
Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches - executive
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/google-ruling-1.4181322
======
ABCLAW
Tremendously impactful decision, regardless of which side of the case you
support.

Interestingly, the majority addressed a Google argument centered upon concerns
regarding the possibility of international censorship:

"Google’s argument that a global injunction violates international comity
because it is possible that the order could not have been obtained in a
foreign jurisdiction, or that to comply with it would result in Google
violating the laws of that jurisdiction, is theoretical. If Google has
evidence that complying with such an injunction would require it to violate
the laws of another jurisdiction, including interfering with freedom of
expression, it is always free to apply to the British Columbia courts to vary
the interlocutory order accordingly. To date, Google has made no such
application. In the absence of an evidentiary foundation, and given Google’s
right to seek a rectifying order, it is not equitable to deny E the
extraterritorial scope it needs to make the remedy effective, or even to put
the onus on it to demonstrate, country by country, where such an order is
legally permissible."

In other words, if an interlocutory order with international scope would
violate foreign freedom of expression legislation (or other legislation in
general), it would be possible to seek to vary the interlocutory order by
raising those issues specifically.

This framework should be familiar to jurists in Canada, as it resembles the
Paramountcy doctrine.

Whether or not this case will be widely used is unclear. This case is nearly
100% fact-perfect for the Respondent - it honestly looks like a civil-rights
test case. It is very possible that imperfect everyday facts provide
sufficient fuel for judges to distinguish this case from the case in front of
them.

The dissent is interesting because it lists a number of pieces of evidence the
dissenters would have needed to see before moving forward, including the
impact of the first order on sales figures. These dissents often provide
counsel with information regarding how to structure future cases in order to
avoid outstanding concerns.

These are my first pass thoughts. I'll probably read it through another two
times before the day is done.

~~~
cbhl
Should every court and country have the right to demand that things are de-
indexed worldwide, now that Canada has done so? Does China have the right to
demand Tiananmen Square be de-indexed? Germany and Nazi symbols? Russia and
satire about Putin? North Korea? The United States? If not, how do we decide?

The previous framework was, "you can demand whatever you want within your
borders; if it is unacceptable, Google will leave." This decision throws a bit
of a wrench into that.

~~~
ABCLAW
I touched upon this, but honestly this is a very, very large subject that
requires familiarity with the Berne Convention and TRIPS/ACTA in order to
fully explain.

In the Canadian decision, the de-listing order is contingent on that order not
being contrary to compliance requirements elsewhere in the world. However, the
SCC doesn't have knowledge of all of those laws, nor should it. Accordingly,
it stated the burden upon showing a contradiction rests with the applicant,
Google, who didn't want to comply with the order. Google would need to cite
specific laws they were in contravention of, rather than just pleading that
there may, maybe, somehow be a contradictory requirement. What if there
wasn't? Should Google still get to plead international comity in that
instance? No.

Positive freedom of speech legislation might work as an alternate requirement,
but this was not plead, and this was not a situation where the speech in
question is political or particularly protected. It is a very clear instance
where a supplier has fled Canada (and they can't find where they're based) in
order to attempt to continue crystal clear trademark violations which are
causing actual damage to a Canadian business.

The current international trademark framework means that the majority of
nations in the world would actually require compliance with this order (well,
not exactly, but close enough). The big question is how that machinery should
be activated. If the Respondent had the money to pursue passing-off litigation
in every jurisdiction, they would likely arrive at a similar result, but
functionally, a small company won't be able to pay x200+ times the legal fees
for a similar result while their dealflow is being sapped.

This decision, even read very broadly, wouldn't provide countries with the
ability to de-index items. Countries don't need that ability; they already
have it. Most, however, have bound themselves not to exercise it, but certain,
like China, actively pursue control as an overt element of their policy
agenda.

I feel like I'm doing a bit of a disservice to the topic, because there is a
lot of small nobs and levers that I can't get into without exploding this into
a 20 page memorandum. I am confident in stating that the freedom of speech
concerns arising from this case are not as dire as portrayed.

Edit: Made the middle a bit clearer.

~~~
kodablah
Can you help me understand something. Why do they have to cite laws this
ruling is in contravention of instead of citing laws that Google is in
convention with to prevent worldwide dissemination? One would think that you
don't have to prove what the government proposes you do in region X to be
illegal there, but rather prove that what you are already doing in region X to
be legal there.

