the office, was abusive to our staff and had to be handed off to somebody who could handle her.

      Yet that womans phone call is half of the picture presented of her business on Google. It's utter nonsense.

    31. Re:Disturbing. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      She beats me up every M-F. I work later hours, and typically stay in bed another 10-20 minutes.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    32. Re:Disturbing. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And, similarly, an Egyptian court could order Google to take down anything defamatory towards Muhammed or the Koran, no matter where. Google really does have to fight this one.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    33. Re:Disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And many countries would love to remove any reference to gay, female, and minority rights everywhere on the internet. They can do that in their countries, but not in ours.

    34. Re:Disturbing. by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Truth is not a mutually exclusive binary state of True / False.

      Of course not. "How many integers are there between one and five (not including one and five)" is an example of a question that has a precise answer that is true, but not binary.

      I don't quite understand the difficulty with the "When did you stop beating your wife?" question. It's got a blatantly false (in most cases) statement right at its heart. All it's actually asking is a timeframe, nothing else. "You used to beat your wife. When did you stop?" is clearer, but less confusing, so less popular.

      It's a loaded question, and you've got to hit the assumptions, not the question.

    35. Re:Disturbing. by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, in Japan, it doesn't mater if it's true. You cannot post anything that would bring financial harm to a company. True facts or not, if you post negative things just to hurt a company, you're breaking the law in Japan.

      If you post negative things with the intent of hurting a company, you're a bit odd anyway. If you post negative things to help other consumers make a decision between products or services, that's absolutely fine in Japanese law. If this was not the case, all Japanese reviews would be top marks every time, or be illegal.

    36. Re:Disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but does your front yard face a foreign country? borders shrink when the internet is involved...every yard faces every border.

      Doesn't make it right or wrong by saying that, but getting the right perspective/analogy is a good idea to figure it out.
      I tried to think of a car one but couldn't come up with one I liked.

    37. Re:Disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a bit silly though. Even if Google removes the content there is nothing to stop the poster from posting on a site that Google doesn't control and is a jurisdiction that the company hosting it isn't operating in Japan. Even if we assume the all-powerful adversary (like the US government) for getting content taken down there are still other options like .onion sites (Tor). While it is difficult to setup an onion securely at the moment that'll come to an end soon enough. Tail's solves the end-user problem, but it doesn't solve the server problem. When the server problem is solved and we have pre-packaged secure server deployment solutions it'll be difficult to impossible to take down. As it is it took the US government over a year to shut down Silk Road.

    38. Re:Disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think precedent in Japan (win or lose) would impress a judge in Egypt or any other country.

    39. Re:Disturbing. by Nostalgia4Infinity · · Score: 1

      They can appeal. Or, since they are cushy with the current administration, they could get a court or government agency to put pressure on a Japanese company in return. Or both.

    40. Re:Disturbing. by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Usually people crap before sitting down to play a game... perhaps that is why you always win, she is distracted?

    41. Re:Disturbing. by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Not true. In Japan statements that are harmful are actionable even if they are true, if they are not in the public interest. If you reveal defects in a product, for example, that's in the public interest. If you say that the CEO wets his bed, even if true, that's just gratuitously embarassing him - it doesn't have anything to do with whether people should buy the company's products, so it is actionable.

    42. Re:Disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except if he owns a anti-bed-wetting drug company. Then, it's in the public interest to know if he wets his bed.

    43. Re:Disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who owns the post? The person who put it there, or Google? I'm thinking if libel was committed, then the court should be able to force the individual to take down the post.

      It would be like if someone put an advertisement on a city bus. The ad may not violate the city bus's policy, but who should the court go after? Calling out the bus to take it down, or to contact the individual to force them to contact the bus to take it down? Who owns the ad, after all? The individual, right? Although, the real difference is that Google isn't being compensated for the review being listed, whereas the city bus system is being paid.

    44. Re: Disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon Japan is.

    45. Re:Disturbing. by aevan · · Score: 1

      True, but I wasn't considering US Law.

