
Court orders Google to pay $115k damages for defamatory search engine results - qzervaas
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/sa-court-orders-google-pay-dr-janice-duffy-115000-damages-for-defamatory-search-engine-results/news-story/6713798257490c7c36c15e393880ea44
======
Avalaxy
I think Google is not wrong here. It's just a search engine that allows you to
search for a phrase on websites all over the internet. It doesn't (or at least
shouldn't) attach value to that and take a stance/opinion. It should be left
as an exercise to the reader to determine what information is factual and what
information is not factual. I think you're getting in muddy waters when you're
going to let an algorithm decide whether information is correct or not.

~~~
andmarios
The problem is that Google isn't “just a search engine”, it is THE search
engine. If someone wants to learn about you, he will “google” you. Of course
Google didn't chose this, but on the other hand it worked hard to reach this
position and keeps working hard to stay there.

It is a very difficult matter to discuss and come up with some rules or limits
but it is an issue that should be addressed. Google search results can destroy
lives. Inaction isn't an option. With respect to freedom of speech and free
trade, we should find some way to mitigate such problems. EU's “right to be
forgotten” is a step towards a solution to this puzzle.

~~~
gozur88
But it's not the search results that "can destroy lives". It's the website at
the end of the search result. _That_ is where the culpability lies.

~~~
will_brown
Why stop at the website? Using that logic it's not the website that destroys
lives it's the author. But that's not how we have traditionally defined
liability in defamation cases, and the reasoning is pretty sound. If the
Google search result contains the false statement Google is now part of the
problem.

~~~
gozur88
Actually, it _is_ how we have traditionally defined liability in defamation
cases. This is like suing the newsstand because the local paper is defaming
you.

~~~
will_brown
Except, according to the article, in this case the Court found Google
_published_ and promoted the defamation vis-a-vis its search results.

A newsstand may in fact be liable if they took a defamatory statement out of a
paper and published that false statement like an ad/signage attached to the
newsstand.

~~~
ori_b
> _Except, according to the article, in this case the Court found Google
> published and promoted the defamation vis-a-vis its search results._

And the point is that this is stupid. This is like suing a newsstand for
displaying the headlines from a local newspaper that is defaming you. This is
not publishing.

~~~
mentat
I think it's a bit of a stretch to just call Google a "newsstand". If the same
company owned all the newsstands and they all carried the same papers, at what
point are they publishing? (Especially if they're excerpting papers to promote
them.)

~~~
ori_b
> If the same company owned all the newsstands and they all carried the same
> papers, at what point are they publishing?

At the point that they're producing the content. Anyone that's simply
regurgitating someone else's content is not publishing.

------
njharman
I'm curious, is a TV station liable for content of Syndicated shows, or
commercials or all the other content it did not produce but choose to show?

Are newspapers liable for the quotes they print? I thought not, and that is
why they always so careful about saying "it was reported" or "so said who and
who" to make clear any quotes were not coming from the paper and so they
weren't liable.

A search result is even less than a quote. Autosuggest, hmmmm.

Can't google sue for defamation for this statement by Dr Janice Duffy “... I
beat the bastards,” or this one "... Google can’t come into our country,
destroy reputations and get away with it.”

Both are defamatory and the first is patently false (maybe so much so it then
doesn't count as defamation) the second though is certainly debatable and
plausibly harmful to Google.

~~~
gilgoomesh
TV stations are certainly liable for content they didn't produce but choose to
show.

Newspapers can be liable for simply repeating a quote but newsworthiness is a
valid defence, provided the context is reporting rather than promoting the
opinion.

The question in Google's case is whether the choices applied in their search
algorithm constitute promotional choices or whether the engine is merely a
robot reporting on available content.

I personally think the court is wrong here but promoting versus reporting is
the question in play.

~~~
njharman
Thanks for answer.

So were is the line drawn? Is a book shop liable for the content of the news
papers they choose sell? Am I liable for a visible, slanderous headline from
newspaper I carry on subway? If network chooses to prioritize traffic (i.e.
anti-net-neutrality) are they then liable for content of that traffic?