~~~
ABCLAW
The Supreme Court did cite the test governing the provision of interlocutory
orders. That test is well known law from _RJR MacDonald_. There's a bit of a
blurb regarding the case in my comment below, but you can look up the case and
you'll find the full test and commentary.

The government isn't proposing anyone do anything; A private party is, and
asked for the court's help. The second private party is very clearly acting
illegally and appropriating the value of the first party's brand. They've gone
as far as to flee the province to try and dodge the court order which attempts
to halt them from doing so. The first party asked google to take down their
listings because those listings are the channel through which the illegal
brand appropriation is occurring. The court agreed.

Google said they didn't want to comply with the order partially on the basis
that there might be some compliance contradictions. The court said "Sure, but
you didn't plead any evidence that that's the case. We judge what's in front
of us. If you're serious, we have a mechanism to deal with it. Make an
application like anyone else who wants to amend an interlocutory order. Bring
us evidence there's another law which prohibits you from taking the listing
down, and we'll amend the order".

The reason why courts only judge what's in front of them is so that the other
side can actually argue against their points. If Google said "Law X from
Country Y prevents us from doing that", the Respondent could reply "The only
thing Law X from Country Y does is regulate how sweet twinkies can be, please
stop lying to the court". The alternative, forcing the Respondent to prove
that there is NO contradiction in every other country, is impossible. Google's
response, however, requires 1 list distribution email in legal saying "Anyone
have a problem in their country? Let me know". This is the "balance of
convenience" portion of the _RJR MacDonald_ test.

~~~
kodablah
The unfortunate part of that test appears to be that the private party can
request the moon. A reasonable person might expect a court that is required
"judge what's in front of them" to not apply their judgement to foreign
jurisdictions.

I wonder how this would be applied to a physical storefront from a global
retailer that happened to have presence in Canada...I suppose they'd be forced
to remove physical non-Canadian products from even their non-Canadian stores.
Because hey, retailer, show us where it's illegal for you to remove this
product. You can't? Then apply our ruling worldwide.

Is my analogy off? Or is it, as I suspect, the fact that the decision is
easier to accept digitally part of the reason why it's being levied? The RJR
MacDonald test appears incredibly subjective.

This test, if in fact it is narrowly construed as show-us-where-you-can't, is
a scary defendant test to counter decisions. Or if the test is being vaguely
construed for these means, it is equally scary.

~~~
ABCLAW
Private parties cannot request the moon. The test for interlocutory orders is
HARD to satisfy, and involves substantial expense for litigants to raise. In
Canada, if you lose this motion, you're paying half your opponent's legal
bills most of the time, too.

You need three things to satisfy the test:

1) a serious issue to be tried 2) irreparable harm if the injunction is not
granted 3) that the relief is just on the balance of considerations

Note that irreparable harm and balance of considerations are terms of art,
both of which heavily restrict the ambit of what is admissible under those
sections of the test, a process which is continually monitored by the
development of subsequent jurisprudence.

But even if the injunction test is satisfied,

The physical products hypothetical you're advancing is incomplete and leaves
out a number of facts which are instrumental in the court's ruling. Assuming
the ruling is applicable outside of those parameters requires that clear
arguments be made regarding why changing those parameters isn't a big deal.

As an exercise, try to go through the ruling and pull out each of the factual
elements which the court seems to rely upon in coming to their decision.
You'll note they rely on a lot of determinations to get to the decision they
ultimately arrive at.

Other replies have gracefully dealt with the physical goods analogy more
directly: things get ripped off shelves all the time. That's why the Apple v.
Samsung cases are so high-stakes.

~~~
kodablah
It is not the previous, original decision that affects Canada only that I am
concerned about. It's the global reach here. Some of their wording about
Google inadvertently assisting the non-Canadian company outside Canada strike
me as not understanding how the web works. I concur with the dissenters that
mentioned the issue should be taken up with the other company's government
(France?). It just reeks of protectionism, applied outside the country's
jurisdiction because they have the leverage to do so.

> That's why the Apple v. Samsung cases are so high-stakes.

It would be like the US court told Samsung they couldn't violate Apple's US
patents on phones sold in Mexico.

------
kodablah
A hypothetical: Company A is in country X and company B is in country Y.
Country X declares on behalf of company A that company B be blocked from
searches worldwide (including country Y). Country Y declares on behalf of
company B that company B cannot be blocked from searches (at least in country
Y). Who wins in the global context? Whichever can/will fine the most? Does
this give benefits to the overly-regulating country/region and is that what we
want?

Another hypothetical question: Can Canada require some retailer in the US to
remove another non-Canadian company's products in the US just because the
retailer and a competing company both have presence in Canada?

