Re: Suing Google

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 03:10:07 +0000, turtill@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 00:00:58 +0000, Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>>>I don't agree. It is google who are publishing these libels. It is up
>>>to them to justify them.
>>>
>>
>>They are NOT the publishers of the libels according to the law, until
>>they are notified of their existence.
>
>They have been notified repeatedly and as recently as the 5th and yet
>the link I notified them of is still there. I first notified them in
>September and it took a long time before they even started to remove
>posts. Even when they were acting a little quicker sometimes it still
>took 2 days.
>
>>And if they are, it is STILL up to you first to show they *can* be
>>libelous. If you are the author, they cannot be, so you have to show
>>that you aren't.
>
>No I do not. What ever are you doing posting such nonsense on a legal
>group.

Understanding better than you.

>You should be aware by now that google have to show either that
>the posts are true or fair comment.

Only once it has been established that the posts *could* be libelous.

And the onus is on the complainant to show that the posts could be
libelous. Google's defence (if they attempt one) of truth or fair
comment is only needed if the posts can be libelous in the first
place.

>hey can also attempt to show the
>posts were from me but that is plainly going to aggravate their
>damages award against them. I do not have to prove anything at all
>other than the post/messages appear on google at a certain date after
>I have notified them of the post. I do not understand why you are
>posting this nonsense on a legal ng.
>

It isn't nonsense.

If somebody is complaining about a particular article being libelous,
the courts do not start by asking the defendant if they have any
defence.

They first require the complainant to show that the article could be
libeling him.

Google only need to mount any sort of defence if and when that has
been established.

>
>>>I cannot do it without going through the courts. However there
>>>obviously are other who can do it as illustrated by the tiscali case I
>>>mentioned earlier.
>>>
>>
>>Nobody has any powers to do any more than you do, although they may
>>know more about which tools are available and how to use them.
>>
>>And if somebody forging posts is not careful enough, it can be quite
>>easy to trace back to their ISP.
>>
>>If they are careful enough, then it is *impossible* without a court
>>order.
>
>I believe any post can be traced by a skillful operator especially
>google, allegedly, with their long life cookie that works out what you
>search and then targets adverts accordingly to you allegedly.
>

You believe wrong.

Most, but by no means all, posts can be traced back to the server from
which they were inserted into usenet.

Beyond that, you need access to the records of that server.


>snip
>
>>>No, not at all. I believe a correctly handled google archive is very
>>>useful but in its present state it is evil and immoral. I was asked to
>>>declare a forged post was mine before I could get it deleted. That is
>>>evil and completely wrong.
>>
>>Calling it evil is just ridiculous.
>>
>>Wrong, yes.
>
>A person who only knew my telephone number sent me the e-mail below.
>
<snip>
>
>That is indeed evil as well as being wrong.
>

But nothing at all to do with what you were arguing was "evil".

the fact that "evil" people can make use of it does not mean it is
itself evil.


>
>Oh yes. If they wish to use post they have no permission to archive or
>even anonymous posts or links to such posts then they better either
>work out a way of doing ot without libeling me. That is what I now
>want Alex after all of the hassle they have caused me. They make a lot
>of money out of other peoples posts so they better get used to the
>idea that they better start using better methods instead of just
>hoovering up everything for free.

they aren't going to "get used" to that idea.

They will almost certainly not need to, but if by some weird chance
you do win, they will just close down their archive.

I don't believe they make any money directly from it anyhow.


>>If you win, then there is no possibility whatsoever that Google will
>>be able to afford to continue running the archive.
>
>Of course they will. They even run a version in China where mention of
>the fulong gong (sp) is forbidden. Any mention is filtered out.
>

That is an entirely different thing.

It is easy to automatically filter on certain words.

Those posts are NOT manually checked, which would be an absolute
requirement of any attempt to weed out libel.

<snip>
>>
>>If you win purely on the point that they should have removed the posts
>>you notified them of more quickly, then I agree it will have virtually
>>no detrimental effect.
>>
>>But if you win the argument that they have editorial control, then
>>they will be forced to either exercise editorial control, or stop
>>running the archive.
>>
>>Since they cannot possibly achieve the former, they will do the
>>latter.
>
>No they haven't stopped operating in China.
>

So what?

Nobody in China has said they will be held liable for any libelous
comment that is found on their archive.


>>Fortunately, I do not believe you have a cat in hell's chance of
>>winning on that point.
>
>snip
>
>>>>Not even the CIA could do that.
>>>
>>>That is very interesting that you mention the CIA in a post about
>>>google. Have you been reading Google Watch? Some people think the
>>>comparison very appropriate.
>>
>>No I haven't.
>>
>>I only mentioned them as somebody thought to monitor usenet very
>>widely. But of course if they do, they will only manually check posts
>>that are flagged up as containing certain key words or phrases by
>>their automated software.
>>
>>I was merely making the point that even with their resources
>>(undoubtedly far larger than Google's resources), they still could not
>>manually check every single post.
>
>Then google should start some kind of monitoring system on posts about
>me. Google wants to use other peoples material without responsibility
>for what they post. That is nonsense. You cannot do that nor can I
>without risk of being sued so why google?

For the same reason that you or I *can* do so.

You seem to have no understanding of how an automatic archiving system
is considered by the law.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It's smart to pick your friends, but not to pieces.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pibgorn-Need info
    ... I'm lumping Deja in with Google because they're fundamentally the same data. ... What archiving there was before Deja/Google was private. ... Is posting an opinion on Usenet ... did was to revive a private archive of posts from a time when no archive ...
    (rec.arts.comics.strips)
  • Re: RAID 1
    ... >> repeated context that also clutters the archives, ... I suppose I should have given up on usenet ... he didn't have google to help sift through the cruft and probably ... It shows parts of your 100 most recent posts with links to the full text ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: JSH: Measuring post impact
    ... but mostly I use Google. ... noticed their original postings. ... Today my posts do probably get read by thousands of people ... Do some searches on primes and probability now, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Google/Gmail filter off
    ... despite the fact that Google says different. ... when there are posts visible from him in at least May. ... posts are e-mailed from any NNTP server to Darwin and are ... He's straight-out lying when he ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A rather timely documentary on UKTV History today..
    ... that you must have used Google to retrieve that quote. ... you must have used Google - you called me a liar. ... A lie by omission this time. ... Not verbatim posts, no. ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)