
'Publisher' Google ordered to pay $40k in damages for defaming Melbourne lawyer - empressplay
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-30/google-ordered-to-pay-40k-in-damages-for-defaming-lawyer/12201180
======
astrec
To add a little colour here, Mr Defteros was previously awarded damages and
costs when he sued the authors of the article (and book chapter). Google was
notified of the defamatory material in February 2016, but did not remove it
until December 2016 after it had been accessed ~150 times.

In this case the court found -- paraphrasing a lengthy judgement here -- that
having being notified of the defamatory material, and failing to remove it,
Google is a publisher of defamatory imputations. As such damages were awarded.

~~~
htfu
Thanks for this, seems then things aren't quite as bizarre as the article
makes them appear.

Any more background info? Mostly in terms of the takedown request. A
successful suit giving the right to get anything directly based on the source
material scrubbed elsewhere seems fair enough.

But how is an entity like Google supposed to supervise the validity of such
claims? Seems ripe for abuse and no-questions-asked compliance lest they be
sued. Clear ground rules as in the EU seem like the only answer here.

~~~
astrec
> Any more background info?

This was the sixth case, including appeals, relating to this specific matter.

> But how is an entity like Google supposed to supervise the validity of such
> claims?

Without wanting to appear too glib, Google also indexes all the judgements!
Otherwise, you raise an interesting question which will perhaps be answered in
a subsequent appeal.

~~~
htfu
It would appear judge may want to consider suing ABC to force them have you
consult on any further reporting. Thanks for clearing things up.

------
tiew9Vii
Australia's defamation laws are some of the toughest in the world and not in a
good way.

There's been a few new articles about people having to pay big damages due to
online reviews, social media posts[1] and how it stopped women speaking out
over the me to stuff over here[2].

[1] [https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/email-spat-between-
manly...](https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/email-spat-between-manly-
residents-leads-to-120-000-defamation-payout-20190521-p51pkq.html)

[2] [https://www.uts.edu.au/partners-and-
community/initiatives/so...](https://www.uts.edu.au/partners-and-
community/initiatives/social-justice-uts/news/metoo-exposes-problems-
australias-defamation-laws)

------
_trampeltier
How on earth are such things in 2020 possible?

~~~
buzzkillington
When you've spend a decade acting like a publisher, don't be surprised when
the courts start acting like it's one despite big G lying about it.

------
tumetab1
Seems like a good wake up call to Google and Google Users.

There's an editorial reason for Wikipedia summaries. There's an editorial
reason why some results are promoted and others are pushed down.

Even Google rules to promote HTTPS sites can be considered an editorial
decision. If that is good or bad is interpretation.

Google search results are not just links popularity ranking so it make sense
to remove some non-publisher protections.

------
techslave
it’s too bad the damages are too small to incentivise change of any kind for
google

------
dna_polymerase
> "The Google search engine … is not a passive tool," she wrote in her 98-page
> judgement.

> "It is designed by humans who work for Google to operate in the way it does,
> and in such a way that identified objectionable content can be removed, by
> human intervention.

How are people this stupid allowed to become justices?

~~~
clouddrover
How is it stupid? It's true. Google controls the results and the presentation
of the results. The way Google behaves in the world has real world effects.
Google hiding behind an argument that it's all automated and nothing to do
with them isn't very convincing.

~~~
renewiltord
Hang on, I'm about to make HN culpable. Let's see what they do.

According to ABC, George Defteros was charged with the murder of Carl Williams
and other underworld figures.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Well, it's your comment, you submitted it yourself, and you agreed to
"release, indemnify and hold Y Combinator and its affiliates and their
officers, employees, directors and agents harmless from any from any and all
losses, damages, expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, rights,
claims, actions of any kind and injury (including death) arising out of or
relating to your use of the Site or any related information, any User Content
(...)".

You did read the ToS[0], didn't you?

(Though seriously, did anyone? I didn't, and only opened that page to CTRL+F
for a counterpoint right now :).)

\--

[0] -
[https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou](https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou)

~~~
renewiltord
They don't know who I am so the buck is going to stop here.