~~~
syshum
The bigger question is if Canada can enforce their regressive idea of Free
Expression on US Service providers simply because of their presence in Canada

Canada has no concept of the 1st amendment,Canada as all kinds of limits on
Speech that will never be allowed under the US Constitution.

~~~
52-6F-62
Canadian here. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your sweeping
allegation regarding free expression? As it is, this just seems like some
random stab that doesn't concern the topic at hand (which has far more
immediate concerns tied to it).

Section 1 of the Constitution of Canada (1982) outlines freedom of speech.
Just about the only thing you can't do, outside of pursuing damages in the
court system for specific cases, is stand on the street screaming "Let's kill
all white/black/asian/aboriginal people right now". For that, you might land
yourself in some trouble.

~~~
protomyth
How do you square the Constitution of Canada with the Human Rights Commission
that fines comedians and authors?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commissi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversy)

~~~
2preserve
It's actually a great example of how freedom of speech is not a binary. It's
possible to curtail some forms of expression, such as hate-speech, without
turning the country into an autocratic regime that punishes thought crimes.
Lots of Americans like to think that as soon as you moderately curtail freedom
of expression, you've crossed some threshold and you're now North Korea. Turns
out that with a strong judiciary (that isn't corrupted by money and politics)
it's possible to have reasonable constraints on expression!

~~~
syshum
Except Free Speech is a Binary, and that is exactly what Canada is doing,...
punishing thought crimes.

>Lots of Americans like to think that as soon as you moderately curtail
freedom of expression, you've crossed some threshold

You have crossed a Threshold

>and you're now North Korea.

Nice strawman you have there.....

>it's possible to have reasonable constraints on expression!

Proving you do not have or support Free Speech, you support "Reasonably
Restricted Speech" which is not the same thing

~~~
naasking
> Except Free Speech is a Binary, and that is exactly what Canada is doing,...
> punishing thought crimes.

A "spoken crime" is not a "thought crime". There's no chip in your head,
you're free to think whatever you like, even if you're not necessarily free to
say anything you like.

~~~
djrogers
You cross the line into thought crimes when you ascribe intent and presume to
know the state of mind and thought process behind a given piece of speech.

~~~
Forlien
Hmm, do you think there are some things you can say that would classify as an
action you could be arrested for rather than an idea?

For example, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building, offering a bribe, and
threatening someone all seem like actions you could be arrested for in the USA
where the only evidence is your speech (or a recording of it). Would these
qualify as thought crimes to you and if so do you think there is a developed
nation with free speech where they are accepted?

~~~
djrogers
How about threatening violence against a member of a protected class? Is the
crime worse because of that persons protected status, even if that didn’t
matter to the perpetrator?

~~~
syshum
There should not be protected classes..

All people should be treated the exact same under the law

------
escapetech
This wouldn't be the first time a government is requiring Google to modify
their search results. This case parallels the "right to be forgotten" cases
brought against them by the EU several years ago. There is a reason that civil
liberties and human rights organizations like the ACLU are concerned about
this precedent.

In the US, with the murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and
subsequent acquittals occurring at an alarming rate with increasing public
outrage, it might be only a matter of time before a court somewhere rules in
the favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a
particular murder off the Internet on the grounds that his or her
constitutional rights being violated (i.e inability to find employment,
friendship, etc), and companies such as Google being forced to comply with the
court's rulings.

~~~
kbenson
> it might be only a matter of time before a court somewhere rules in the
> favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a
> particular murder off the Internet

Which in the context of "murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and
subsequent acquittals" sounds bad, because it's possibly against your concept
of justice, but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless
claims are leveled on a person and this is high in many search results, or
people are defamed through libel and the jurisdiction doesn't allow allow for
a legal remedy?

I mean, if I seed the internet with 20 SEO optimized sites about how you're a
murdering rapist, should Google's right to keep that in results be defended?
Freedom of speech is complicated, and _not absolute_ in the United States. We
have laws for libel and slander to prevent just this sort of thing, and I
don't usually see those being called a bad idea. Perhaps that should be an
indication that this issue isn't as black and white as it's often portrayed,
and deserves a more moderate, considered solution.

~~~
escapetech
> but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims are
> leveled on a person.

You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record. The
potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to
keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter
of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU.

~~~
kbenson
> You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record.

