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.

Comments

Whats Good for the Goose

[Luthair]

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.

Re:Whats Good for the Goose

[fred6666]

We are also forced to watch FBI warnings on DVDs. Not sure if they are still on Blu Rays (probably)

Re:Whats Good for the Goose

[Luthair]

The easiest way to do it is to Google any name of any movie followed by the word download, not something I do but I do run into the message on occasion on overloaded terms. It was unlikely to be original intent of the DMCA but rights holders have been doing it for years and Google has been acquiescing, not sure if courts were involved.

Re:Whats Good for the Goose

[Luthair]

Slightly different in that case though - the DVD producer is putting them their out of their own self-interest vs the legal system of another jurisdiction.

Re:Whats Good for the Goose

[boudie2]

Who would be removing stories giving details of this case from google.ca?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
All I see is "Details of the case are subject to a publication ban". How often does that happen in the U.S.? All we know is somebody threw a trailer hitch that killed somebody. Which begs the question what else are they doing?

Re:Whats Good for the Goose

[Luthair]

Not sure how that is relevant at all.... but publication bans are typically for preventing prejudicing potential jurors, after the case ends there may still be some restrictions (e.g. can't publish the name of a sexual assault victim or the name of a defendant who is a minor).

Re:Whats Good for the Goose

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright is a different issue, and I'll explain why. I'm in the United States and I've seen content on YouTube that's been blocked on copyright grounds by companies in Canada, the UK, and Australia. The DMCA can't directly be enforced in any of those countries, nor can their copyright laws be directly enforced in the US. Instead, those countries have agreed to international treaties to respect the copyright laws of other countries. In your case, Canada has ratified treaties agreeing to respect US copyrights, and therefore content that's blocked in the US can also be blocked in Canada. Your issue is not that the US is enforcing its laws in Canada, but that Canada has agreed to a treaty with the US to mutually respect copyrights.

While these treaties benefit everyone, but a Canadian copyright holder would arguably benefit disproportionately versus a US copyright holder. Canada has about 36 million citizens while the US has about 323 million citizens. Let's say copyrights weren't protected by international treaty. A US copyright holder would have 323 million Americans subject to those copyrights while 36 million Canadians would not. However, the Canadian copyright holder would have 36 million Canadians subject to those copyrights while the 323 million Americans are not.

An international treaty between the US and Canada makes 323 million Americans subject to the Canadian copyright while only 36 million Canadians become subject to the US copyright. The Canadian copyright holder gains copyright protection is a much larger market than the American copyright holder does. Despite international treaties disproportionately providing more benefits to copyright holders in smaller countries, everyone gains additional copyright protections and, therefore, all countries benefit to some degree. I point this out because some people would say these treaties are unfair to the countries that enter into such agreements with the US, and that's inaccurate.

If there's no international treaty, the laws shouldn't apply across borders. But they do in the case of copyrights because of those treaties.

Re:Whats Good for the Goose

[davecb]

That's a good description of the general case, but the Canadian one is actually about misuse of secrets, counterfeit hardware and fleeing to the EU to avoid prosecution. The law is distinctly fuzzier, with fewer and different treaties in play.

Re:Whats Good for the Goose

[ArmoredDragon]

Because the US doesn't ask any other countries to do this. Google is based out of the US, so it is beholden to US laws, which for better or for worse (worse in this case, IMO) Google has to comply with the DMCA. Notice other search engines not based in the US don't do this (Yandex, for example.)

However, any tech company with a presence in another country can be asked by that country to apply rules in other countries, which is what Canada is doing (France and a number of its fellow neo-fascist states in Europe are doing the same, mainly over right to be forgotten and other forms of speech that are banned.) They can do this by holding liable the subsidiary company operating there for violating any local laws.

Unfortunately, it may turn out that they must remove themselves from having a presence in these countries and just operate in nearby ones while serving content for the neighboring country's local language. This ultimately hinges on whether these countries drop these demands based on their own internal legal and political decisions, which may or may not be influenced by international laws and treaties.

Re:Whats Good for the Goose

[davecb]

The page ends with

In response to multiple complaints that we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 18 results from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaints that caused the removals at LumenDatabase.org:

Re:Whats Good for the Goose

[UnknownSoldier]

And yet for _thousands_ of years BEFORE Imaginary Property existed people did ALL of those things.

/sarcasm Because the only motivations authors have is money, right?

Furthermore, you DO realize that Copyright was invented by publishers, right?

You can tell how advanced a Civilization is by how much Free Sharing of Culture they engage in.

