Slashdot Mirror
Google Wins Ruling to Block Global Censorship Order (fortune.com)
A U.S. judge has partially blocked a recent decision by Canada's Supreme Court that requires Google to delete search results not just in Canada, but in every other country too. From a report: Citing the violation of American laws as well as a threat to speech, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila agreed to grant Google a temporary injunction, which means the company can show the search results in the United States. The search results in question are part of an intellectual property dispute between a Canadian industrial firm called Equustek and a rival company that is reportedly misusing Equustek's trademarks to poach its business. In response, Equustek obtained an injunction in Canada that treated Google as a defendant even though it had no direct relationship with either company. In a controversial decision in June, Canada's highest court agreed by a 7-2 margin to leave the injunction in place.
Can't let 1 country rule like that and have it effect's be global. If they did then lets other countries pull same stuff and we would be at the whim of any country's court.
Should be good for the gander. When I browse google.ca I see references that entries have been removed due to the US DMCA, so why should other countries in which Google operates be able to do the same.
Directly from the article:
"It’s unclear, however, what exactly what will happen now since Google, if it restores the search results in the United States, could be acting in contempt of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision. Currently, there are over 300 search results Google has had to suppress."
While the original Canadian decision seems like overreach, the US result doesn't really sheild Google if they restore the results in the US. In some sense it is an overreach too.
A US court can't override an order by the Canadian Supreme Court. If Google doesn't comply with the Canadian order, they're in violation of Canadian law, regardless of what the US says.
I bet they apologized first, though.
If Gucci won a court injunction against a knockoff maker of handbags, then Google could still index the knockoff makers results, even though it harmed Gucci - because 'free speech'?
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Delete every search result which contains "Equustek" from the entire world without prejudice. Send the ball back into Equustek's court so that they have to expend the time and effort to file a lawsuit against the proper defendant - the company infringing their trademark. Once they've successfully sued the other company and it has stopped infringing their trademark, then they can send Google notice saying that it's it's safe to remove the block on "Equustek" from their search engine. Google's algorithms can once again show search results for "Equustek" without violating the Canadian court injunction.
People need to remember that Google doesn't have to index you. If you make things difficult for them by getting all sorts of crazy court injunctions against them, an alternative that's always available to them is simply not to deal with you anymore.
Concentrate on the power, not the intent. Imagine these aren't governments trying to uphold justice or follow the law, and just imagine you're standing in between two thugs pointing loaded guns at your face.
Thug 1 points his gun at your face and says, "When you're at Thug 2's house (where I can't reach you), do x or else I will murder you the next time you are within my reach."
Thug 2 points his gun at your face and says, "You better not, or else I will murder you."
You're at Thug 2's house and it's time to decide whether or not to do x. What do you do? Right now if you decide to not do x, you have Thug 2's backing. (Well, "backing" is far too strong of a word. At least you have his very informal promise to not murder you right now.) And if you tell either thug that the other one has you boxed in, it's not like they'll fight for you. "That other thug is your problem. But you better obey me, or else."
A US court may very well say Google doesn't have to obey the Canadian court, but what's the Canadian court going to do to whatever presence Google has in Canada?
This is a hard problem.
...The idea that an American judge can block the ruling of a Canadian court in the context of the global actions of a company is no sillier than the idea that Canadian court coins have any jurisdiction on what happens outside their borders.
Face it, the legal structures have a long way to go before they've internalized the modern internet.
-Styopa
Right, they just use the CIA and military to murder foreign leaders and instigate revolution so they can topple other governments and install new people who will follow their lead.
That judge can't do a darned thing.
Comply or leave. Those are your options.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Controlling information index is the only thing that prevents harassment-motivated garbage results from spiraling out of bounds and overwhelming all useful results. They have signed their own death warrant, and bought the tombstone too.
they can forbid Google to take data gathered in Canada out of the country; maybe unless it has explicit consent of everyone who is referred to in the data. That sort of thing would cause Google (or any similar organisation) a lot of problems.
read the fucking manual instead of searching on google.
Think about what an injunction against a multinational company means. You don't really have jurisdiction, but you do need to enforce the judgment. These rulings come with an or else: or else we will sanction you. The US doesn't really need to get involved, not at this stage, and what they've done is nearly meaningless.
When Canada sanctions Google, then Google should start suing under whatever trade agreement protects them. I don't think there is one, because you're right about one thing: we don't have good legal structures for this. The old ones do work--multinationals are as old as the internet—but are a bit cumbersome to apply to the current global economy.
Under some strict Moslem sects, it's illegal for a woman to expose anything more than her eyes through the slit at the top of her burka. Now imagine if a Moslem country's court issues a worldwide injunction against all video or still images of women not wearing burkas. Female news anchors on every US TV network from Fox to MSNBC would be affected.
images.google.com would be affected. Newspapers couldn't publish photos of "Women's March Against Trump". Female political candidates wouldn't be allowed to post photos with "facial frontal nudity", and no video/photo coverage of political Candidates https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Should've been obvious from start.