So your assertion is that no baseless claim can make it to court only to be
defeated or dismissed later and become part of the public record?

> The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the
> law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as
> a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU.

That's _one_ potential danger. Let's not lose sight of other potential dangers
just because we're focused on one that's getting a lot of attention in the
moment.

~~~
escapetech
> Let's not lose sight of other potential dangers just because we're focused
> on one that's getting a lot of attention in the moment.

Sure, the Cosby trial might be an example of another danger. He was found not
guilty despite claims that were ultimately found by a jury of his peers to be
baseless or questionable.

But this really isn't about the spectrum of abuse of allegations, but rather
the danger in how someone may legally try to suppress publicly available
information because of a particular court deeming it in the public interest
to.

~~~
jacquesm
You are confusing a mistrial with a not-guilty verdict.

~~~
escapetech
Considering that the DA threw everything but the kitchen sink at the Cosby
case, a retrial would be either unlikely or unfruitful, given the judge's
intentional leaking of juror's names to the press and hinging his judicial
career on a guilty verdict prior to the trial, a second trial could result in
legitimate claims of malicious prosecution, making any conviction easy to
appeal and ultimately overturn by a higher court.

~~~
jacquesm
The only thing that we have right now is a mistrial based on a hung jury, no
more, no less.

What the judge did (which I agree was despicable) and what the DA did (which
doesn't matter) has no bearing on whether or not there will be a re-trial in 4
months. Cosby will appeal if he's convicted so from that point of view you
could skip the trial entirely, his best bet is that he may be found not
guilty.

------
slantyyz
Canadian law professor Michael Geist has a pretty good summary/analysis of
this case:

[http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/global-internet-
takedown-...](http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/global-internet-takedown-
orders-come-canada-supreme-court-upholds-international-removal-google-search-
results/)

------
massar
The EFF is apparently on the side of ElGoog:

[https://www.eff.org/cases/google-v-
equustek](https://www.eff.org/cases/google-v-equustek)

"Such a broad injunction sets a dangerous precedent, especially given that it
is likely to conflict with the laws of other nations."

------
CobrastanJorji
> "Today's decision confirms that online service providers...have an
> affirmative duty to take steps to prevent the internet from becoming a black
> market."

Well that's terrifying.

------
gdulli
> Google voluntarily removed hundreds of webpages from its Canadian search
> results on Google.ca. But the material continued to show up on Google's
> global search results.

> So Equustek obtained a further injunction from the court ordering Google to
> remove the websites from its global search results.

> Google appealed and argued it was not a real party to the dispute, and that
> a global injunction would violate freedom of expression.

Google didn't object in principle to removing the listings from google.ca but
did object to removing them from the the main site results. What does that
mean, there's actually no objection in principle but there's enough technical
challenge or cost to modifying the global results that they're willing to
fight it in court?

~~~
skybrian
There's a question of jurisdiction. Should any country's courts be able to
restrict what happens in other countries?

~~~
vkou
I don't know if they should, but de-facto they can. American companies are,
for instance, forbidden from doing business within Iran, North Korea, etc.
Likewise, nothing stops the US from passing an enforcing a law that requires
any foreign companies that do business with the US to follow US laws, even in
their operations outside the US.

~~~
L_Rahman
My mental model for this is as follows:

1\. If you are a company based in and operating as a legal entity in Country
X, the laws of Country X apply to your business as a whole, including services
you offer in Country Y and Country Z.

2\. If you are a company based in and operating as a legal entity in Country X
but are offering services in Country Y, the laws of Country Y apply only to
the services you offer in that Country Y.

All of this can then get mushy and complicated based on international
governing bodies, multinational trade agreements and nation-state soft power
but absent those constraints, I believe this holds.

------
qb45
I've never expected to use a Russian search engine to evade censorship but
there we go:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=datalink+gw1000](https://www.google.com/search?q=datalink+gw1000)

[https://yandex.ru/search/?text=datalink+gw1000](https://yandex.ru/search/?text=datalink+gw1000)

~~~
micael_dias
I'm amazed they provide links to other search engines at the bottom of the
results.

~~~
qb45
I suppose it's for convenience when yandex doesn't find what you are looking
for. Don't worry, Russia isn't exactly a freedom of speech heaven and if the
government had a serious issue with these other search engines they wouldn't
be there.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Service_for_Supervisio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Service_for_Supervision_in_the_Sphere_of_Telecom,_Information_Technologies_and_Mass_Communications)

