Slashdot Mirror
Google Must Delete Search Results Worldwide, Supreme Court of Canada Rules (fortune.com)
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Google on Wednesday in a closely-watched intellectual property case over whether judges can apply their own country's laws to all of the internet. From a report: In a 7-2 decision, the court agreed a British Columbia judge had the power to issue an injunction forcing Google to scrub search results about pirated products not just in Canada, but everywhere else in the world too. Those siding with Google, including civil liberties groups, had warned that allowing the injunction would harm free speech, setting a precedent to let any judge anywhere order a global ban on what appears on search engines. The Canadian Supreme Court, however, downplayed this objection and called Google's fears "theoretical." "This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites that are in violation of several court orders. We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods," wrote Judge Rosalie Abella.
Google should delete all references to Canada. Wipe them off the face of the map. Blame Canada!
This is quite horrifying. If Canada thinks that Canadian courts can order Google to delete results everywhere in the world, then the same argument says Chinese courts can order Google to delete results everywhere in the world.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
It's up to us to work around this. We need unfiltered search engines that answer to no authority, instead of all this bickering on who has what rights.
It would seem Canada's court is claiming global jurisdiction. I think quite a few governments would have a problem with that.
Is this the same shitty reporting like last time with France, where the ruling only applies to .ca/.fr servers, not .com (but regardless from where it is accessed)? In that case, why should contries not be allowed to dictate the legitimacy of content served under their TLD.
In any case, with the US seeking jurisdiction to get access to servers worldwide one might ask, to what degree are countries allowed to execute their jurisdiction onto US servers?
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
So Canada agrees with the U.S. that Canadian pharmacies illegally selling prescription drugs to Americans should be de-indexed from Google worldwide.
Whether this is a free speech or an illegal trade is irrelevant and a straw man. The key issue is whether another country can apply their laws in your country. Maybe considering a case with Canada on the benefiting end of the "illegal" trade might give the judges some perspective.
where the ruling only applies to .ca/.fr servers, not .com (but regardless from where it is accessed)? In that case, why should contries not be allowed to dictate the legitimacy of content served under their TLD.
They should indeed have that ability, but their beef should be with the registrar for the TLD and the service utilizing a name in that TLD.
They should also have some rights to take issue with what is displayed to IP addresses registered as within their borders.
They should under no circumstances have any jurisdiction over what a foreign entity returns to another foreign entity.
Google Must Delete Blasphemy Worldwide, Supreme Court of Sumeria Rules
The Sumerian Supreme Court, however, downplayed this objection and called Google's fears "theoretical." "This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites that are in violation of several court orders. We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of blasphemy against the most terrible name of Gozer (all cower in her presence)," wrote Judge Vinz Clortho.
Religions other than Islam are illegal in Saudi Arabia. If a Saudi Arabian court rules that "illegal" Christian/Jewish/Buddhist websites should be deindexed worldwide, surely Google would not respect that. What makes this case any different?
Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
I was once in a BC Provincial Supreme Court where a lawyer had to explain watching TV was a protected freedom like reading a book to one of several judges. Her fucking face contorted like he was speaking jibberish, while the other jurists looked at her in surprised disgust for being so stupid. She was as old as the hills and couldn't see how a Japanese person had a right to access Japanese language programming. She couldn't hide her bias that she thought TV was bad and she didn't watch it. It was clear that our justice system comes down to the particular judge who may or may not have their shit together. I thought Judge Brenner was intelligent and all there, and wasn't surprised when he was promoted to top spot some years later.
You may want to read up on that a little more carefully.... there is *HUGE* difference between the freedom of speech as protected by the Bill of Rights in the USA and freedom of speech in Canada.
Section 1 of the Constitution Act 1982 gives Canadians the right to free speech, but only with "reasonable limits.". This is quite far removed from the absolute right that the US constitution has.
Section 13 bans the communication of any so-called "hate messages", which disparage certain groups of people, even if the communication was made in absence of any evident intent to cause physical harm (ordinarily a prerequisite for something to qualify as "hate speech" within the USA).
Any appearance of free speech that Canadians might believe themselves to enjoy is just an illusion, and only serves as evidence that the Canadians who think they actually have it simply haven't offended anybody badly enough yet.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It's a temporary restraining order against a company that fled BC to, perhaps, France, and is selling stolen networking technology. It's not an attempt to censor someone's opinions, but to hunt down a thief.
There is tons of non-puff-pirce commentary, though:
and also two dissenting opinions from the judges in the case, available to everyone at https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/s... where they question how long it should apply.
I'm also pleased to note that one of the first steps cited by the court, in 2017 scc 34, was an injunction "issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordering D to cease operating or carrying on business through any website."
This is a great improvement, IMHO, over cases in the EU where Google was ordered to cease indexing sites which were not similarly ordered to cease their actions.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net