
AFP: French court convicts Google and boss of defamation - jamesbritt
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gJsoDp_yA1FHODNVS7KbuG0I0fwQ
======
bertil
A few context elements are missing from this short piece:

* “public records” are not public, and for instance, it is illegal for social workers to ask someone in jail what he is in for; the memory of Google Suggested search introduced something that the French people deem inappropriate;

* a similar trial, by a distinct court, allowed Google to Suggest “[Name of the company] scam” because it did so using an algorithmic relevance that was appropriate, summarising “common opinion” needed for “good business” (business courts treat differently companies who face many accusations, because too few consumers go to court);

* that decision was based on Google's testimony that they censor “inappropriate” associations (“naked”, “sex tape”) so exert enough editorial control.

Also missing to an American audience is that libel laws are more stringent,
but you knew that.

------
jrockway
If Google was a French company, would the ruling have been the same?

~~~
gommm
On this kind of case, probably... Libel law are more stringent in France and
as pointed by bertil Google does already censor inappropriate associations...

Also the damage awarded is mostly symbolic (5,001 euros is hardly a big sum
for Google) and the aim seems to be mostly for google to add the relevant
terms to their list of inappropriate associations...

