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

[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

[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:

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

[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

[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.

A Canadian court overreaching??!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet they apologized first, though.

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: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.