------
mkx
Is this not an awfully scary precedent? How can Google be expected to modify
it's algorithm on-demand in these cases?

~~~
tantalor
[https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2744324](https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2744324)

[https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061](https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061)

~~~
sparkzilla
>We also remove content in response to valid legal requests

>If you want to remove a photo, profile link, or webpage from Google Search
results, you usually need to ask the website owner (webmaster) to remove the
information.

It seems she didn't get a judgement against Ripoff Report first. Google is not
to blame here.

------
nowaymate
If you're name was at the top of Google as being a Woman beating peadophile
and you had tried everything to get rid of it, I'm sure you'd try and get
Google to remove it from their index too.

The reputation, career and professional damage can be massive from something
like this.

~~~
TezzellEnt
Dr Janice Duffy, the woman in the article, had many false & libelous
statements written about her on a website - in this case being RipOffReport.
Per Google's Removal Policy[1], the search engine forces you to contact a
webmaster to remove the offending material yourself, or supply a valid court
order of defamation. RipOffReport itself only gives you a few options: 1) She
could've written a rebuttal to these claims, or 2) Paid off RipOffReport to do
an "Arbitration" (extortion).[2]

She also could've sued RipOffReport in addition to Google - but like
Google/Reddit/et al, they are protected by the Communications Decency Act in
the States - not making them liable for anything users post.

In the end, what she should've done was sue the original authors of those
posts on RipOffReport - winning the case (burden of proof is on her), and then
having Google de-list the search result.[3]

Taking the third route in using a court order is by far the best way to go.

[1]
[https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1228138](https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1228138)
[2]
[https://www.ripoffreport.com/Arbitration.aspx](https://www.ripoffreport.com/Arbitration.aspx)
[3]
[https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905?hl=e...](https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905?hl=en#ts=1115655%2C1282900%2C1115974)

------
nanoflower
One allegation is that RipoffReport is basically extorting people by having
third parties post unredactable negative reviews on their "forum" and then
asking a price to have them removed. RipoffReport is not liable because the
forum posts are deemed user generated content, but in this case, Google's
autocomplete suggestions are deemed to be published by Google, hence Google's
liability. Is this understanding correct?

------
mfoy_
On one hand this seems bad because it implies that Google is sanctioning the
links it returns... it's just a search engine, not a content curator. But the
IP people have been making Google take down links for years so I suppose it's
not that different. Correct me if I'm wrong.

~~~
leereeves
Verifying the truth of every anecdote, review, news report, and wiki page
Google links to sounds far more difficult than managing copyright claims.

If this stands, will everyone in Australia be able to have pages about them
removed from Google searches with a simple request?

~~~
nanoflower
My interpretation is that the case specifically hinged on whether auto-
complete suggestions were published by Google, not the search results
themselves.

~~~
leereeves
[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-23/google-ordered-to-
pay-...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-23/google-ordered-to-pay-
researcher-more-than-$100k-for-defamation/7051450)

mentions extracts, links, and auto-complete results. My interpretation was
that all three were considered defamatory.

------
yitchelle
tldr did a story on the Ripoff Report.

[https://gimletmedia.com/episode/40-the-flower-
child/](https://gimletmedia.com/episode/40-the-flower-child/)

~~~
codezero
That's Reply All (same hosts as TLDR). This is a great listen.

------
netheril96
If this is allowed to stand, it will set a precedent _expanding_ Google's
power, not restricting it. Now many content creators must fight under the
judgment of _Google_ , rather than the courts, whether what they write is
defamation against another person, or risk their websites unlinked from
Google's search results.

------
profinger
I see this quickly having a Streisand Effect...

~~~
ocdtrekkie
This is not an attempt to avoid say, knowledge of what a house looks like. If
anything, Professor Duffy is more than happy to have the legitimate
information about her reputation and this case out there. The problem is with
the placement and publicity of false information. She's made multiple public
statements and attempts to broadcast her side of this, so it isn't the sort of
thing where the Streisand Effect would apply.

------
etimberg
Anyone have the text? uBlock Origin blocks the site.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Alternative article: [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-23/google-ordered-to-
pay-...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-23/google-ordered-to-pay-
researcher-more-than-$100k-for-defamation/7051450)

~~~
etimberg
Thanks!

