King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]hedda wrote:[/b]
[quote]I despise Google. That's because I have spent 4 years now trying to get them to remove some highly defamatory websites .

The websites aren't about me but about a friend and now extend to defaming his lawyer, and a variety of official bodies that do not respond to this nutter.

Google are a complete nightmare to deal with. They make you jump through endless hoops. I've had some success but in fact, if my friend (or his lawyers) want to sue Google for defamation I have now paved the way. Even his lawyer has congratulated me for doing the tiresome groundwork.

But a defamation action is also debilitating and can take years. Along the way I've become friendly with an academic who says Google has destroyed her career by not removing a vicious website that saw her lose her job.
Every job she has applied for in the past 5 years, they do a Google search on her and the rubbish pops up. Faced with 50 rival applicants, she reckons they go with the 'untainted' candidate.

She's spent 5 years pursuing Google and had to mortgage her house to raise funds for legal action. Her lawyers who have successfully sued Google and Yahoo (Yahoo actually now respond very quickly) say Google is the most vicious and rapacious corporation they have ever encountered and put every obstacle in place they can.

They can do this because their profits are astronomical and they are based in cyberspace with allegiance to no-one or no country (but always quote US 'freedom of speech' as their mantra)

thoughts?[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: Google
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
hedda	Gnomo wrote: For me the important part of the decision was: Balance of convenience In my opinion, a weighing of the balance of convenience clearly favours rejection of the plaintiff’s application having regard to the following factors. First, the public interest in free discussion of matters over the internet weighs against the grant. the second was an application for an injunction to get Google to remove content. That failed but the first link was a decision that happened this year. Google admitted being a publisher. Hence a precedent has now been set....which was very odd for Google with deep pockets. Precedents in Victoria Oz can affect a court case in the UK...but then nothing is every certain with the law and just reading the rulings does my head in.
Gnomo	For me the important part of the decision was: Balance of convenience In my opinion, a weighing of the balance of convenience clearly favours rejection of the plaintiff’s application having regard to the following factors. First, the public interest in free discussion of matters over the internet weighs against the grant.
hedda	Gnomo wrote: GOOGLE is not responsible for these sites, they merely act as an indexing system. Allowing GOOGLE or anyone else to censure website content would be an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS precedent. We should all unite against ANY censorship precedents have been set: defamationwatch.com.au/?p=664 this bloke is cleaning up as he keeps taking each search engine individually to court and winning. I'm surprised Google caved in with this case but they did...In the UK a court found the opposite that Google wasn't a publisher..but..that is now under question with calls from the legal fraternity to change the law (never get between a lawyer and writ) yet the opposite happened her e to my friend : Duffy Vs Google Inc however that was 2010 and the matter is ongoing with the same lawyer that one the case above....and litigants in the UK or USA etc may choose to sue in Australian courts as Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick established is possible... "Do No Evil" !
hedda	Gnomo wrote: GOOGLE is not responsible for these sites, they merely act as an indexing system. Allowing GOOGLE or anyone else to censure website content would be an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS precedent. We should all unite against ANY censorship various countries are deciding otherwise and treating Google as a publisher. When you sue for libel you can actually sue everyone in the process- publisher, printer, distributor (WH Smith, local newsagent) van driver who delivers the offending publication and so on. In a precedent last year Google ( and Yahoo) admitted to being publishers of a defamatory website by carrying it's listing in their search engine and by hosting various websites. Yahoo will now remove a website from it's search engine (actually more important really) fairly quickly if you can demonstrate that it's libelous. The defense you offer for Google was not accepted last year in an Australian court (Italy, Canada and a few others)...the judge refused to accept Google's defense that it simply hosted blogger..that Blogger was a 'noticeboard' over which it had no control...when it was shown that Google actively sought advertising and reaped billions$$ in profits from advertising via Blogger and via it's search engine. I always thought they would not be able to defend their case and lawyers agree. Google France has had to admit that those who are listed in their search results should share in the proceeds of advertising from those adverts at the right. It's only a matter of time before class actions begin against Google.
Gnomo	GOOGLE is not responsible for these sites, they merely act as an indexing system. Allowing GOOGLE or anyone else to censure website content would be an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS precedent. We should all unite against ANY censorship