Re: Suing Google

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:52:26 +0000, turtill@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 08:54:26 +0000, Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>>On 15 Dec 2005 19:51:31 -0800, turtill@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>>If google are alerted to an item on their web pages and they take it
>>>down surely that means they should then take down any identical item?
>>
>>No.
>>
>>> I
>>>cannot understand why for example if someone said "mr abc is a
>>>murderer" and google acknowledged it was a false statement and removed
>>>it they should then remove any other exactly worded items rather than
>>>having to be notified of each place that item could be seen on google.
>>>Google have been notified and that is it surely?
>>
>>they have been notified of *a* post.
>
>I hate to bring this subject back but I just do not understand this
>part. If they show exactly the same message but as a web search surely
>they have been *notified* already. Or to take it the other way if the
>message is identical and it is posted in numerous ng's surely they
>first notification should cover all such items that are identical. I
>can find no reference to this aspect in the Defamation Act.
>

If the message has been cross posted, then it will have the same
message ID in each group, and would be covered.

Otherwise, no. They have no responsibility to search out to see if any
more similar (or even identical) posts have been made.


>>It is not their responsibility to search for similar posts, and if
>>they did that and removed them without being told, they would be
>>laying themselves open to libel claims for any posts that they did not
>>remove.
>
>But surely if they have been told that it is libelous to show that mr
>abc is a murderer they then have a duty to remove that information.

Nope. They have a duty to remove the specific posts they have been
notified about. No more.

> I
>cannot understand how google and other archivers can just hoover up
>everything and make money from it without having any responsibility
>for anything they pick up.

It is precisely *because* they just "vacuum up" everything tat they
have no responsibility.

As soon as they start trying to select, on anything other than an
automated basis, then they would become responsible.

>I know there are exceptions for
>electronically gathered information in the defamation act but surely
>there is some element of care required by the owners of electronically
>harvested material?

*Reasonable* care.

It is not reasonable to expect them to inspect a couple of million
posts a week.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Laughing stock: cattle with a sense of humour.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Suing Google
    ... >>You don't in the sense of having responsibility for any libels ... >the authors consent they are exercising editorial control as far as ... the ability to remove posts after posting does not actually ... only of the posts that are not robo-moderated), but an ISP (or Google) ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Suing Google
    ... >murderer" and google acknowledged it was a false statement and removed ... It is not their responsibility to search for similar posts, ... laying themselves open to libel claims for any posts that they did not ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: coinopcauldron@charter.net
    ... I don't think that sends any notification for Google to remove the ... from Google and other Usenet archives you still had to do the old ... menu option to delete posts made by you. ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • 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)