

Google not liable for defamation in search results, rules high court (in UK) - credo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/20/google-defamation-high-court-ruling

======
Torn
FYI Train2Game is a complete con, £5000 for a 'course' of second-hand (read:
plagiarised) materials and freeware tools, as well as offering 'loans' to help
finance the course itself. They are notorious for spamming false PR pretending
to be contented customers. I have a friend that almost fell for it, to the
point where a salesman came round his house to sign him up; scary stuff.

[http://forums.digitaltrends.com/showthread.php?s=e0e28e34157...](http://forums.digitaltrends.com/showthread.php?s=e0e28e34157ec8c7d611c2a912b7a09d&t=16731)

Glad to hear the decision stayed on the side of common sense re: search
snippets and censorship.

------
dtf
"However, Eady did say that Google has a responsibility to block or take down
content if it is notified with a legitimate complaint about libellous
material."

More fodder for the chillingeffects database? Libel laws have no place on the
web.

~~~
Ardit20
_Libel laws have no place on the web._

What is the difference of NYT publishing a defamatory article and huffington
post? According to your logic the former should pay a lot of money while the
later is free to be as defamatory as it wishes. I do not think that is sane,
the public whether on the internet or wherever else has the right to maintain
their reputation and not be injured unfairly.

~~~
erikwiffin
The point of libel laws is that 50 years ago, the NYT could make libelous
accusations against someone and they would have had no platform to defend
themselves. Thus they were given a legal platform.

Now, if someone says mean things about you in a forum, you can defend yourself
on that very same forum. You don't need a legal platform.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
It shouldn't be my responsibility to defend myself in each and every forum in
which I might be attacked, should it? Because if that were the case, whoever
had the most posters and websites could say whatever they wanted about the
people who didn't have those resources.

------
andyjenn
..hmm, very interesting considering Justice Eady's track record. Read almost
any Private Eye edition and they'll mention some bizarre ruling he has made.

