Suing Google Because You Don't Like What It Links To
from the another-day,-another-bogus-Google-lawsuit dept
Google’s lawyers certainly are kept busy these days, given all the questionable lawsuits that seem to keep showing up. We’ve already covered numerous examples of Google getting sued by people who don’t like how certain sites are ranked — including last week’s story of a Chinese professor who is planning to sue Google (and Yahoo) to call attention to the fact that both search engines have removed all evidence of his existence from their search engines in China (after he called for a more democratic China). Reader Jon writes in to let us know of a slightly different lawsuit against Google. Rather than complaining about missing content, this one is about there being too much content found by Google. That is, two Australian real estate agents are suing Google for linking to an allegedly defamatory article about the agents.
Of course, even if the article is totally and completely defamatory, it’s hard to see how Google has any liability whatsoever. If there’s a defamatory article, then the liability is on whoever wrote it and put it online. The fact that Google found it in a search shouldn’t transfer liability to them — even if (as the agents indicate) Google was told that the content was defamatory. Google is merely a search engine and cannot be held liable for the content it links to. Hopefully this case gets thrown out of court rather quickly.
Filed Under: defamation, lawsuits, links, search engines
Companies: google
Comments on “Suing Google Because You Don't Like What It Links To”
Question….Would they even know the negative article even existed without Google????
Re: Re:
i think that’s the point.
Re: Re: Re:
While I agree that google can’t be held accountable for the content of others peoples pages, I do believe they should be held accountable for their own content. If they are caching or linking to, say, Tubgirl, I’m pretty sure it falls WELL within 99.9% of everyone’s ethical belief system that it SHOULD be removed. Now, then, the line is drawn at the completely subjective “what is unethical?”
The reason I agree with this article is that I don’t believe the courts should answer this very important question for us.
People sure are stupid these days.
Re: by Google Master on Feb 11th, 2008 @ 10:41am
I think it is more greed than stupidity at this point. People want to see how far they can bend the legal tape
I’m going to sue sprint because someone once said something defamatory about me on their cellphone over sprints network.
horible
bad very bad.
maybe people failed to realize that theyre not paying google for anything and its not a public service, its a company.
Ok
Would this apply to: Suing The Pirate Bay Because You Don’t Like What It Links To
Works
they sue because it keeps working.
WOW, if it’s this bad now imagine what it will be like for our kids
“Google is merely a search engine and cannot be held liable for the content it links to. Hopefully this case gets thrown out of court rather quickly”
Sounds like Pirate Bay….
Barbara would be proud
Just in case anyone was interested, heres the link to the original article in question http://www.jenmangroup.com.au/news_item.php?id=368
Just for the laugh I used Yahoo to find it ;0)
Thinking the same thing
as poster #7 and #11.
Pirate Bay has the same situation.
all of you guys are GAY i hate every one of u. get at me daw!