--
Capitalism is the disease of greed, not the cure.

Re:Whats Good for the Goose

[davecb]

Citation, please?

Re:Whats Good for the Goose

[Luthair]

Google operates and has offices in many countries.

Re:Whats Good for the Goose

[ArmoredDragon]

It certainly does.

US Court cannot overturn Canadian decision

[j-beda]

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.

Re:US Court cannot overturn Canadian decision

[Anonymous Coward]

How is the US court ruling an overreach here? As I understand it, Google Canada Corporation is a subsidiary of Google LLC. Google Canada is a Canadian company and is most certainly subject to Canadian law. Google LLC owns Google Canada and many other subsidiaries, but Google LLC is based in the US and conducting business in the US. At issue here is that the Canadian court is trying to force Google LLC and all of Google LLC's other subsidiaries around the world to abide by the Canadian court ruling. The US court is saying that Google LLC, which is based in the US, is not required to follow Canadian law in its US business operations.

The US court is not ruling that Google's Canadian subsidiary isn't subject to Canadian law. That would be an overreach. Of course Google Canada is subject to Canadian law!

The US court is ruling that Google LLC, which is an American corporation, doesn't have to follow Canadian law when running their business in the US. Should the fact that Google LLC owns a Canadian subsidiary mean that Google LLC's US operations and all of Google LLC's other subsidiaries around the world also be subject to Canadian law? That would be absurd. The American court is simply stating that Google LLC's operations in the US are not subject to Canadian law just because Google LLC owns a Canadian subsidiary. This is not an overreach.

Canada can punish Google Canada as much as they want. That doesn't mean they also get to enforce their laws on Google LLC when it comes to anything other than Google Canada.

Re:US Court cannot overturn Canadian decision

[davecb]

If Google was strictly a US company that didn't do business in Canada, a Canadian court would send an order based on the outcome of the suit to the US, and ask them to enforce it there. In this case, Google is one company subject to two contradictory sets of laws, a much worse situation to be in.

Re:US Court cannot overturn Canadian decision

[j-beda]

The American court is simply stating that Google LLC's operations in the US are not subject to Canadian law

But the American court has absolutely no say on what is subject to the Canadian laws. The ultimate body that has any say over what Canadian law applies to is the Canadian Supreme Court, and in this case they already made a ruling. It might be the "wrong" ruling, but almost by definition it is legally "right" in the context of Canadian law.

Sure, when a national court does something stupid or foolish or whatever, there are lots of pundits who say "they can't do that!", but one country's courts can't really override another country's court decisions.

Of course, when we get right down to it, the important part comes to play only when it comes to inforcement. If Country A rules that Company B is required to or prohibited from doing something, unless Country A has some mechanism for enforcement, it doesn't really matter, regardless where Company B is located. Similarly, the US court decision has little impact on Canadian court decisions unless the US court has some way to enforce it. Possibly the US and Canada could exchange trade war blows, but it seems unlikely the US would "go to the mat" over Google at this point in the current political landscape.

Re:US Court cannot overturn Canadian decision

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The United States has banned expansion of the Old World into the New World going on two hundred years now. Canada, a tiny New World country, is a beneficiary of this.

Re:US Court cannot overturn Canadian decision

[j-beda]

That was a good condensation of man of the issues. Thanks.

But a treaty that would violate the Constitution would not be a valid treaty.

Of course that makes sense, but some have argued that the “Supremacy Clause” gives treaties supreme authority. Fortunately for sanity, that is mostly garbage. See for example

http://tenthamendmentcenter.co...

Re:US Court cannot overturn Canadian decision

[j-beda]

That was a good condensation of man of the issues. Thanks.

"Many" is what I meant, man.

Re:US Court cannot overturn Canadian decision

[c]

My understanding is that in their ruling, the Canadian Supreme Court basically pointed out that while it was possible that their decision would violate laws in other countries, nobody hadn't presented any arguments or evidence to that effect.

In other words, they specifically left it open as an "out" for Google: prove that the ruling violated US law and they'd be able to walk it back.

Re:US Court cannot overturn Canadian decision

[techno-vampire]

I'm not so sure. Google Canada Corporation is a Canadian corporation and they would have to comply with a court order requiring that certain search results be suppressed. Google itself, however, isn't a Canadian corporation and doesn't have (AFAIK) offices or servers in Canada. (That's what Google Canada Corporation is for, after all.) IANAL, but my impression is that the most a Canadian court can do is order that Google suppress those searches in requests made from Canada and request US courts to enforce it as needed. And, I would expect, that would be exactly Canada's reaction if the situation were reversed.