~~~
dagenleg
At the same time you don't see google or bing linking to other search engines.
So I think linking to the competitors for your users convenience is a pretty
neat thing to do, which probably irks countless top managers daily. Don't
belittle that little neat touch just because it's a russian website.

~~~
qb45
True and I don't dispute that.

I'm not even sure if what I posted makes much sense, I was somehow stuck in
the context of using alternative search engines to evade censorship and
figured that parent suggests that these links may have something to do with
it.

------
mowenz
>"We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the
facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods."

That precise argument may be well-intentioned, but it threatens free speech
because it sets a precedent placing a burden of acceptable effects and results
of free speech.

In other words, should Tiamen Square be de-indexed globally because free
speech in China does not require it. Should torrent trackers be de-indexed--
free speech does not require illegal file sharing, after all? What about bit
torrent clients? Tor browser?

This site may or may not be rightfully de-indexed, but it is not because of
some limitations of free speech.

------
timthelion
I was expecting the ruling to involve some really bad behavior such as selling
misslabeled drugs or invading the privacy of private individuals. Instead it
is a benign product relabling suit. IMO, product relabeling doesn't even harm
the company who's products are relabeled.

~~~
shallot_router
Could you elaborate? I don't really know much about relabeling. The company
seems to be claiming that the infringing company is selling products under
company A's name when they have no actual affiliation, which sounds like
ordinary fraud to me.

edit: Nevermind, I misread. There is no fraud or impersonation occurring.

~~~
timthelion
If the article is correct, I quote "Equustek had successfully sued another
company for relabelling its products and passing them off as their own.". That
means that the offending company was buying Equustek's product and putting a
different sticker on them.

~~~
shallot_router
Ah, thanks. I parsed that sentence incorrectly the first time I read it.

------
seomint
Why don't they just use robots.txt to keep themselves out of Google's index?
User-agent: Googlebot Disallow: / Has Google stopped using that directive?

~~~
danjoc
It wasn't their site. From the article:

"Equustek Solutions based in Burnaby B.C., which manufacturers networking
technology. Equustek had successfully sued another company for relabelling its
products and passing them off as their own."

When the evil corp lost in Canada, it moved out of the country and continued
the same practice.

Frankly, I'm disappointed in Google for fighting this in the first place. SMH.
Imagine if this were Apple rebranding Samsung Galaxies as Apple devices. Of
course Google should remove those product listings.

~~~
averagewall
Why can't you rebrand a product? You bought it, you own it, you can resell it.

This case is much more complicated however. It's two business partners who had
a falling out and both tried to put each other out of business. The marketing
guy kept their own brand and customer base while the tech guy tried to rebrand
and sell his products on his own. The marketing guy hired an engineer to make
a new product that does the same function. The tech guy accuses him of copying
his technology.

[http://robertfleminglawyers.com/pdf/2012_BCSC_1490_Equustek_...](http://robertfleminglawyers.com/pdf/2012_BCSC_1490_Equustek_Solutions_Inc._v._Jack.pdf)

~~~
tjl
You're kind of missing the bit about the engineer they hired used to work for
the other company.

------
chrisparton1991
I wonder if the website in question is listed on other search engines (I can't
see why not).

Assuming this is the case, is it fair to force one company to expend the
effort altering their search results when others don't have to? Did Google do
anything wrong that Microsoft (Bing) or Yahoo didn't?

------
awinter-py
Ironically, now that G has been ordered by a court to take the content down,
keeping it up is a form of protest, i.e. a comment on the law, i.e. political
speech.

~~~
gboudrias
No irony to it, freedom of speech is way more limited in Canada:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada)

My journalism teacher used to say that legally speaking, there is no such
thing as free speech here.

Either way, I'm sure the Supreme Court has considered this.

~~~
vkou
There is plenty of free speech in Canada. It draws the line at hate speech
differently then the United States does, but the concept is not foreign to the
US either. See - the checkered history of 'fighting words'.

------
pavanky
This kind of stuff should be arbitrated in an international court. Giving an
authority in a single country the say on what can and can not be seen on the
internet world wide is a terrible idea.

~~~
vkou
Under which legal framework? Common law? Civil law? Old Testament law? Sharia
law? The framework laid out by the Constitution of the Soviet Union? The US
codex of law, circa 1953? Circa 2007? Circa Citizens United?