      Note: 230-1 is defamation
      Article 230-2(1)When an act prescribed under paragraph (1) of the preceding Article is found to relate to matters of public interest and to have been conducted solely for the benefit of the public, the truth or falsity of the alleged facts shall be examined, and punishment shall not be imposed if they are proven to be true.

    46. Re:Disturbing. by Tom · · Score: 1

      No, if a poster is found to be libel in Japan, it is not taken down elsewhere.

      Because of a bad analogy. A poster put up in California is not visible from Japan.

      I've never heard them accused of supporting Free Speech.

      When you pull your head out of your ass, you can see the rest of the world more clearly. Try it.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    47. Re:Disturbing. by Tom · · Score: 1

      If I put up a poster in my front yard (in the United States) defaming a Japanese doctor, a Japanese court has zero ability to make me take it down.

      Because you can't see that poster from Japan. Both the writing and the reading happens in the USA, due to physical restrictions.

      The Internet is not bound by these restrictions.

      Here's the realistic options that Google has:

      1.) file an appeal
      2.) comply with the court decision
      3.) stop doing business in Japan, effective immediately

      For some rea$$$on, I'm pretty sure that contrary to the usual USA-supremecists big talk here, #3 will not even be seriously considered within the Google HQ.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    48. Re:Disturbing. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Does Google have an Egyptian subsidiary? If so, that subsidiary is subject to Egyptian law. What did you expect?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    49. Re:Disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this how WW III starts--sorry, I meant www.google.com. First, they ban Xeon chips to China, next, they outlaw this bit of news, then a butterfly flaps its wings...

    50. Re:Disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But does Google Japan have the power to remove the reviews from other Google subsidiaries? It shouldn't. Google UK/France/whatever is not subject to Japanese law, so they have no obligation to comply with the ruling, and Japan has no basis to fine Google Japan based on what other Google subsidiaries do.

  2. reviewing options? only one option, really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chuck you farley.

  3. Why a global removal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would the clinic care what anyone in another country thinks? And why would anyone in another country care about reviews for a clinic in Japan?

  4. this isn't good... by Darrin+Ward+CTO · · Score: 0

    i depend on negative reviews so i can install viruses on any user of SEOChat.com or ChatButton.com.

    --
    Use my services at SEOChat.com and ChatButton.com so i can install viruses on your users computers!
  5. Name of clinic plastered all over the internet by Snarfangel · · Score: 1

    In 3, 2, 1...

    --
    This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
    1. Re:Name of clinic plastered all over the internet by ckatko · · Score: 1

      [CENSORED]

  6. UK by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    I imagine they already do this sort of think in the UK? From my understanding in their laws defamation happens even if you can prove that the opinion is factual and honestly put forth in good faith.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:UK by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Then you're understanding of UK defamation law is poor, and a simple Google search would have taken you to various resources that would have better informed you. In the UK proof that a statement is true is absolute defense against a defamation charge.

    2. Re:UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine they already do this sort of think in the UK? From my understanding in their laws defamation happens even if you can prove that the opinion is factual and honestly put forth in good faith.

      What a bunch of crap. Why not actually look up the law?

    3. Re:UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then your understanding is shit, you fat polack twat.

    4. Re:UK by Smauler · · Score: 1

      In the UK, truth is essentially always a valid defense.

      The big difference between UK law and US law, as I can see it, is that in the UK the person who made the defamatory statement has to prove it. The defamed is under no obligation under law to say anything at all, they can just bring it to court, as long as they say it's false. The onus is on the defamer rather than the defamed, they have to show why they said it.

      Also, this doesn't stop most of our newspapers reporting absolute bollocks half the time, but most of the celebrities reported upon would prefer to be in the papers than out of them, so false stories aren't challenged.

  7. A possible solution... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

    Upon receiving such a request, Google should no longer index any site or web page that links to or mentions those who demanded censorship in the first place.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    1. Re:A possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Alternatively, they can disable leaving and viewing reviews on the business with an error message of "Reviews for this business blocked due to lawsuit barring the publication of negative reviews."