Re:US Court cannot overturn Canadian decision

[davecb]

Google US admitted it does business in Canada, so it can't say it's the Canadian branch's problem. The branch is a wholly owned subsidiary in any case, so they lose even if they try to say "Blame (our branch in) Canada".

It's hard to make a multinational look like a collection of national companies: the courts look at reality and say "tell it to the judge" (sarcastically (;-))

Re:US Court cannot overturn Canadian decision

[j-beda]

My understanding is that in their ruling, the Canadian Supreme Court basically pointed out that while it was possible that their decision would violate laws in other countries, nobody hadn't presented any arguments or evidence to that effect.

In other words, they specifically left it open as an "out" for Google: prove that the ruling violated US law and they'd be able to walk it back.

I had not seen that. The Fortune article that is linked through the last Slashdot discussion doesn't mention that in my reading. I would be interested in a reference if you have one.

http://fortune.com/2017/06/28/...

I did notice this, which doesn't seem too unreasonable:

“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.

Does anyone know how Google's regional de-indexing work? If I use a computer located in Canada to search for "illegal" stuff that has been de-indexed in Canada on google.ca I presume I won't find it, but will I get the result when using google.com (due to Google knowing my geo-location and thus presenting me with particular results)? What about using a US based computer to search on google.ca?

Re:US Court cannot overturn Canadian decision

[c]

I would be interested in a reference if you have one.

It's right there in the decision itself...

[46] If Google has evidence that complying with such an injunction would require it to violate the laws of another jurisdiction, including interfering with freedom of expression, it is always free to apply to the British Columbia courts to vary the interlocutory order accordingly. To date, Google has made no such application.

[47] In the absence of an evidentiary foundation, and given Googleâ(TM)s right to seek a rectifying order, it hardly seems equitable to deny Equustek the extraterritorial scope it needs to make the remedy effective, or even to put the onus on it to demonstrate, country by country, where such an order is legally permissible. We are dealing with the Internet after all, and the balance of convenience test has to take full account of its inevitable extraterritorial reach when injunctive relief is being sought against an entity like Google.

Granted, IANAL, but I can't really see any other interpretation than "get a decision from another country saying this is a problem and get back to us".

Re:US Court cannot overturn Canadian decision

[j-beda]

I would be interested in a reference if you have one.

It's right there in the decision itself...

[46] If Google has evidence that complying with such an injunction would require it to violate the laws of another jurisdiction, including interfering with freedom of expression, it is always free to apply to the British Columbia courts to vary the interlocutory order accordingly. To date, Google has made no such application.

[47] In the absence of an evidentiary foundation, and given Googleâ(TM)s right to seek a rectifying order, it hardly seems equitable to deny Equustek the extraterritorial scope it needs to make the remedy effective, or even to put the onus on it to demonstrate, country by country, where such an order is legally permissible. We are dealing with the Internet after all, and the balance of convenience test has to take full account of its inevitable extraterritorial reach when injunctive relief is being sought against an entity like Google.

Granted, IANAL, but I can't really see any other interpretation than "get a decision from another country saying this is a problem and get back to us".

Thanks, that is informative. Does the US decision indicate that following the ban would "require it [Google] to violate the laws of another jurisdiction"? The US law that is cited in the article (the First Amendment as well as "Section 230") do not "require" Google to publish things, so it could be argued that following the ban doesn't violate those laws in the US, even if imposing the ban does.

That is probably a silly reading of the Canadian decision - even [47] references the idea of the order being "legally permissible" and that is what the US decision seems to have spoken to.

Re:US Court cannot overturn Canadian decision

[c]

Does the US decision indicate that following the ban would "require it [Google] to violate the laws of another jurisdiction"?

I haven't actually read more than a quick summary of the US decision, so I really can't speak to the details and how/if the court tries to align it with the Canadian decision.

I'm mainly just pointing out that this new ruling was a logical and expected outcome rather than some sort of brutal US court smackdown that the press seems to have spun it.

Uh, US can't override Canadian law

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Uh, US can't override Canadian law

[jfdavis668]

They are trying to get Google, in the US, to comply with a Canadian law. The US court is saying, no you don't have to.

Re:Uh, US can't override Canadian law

[Anonymous Coward]

They are trying to get Google, in the US, to comply with a Canadian law. The US court is saying, no you don't have to.