Should everyone get a chance to vote for choosing it? Should we decide based
on population of respective countries? Or do a one-country-one-vote thing?
Maybe one dollar of GDP, one vote? Why should Chinese commercial law have any
bearing on a trade dispute between Honduras, Belgium, and Spain?

~~~
bdamm
Multi-national binding protocols have been done in the past and will be done
in the future. Where the international community sees it necessary, there can
be the creation of international law. Certainly this case is something for
which international law and enforcement regimes can be created.

~~~
vkou
They are all the products of bi-lateral or multi-lateral treaties, hammered
out in secret meetings between senior members of participating governments.

There is absolutely no "International community" involved in this process.
It's a private settlement between directly affected parties.

These agreements also tend to be incredibly undemocratic, and are often
hilariously hostile to the interests of the constituents of said governments.
Be careful what you wish for - what you'll get is less like the European
Union, and more like the TPP.

------
lwlml
Every time something like this happens I wish YaCy
([http://yacy.net/en/index.html](http://yacy.net/en/index.html)) was in better
shape.

~~~
donatj
I wasn't aware this existed but I am absolutely intrigued.

------
known
Not honoring
[http://www.robotstxt.org/faq/prevent.html](http://www.robotstxt.org/faq/prevent.html)
can be a felony;

------
OscarTheGrinch
If a product or service is a proven scam, it is highly likely to be a scam in
all jurisdictions. Googles own takedown procedure should have fixed this
before it got to the courts.

------
sharemywin
Completely read that wrong. Thought it order google to remove it's own website
addresses from search results. that would have been interesting.

~~~
Bakary
This would be a significant victory against people who use Google to search
for Google and then perform a search. These types do exist.

------
ominous
Removing results from google makes so little sense.

Can I buy google ads pointing to those blocked websites?

------
downandout
I wonder if this decision can be used as a framework to kill extortion-based
sites such as RipoffReport.com that Google has aided and abetted for more than
a decade. That would be wonderful.

~~~
djrogers
>aided and abetted

I'm not sure that phrase means what you think it does... Or perhaps you simply
misunderstand what Google does?

~~~
downandout
I realize that you were trying to be condescending, and you did a good job of
it. However, Google has rewarded this site in particular with staggeringly
high search rankings, which makes things especially sticky for the victims of
the site. They have been on notice about this site and others like it for
almost the entire time that they have existed [1], and have actively refused
to even adjust their rankings - despite clear evidence that these sites are
committing extortion. So yes, Google is aiding in the commission of the crime
of extortion.

If I were to file a complaint on the site about how someone named "djrogers"
is a condescending jerk on HN that broke into my house and stole my wallet,
that complaint would be posted on the site within minutes with no fact
checking, and then Google would rank it almost instantly at the top of their
results for "djrogers". One day you might Google your username and see this
complaint in the #1 position, and you would probably contact the site saying
that this is absolutely false. The site's owner, Ed Magedson, would personally
respond essentially saying that he has been sued many times, that he has
always won, and that the report isn't going anywhere...unless you pay
thousands of dollars (allegedly the fees go to "investigate" the veracity of
the claims in the report, after which it will be amended or removed if found
to be entirely false - but only if you pay). He will make extensive reference
specifically to how well his site ranks in Google, with the implied threat
that if you do not pay, anyone who Googles your name will see this defamatory
information (which they will).

When you know that you are assisting in the commission of a crime, you are
aiding and abetting.

[1] [https://moz.com/blog/the-anatomy-of-a-ripoff-report-
lawsuit](https://moz.com/blog/the-anatomy-of-a-ripoff-report-lawsuit)

------
crb002
Google should have country specific feeds (canada.google.com) instead of
domains. Then location based filtering is forced on the browser where it
should be.

~~~
QuercusMax
I'm not sure I follow - canada.google.com _is_ a domain, as is google.ca.

What are you actually suggesting?

------
Matthewiiv
This is total bullshit. Relatively benign ruling but sets a dangerous
precedent.

~~~
vkou
For which courts? Canadian rulings would not be considered precedent-setting
in a Saudi court.

~~~
awa
Its precedent settings i.e. if google follows it, then china and saudi court
can ask them to do the same since these kind of rulings become fair game.

~~~
dragonwriter
Chinese and Saudi courts can do that to the extent the local law allows them
to independent of whether Canadian courts do; Chinese and Saudi courts are
neither bound nor empowered by Canadian precedent (I doubt either would even
treat it as _persuasive_ precedent, much less binding.)

------
Coffee_lover
I am confused as to how a Canadian court could have any sway on search results
in other countries? Is there even any legal precedent on the matter?