    2. Re:A possible solution... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Google should no longer index any site or web page that links to or mentions those who demanded censorship

      I sincerely hope you misspoke here, since based on what you've said, you're suggesting we block every news site that reports on censorship. We'd be left without a single good source for news within a month if we did that. Slashdot would be delisted within 24 hours. All we'd have left are news sites in bed with the governments or "news" sites dedicated to utterly banal topics.

    3. Re:A possible solution... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I meant the specific page, not the site, so I misspoke there. But who's blocking anything? If Google doesn't index it, does it somehow magically disappear from the web? Did you find this story via a web link? In this case, the business name wasn't even mentioned or linked to.

      But no, honestly, I'm not *really* serious about that - more of a wish that these businesses or individuals demanding things of Google would catch a bit of what they're trying to force on others. These businesses gain a lot of value from being indexed and thus easily located by Google services. It would be hilarious to see them essentially "delisted", and see their business plummet when fewer people find them via web searches or Google maps.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re:A possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      better option..

      google should just remove all reviews from map product.

    5. Re:A possible solution... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Or just block all of google with the screen "your country is screwed up, kthkbai".

    6. Re:A possible solution... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Upon receiving such a request, Google should no longer index any site or web page that links to or mentions those who demanded censorship in the first place.

      People who claim this as a reasonable response seem to forget why Google became popular in the first place; accurate and complete results with useful information on all topics.

      If Google starts making people or companies disappear online for whatever reason, be it money, or a censorship battle they will cease being useful.

  8. The way it should be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Happily, the clinic is now getting even more negative publicity because of their insistence on the removal of the bad reviews.

  9. The clinic is not mentioned by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Well, I think I should google for a clinic with anonymous bad reviews in google maps.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:The clinic is not mentioned by denbesten · · Score: 1

      Well, I think I should google for a clinic with anonymous bad reviews in google maps.

      Use Bing :-).

  10. considering its options by robi5 · · Score: 1

    considering its options

  11. Remove all comments for clinic by caballew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Google should remove all comments for clinic and instead just label on the map the clinic "Removed due to bad reviews"

    1. Re:Remove all comments for clinic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "negative reviews removed due to court order. For full text of review and court order detailing removal, please see [link to japanese court records, including the complaint]."

    2. Re:Remove all comments for clinic by tomxor · · Score: 1

      ++ yeaaah, streisand :P

    3. Re:Remove all comments for clinic by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yep and then why would we go to Google to get reviews?

      People seem to forget the reason Google is actually popular. If they start screwing up the results then they stop becoming useful.

    4. Re:Remove all comments for clinic by gregmac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is actually a great idea. Make it all or nothing. You don't get to block NEGATIVE reviews, you either take them all, or take none.

      Let the public decide of they want to do business when they see a message like "All reviews of this establishment have been removed due to a court order demanding removal of one or more specific reviews. Per Google's all-or-nothing policy, all reviews are suspended."

      --
      Speak before you think
    5. Re:Remove all comments for clinic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they stop becoming useful.

      This is a good thing. Fuck google.

    6. Re:Remove all comments for clinic by Tom · · Score: 1

      Thankfully, Google is not a 3 year old throwing a temper tantrum, like you'd like them to be.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  12. Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is Google considering it is options?

  13. Jurisdiction? by zarmanto · · Score: 2

    Others seem intent on commenting on the questions of slander/libel/censorship... but I think a far more important question to pose is that of jurisdiction. I think that Google should simply permit Japan to have their way -- within Japan's sovereign territory -- but Google should not allow this ruling to have any impact whatsoever on what they display to users outside of that jurisdiction.

    This reminds me of when the US was attempting to obtain e-mails from Microsoft, when those e-mails were hosted on a Dublin server; I didn't agree with the United States' argument for jurisdiction then, and I don't agree with Japan's argument for jurisdiction now.

    1. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jurisdiction is whatever Japan says it it. Japan makes the rules. Companies with money and employees in Japan must follow them.