Yes, we got that. But the Canadian court ruling stands. To the extent that the Canadian Courts could enforce it before (e.g. by seizing Google owned assets in Canada), they still can. To the extent that they couldn't enforce it before (e.g. by seizing assets outside of their jurisdiction), they still can't. Nothing is changed by the US ruling. The statement that the Canadian ruling has been 'blocked' is simply wrong.

Re:Uh, US can't override Canadian law

[Luthair]

This ship has sailed, see my post about the DMCA. Or see many court cases where companies are being fined for bribery in foreign nations. The US in particular thinks it has global jurisdiction, no reason why it can't go both ways.

Re:Uh, US can't override Canadian law

[Anonymous Coward]

note that the us ruling only stipulates that Google doesn't have to block those search results in the US, Google still has to block them in Canada regardless of the decision by the US courts.

The problem is not the origin of Google, but the overreach of the Canadian courts. The Canadian courts are completely in their right to ask Google to block the search results in Canada, but to tell them to block those results in other nations is an excessive overstep in their jurisdiction. That being said, the Canadian courts are only following the lead of the US courts when the US courts ruled against Microsoft and their servers in Ireland. In the end i think that this ruling by the US courts could be used in deference by other corporations now when the US courts try and reach past their jurisdiction, else the US courts prove that they are hypocritical and thus not trust worthy.

Re:Uh, US can't override Canadian law

[eclectro]

I beg to differ. The Canadian government cannot override our bill of rights concerning free speech.

Our constitution overrides treaty obligations which might obligate U.S. citizens to follow an external judgement which violates the bill of rights.

If that was not the case, you'd have every banana republic forcing judgements on anyone in the U.S. they didn't like for any happenstance reason.

Furthermore, this is one of the primary reasons we have a military that is larger than any to make sure that it remains that way.

Re:Uh, US can't override Canadian law

[Opportunist]

The right to swing your Canadian fist ends at the US' nose.

Re:Uh, US can't override Canadian law

[davecb]

Actually it was the EU that is the important place to block: the company who had stolen Equustek's technology seems to have fled to France, and was selling it in the EU.

Re:Uh, US can't override Canadian law

[WillAffleckUW]

For example, if you're in the EU or somewhere and you login to google.ca they can make sure those search results don't show up.

And if they don't, google in Canada will be penalized.

A Canadian court overreaching??!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet they apologized first, though.

This confuses me

[Dr Caleb]

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'?

Re:This confuses me

[Luthair]

Try Googling any movie followed by download and scroll to the bottom of your search results.

Re:This confuses me

[alvinrod]

It depends entirely on where Google is hosting that information and the jurisdiction of the court where the case was decided as well as any types of agreements that the U.S. government may have with that country.

Free speech doesn't give a company carte blanche about what information they can post on their website. Child pornography is one example of content that is illegal just about everywhere. The problem arises entirely because different countries have different laws and the internet is globally accessible and has no borders.

Re:This confuses me

[davecb]

Most places distinguish "commercial speech" (ie, ads) from real speech and have laws restricting it, so you can't advertise, for example, stolen goods.

Re:This confuses me

[davecb]

In response to multiple complaints that we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 18 results from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaints that caused the removals at LumenDatabase.org: Complaint, Complaint, Complaint, Complaint.

Just comply with the injunction

[Solandri]

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.

Re:Just comply with the injunction

[Luthair]

Sounds like contempt of court.

Re:Just comply with the injunction

[Luthair]

They have a campus in Canada, also remember Google doesn't hold their assets in the US either so in that some hypothetical situation Canada could go to talk to Ireland.

Re:Just comply with the injunction

[Cajun Hell]

saying "ha ha, we just reacted to your injunction in a way that hurt the party you're trying to protect, look at us we're so clever" is a way to get into a world of hurt

Wait a minute. Would leaving Equustek out of searches hurt Equustek? Or would it just stop helping Equustek? (I mean from a court/law point of view. Obviously dealing with advertisers might be trickier.)

Google provides a free service. They don't have to keep providing it, do they? The fact that someone else's service can't be relied upon, is one of the reasons techies are always saying users need to be more careful about their dependencies.

Re:Just comply with the injunction

[davecb]

Equustek did sue the proper defendant, who fled the country and is doing business (apparently in France). Google initially asked for the suit to be filed and agreed the take down links to the other company's sites, and agreement which the courts understood to be worldwide Google then remove the links in Canada, and not France. The court isued a temporary restraining order to get Google to take the sites down until Equustek and/or interpol could find the crooks and have the local French courts enforce the Canadian order.