  14. Re:no side to pick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I read Anonymous Coward's post and began bleeding profusely from the eyes. Anonymous Coward suggested that "knowledge" is needed to form an opinion before rendering judgment. 1/5 stars. Would not read again.

  15. Sure by kingnite9915 · · Score: 1

    If the court wants them to remove the negative reviews, I don't have an issue with this. They should also remove every review as well. You don't get to pick and choose reviews, you should get all or none.

  16. Why not ask the review site to remove it instead? by crbowman · · Score: 1

    I find it interesting that the court insists that Google no longer returns the page with the negative review. Rather the court should force the review site to remove the review then the links should disappear from Google (and I assume the Google cached copy too after a while.) It seems an unfair burden to me to force Google to take ownership for any of the content on site that it indexes using purely algorithmic processes.

  17. Re:no side to pick. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    RTFA: "Removal of any kind of public content is troubling, particularly when the process behind it appears to be little more than an on-record denial." http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/...

    Japan can go fuck itself.

  18. Not far enough! by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    If only the courts would take that final logical step to ban people having bad opinions.

    Think how much nicer the world would be?

    --
    -Styopa
  19. Re:Why not ask the review site to remove it instea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The review is on Google Maps, not some third party site indexed by Google Web Search.

  20. I would love to get bad reviews about my business by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    so I can quickly fix the issues for the customer and future customers while showing people that I care enough about my customer base and business to accept and fix my flaws.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  21. Re:I would love to get bad reviews about my busine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except the reviews would still be there, the same as if you did nothing about the problem.

  22. use the response "Fuck, No, Idiots" by swschrad · · Score: 1

    why does some nation's law propogate across the entire Internet? it's time to stop this crap. if they block Google, then Google can block all service from .jp domains. let's see who the loser is.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  23. thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, an informative comment.

  24. Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japan has no right to enforce global censorship.

    Only America gets away with that.

  25. At heart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but across the entire globe too.

    This is no different to the Microsoft emails in Ireland debacle, which is an on-going issue and there is another thread on the issue today. Sure there are small differences: The US court is addressing the owner of those emails, not a third party; the US court wants a copy, not censorship.

    The core problem is identical: Courts directly demanding obedience on extra-jurisdiction activities. Well the US started this with their international banking rules and unilateral extradition powers; of course other countries will choose the same powers.

  26. Delist the bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The only real response to something like this is a complete delisting. No more google for you!

  27. considering it's options including an appeal by loufoque · · Score: 1

    I think they're wrong here, it's not options at all.

  28. Re:I would love to get bad reviews about my busine by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    That's ok as long as I can reply to them after I fix the problem. It can work both ways as long as the business owner wants to fix the issue.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  29. Information freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The solution for Google is simple. Cease all operations in Japan. The values held by the government in power is violating internet information freedom. If Google does not do this, they will quickly be forced to respect these values, incorporating them. Users can still access Google overseas if they are interested in their services.

  30. Censorship always backfires. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Businesses are better off replying to reviews positively or doing nothing.

  31. Who do they think they are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America?

  32. Right to be forgotten continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just the next step down the path. I'm curious to see where it all ends.

  33. options by Tom · · Score: 1

    The decision is based on a defamation suit [...] Google is currently considering it's options including an appeal.

    including? What are the other options? Simply ignoring a court decision? Of course, they're a big american company with a big american attitude including the "our laws are the laws of the world" approach (we can sue everyone everywhere for everything that's illegal in the USA, but we don't accept other countries laws as valid to us, even when we're doing our business there).

    I'm split on the court decision, adding more information to something is generally the better approach over removing information, but other than some fanatics I don't think free speech trumps absolutely every other right and consideration on the planet, and when someone knowingly spreads false factual information about you, the line has been crossed.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  34. Editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why won't you edit?

  35. That's not how the internet works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now the clinic can look forward to tons of poor reviews from people writing about how they censor bad reviews and therefore their good reviews can't be trusted. Never mind the fact that someone will have saved the offending reviews and the second they disappear (should Google comply) they'll get re-posted...