The Supreme Court of Canada specifically asked Google to provide evidence that the case involved the blocking of speech, not just "commercial speech" (ie, ads). The US courts have not heard the matter, but have issues a temporary restraining order to restrain the temporary restraining order (;-))

Re:Just comply with the injunction

[davecb]

slashdot needs a spell-checker for dislectic nerds (:-))
s/and agreement/an agreement/

Re:Just comply with the injunction

[Ceriel Nosforit]

How is that contempt of court if they unlist both the quarreling parties?

Re:good on this judge

[ArmoredDragon]

The US can't force laws on any other country by any meaning of the word. It's up to other countries what laws they enact. If they don't like the terms of any trade deals, they can just walk away.

Honestly...

[argStyopa]

...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.

Re:good on this judge

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The US can't force laws on any other country by any meaning of the word.

Oh, no . . . ? Tell that to the folks in Iraq and Afghanistan . . . when the US military invades a country . . . US law becomes the norm there . . . even if the natives would prefer Sharia Law.

Hell, even "civilized" countries like New Zealand let themselves be steamrolled by the American legal system: Kim Dotcom. He is definitely no angel, but allowing the American FBI to conduct tactical operation there . . . ? What, like New Zealand doesn't have their own cops . . . ?

It even gets thornier with the USA and the EU. The EU can refuse extradite any person to the US if they could face the death penalty. Which should have made Julian Assange safe, but he wisely only trusts folks as far as they can throw them.

So if the Las Vegas shooter had successfully escaped to Europe, and was arrested there . . . a major steaming pile of political fudge would have resulted.

Re:good on this judge

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

even if the natives would prefer Sharia Law.

They only prefer it in countries where big brother puts a hand on their shoulder and squeezes while they answer the question.

There's a reason they're lining up to get the holy hell out of such countries. Now it's fun to imagine the US is the evil in the world, if you are 14 years old and living in mom's basement, or are on the dole from the Russians, but that's not how people stuck in dictatorships feel. You know, those who actually have to live under the rules you do not.

US rulings have no impact on Canadian law

[WillAffleckUW]

That judge can't do a darned thing.

Comply or leave. Those are your options.

If Google pisses off the Canadians ...

[Alain Williams]

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.

Re:good on this judge

[ArmoredDragon]

Oh, no . . . ? Tell that to the folks in Iraq and Afghanistan . . . when the US military invades a country . . . US law becomes the norm there . . . even if the natives would prefer Sharia Law.

No, actually Afghanistan didn't, or at least not in the way the taliban interprets it. The taliban, among other things, forbade things like music, dancing, artwork, and any viewpoints that even slightly strayed from Wahhabism. The majority certainly didn't want this, and furthermore, the US didn't impose its own laws on them. The US deposed the taliban because they were providing safe harbor for terrorists. You're being butthurt over Afghanistan because you think the taliban rule was better means you're just a total fucking asshole.

Iraq was similar; the law that was present prior to the US invasion was imposed by force by the British, and was in fact less Islamic than the people there wanted it. Saddam was actually not popular at all. I'm sure you believe in the farce election that gave him a 99% approval rating, because as mentioned above, you're a total fucking asshole, but really the only people who wanted him there were the ones who's pockets he was lining. The law of the land there was actually written and spoken for by many religious figures, and the people there voted for it in a free election.

If you want an example of a modern day country that still has a (mostly) US written constitution to this day, that would be Japan. Douglas MacArthur was installed as a de-facto governor of that country just after Japan surrendered (in fact, they informally refer to him as Gaijin Shogun, or Foreign Military Ruler.) The majority of the country still wanted imperialistic rule and militarism to remain intact, because that was at the heart of their culture (and in some ways, it still is.) MacArthur, and a very small number of Japanese people that were considered radicals in their country at the time, formed a constitution similar to our own in many ways, with the exception that the royal family maintained symbolic power, and Japan was to have no military. Of course, I'm sure you hate this as well, because as was mentioned twice already, you're a total fucking asshole.

Re: U.S. hegemony

[ArmoredDragon]

Interesting, so in your mind, South Koreans would be better off if only we had allowed the DPRK to conquer it?

Re:good on this judge

[knorthern knight]

> If they don't like the terms of any trade deals, they can just walk away.

Japan begs to differ. Ever heard of the Perry expedition? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Imagine a court in Moslem country tries this

[knorthern knight]

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...

Duh

[XSportSeeker]

Should've been obvious from start.