Google and its chief executive Eric Schmidt have been convicted of defamation in France in a decision that, in my view, defies logic and legal principles. The company was convicted due to the results of its “suggest” function which lists words commonly used by users. In this case, the plaintiffs’ name produced automatic suggested words of “rapist” and “satanist.”
The Paris court found the function to be defamatory and ordered the symbolic payment of one euro and 5,000 euros (6,700 dollars) in costs for the plaintiff. The amount is immaterial. Google was correct in noting that it does not pick these terms and that the function merely tracks the common terms of users. If such a function is defamation, it could shutdown a great variety of such functions on the Internet.
I have long been a critic of European defamation laws (here and here and here and here) as setting too low a standard for plaintiffs. This case, however, shows both a lack of understanding of such functions as well as the dangers of low defamation standards to free speech. Previously, Google was hit with a defamation lawsuit in Italy.
Fortunately, Google will appeal this ill-conceived decision. In the interim, as I prepare to go to Paris next month for a speech, I will have to remove all of the adjectives out of the text.
If you read French, here is the decision.
I do not read French, but on its face I find the decision to be nonsensical and maddening. The lawsuit is protecting the plaintiffs not from defamatory statements from Google but the collective association of users. Part of the transformative role of the Internet is the use of such functions to combine searches and information from users. In the United States, Congress and the courts have moved to protect such companies from defamation. In some cases, they have gone too far in my view, but this case shows the danger of the opposite trend among our European cousins. Of course the ultimate revenge is that now, when you type in France, “runaway courts” and “Internet-challenged” will come up on the suggest function.
Source: Yahoo
Jonathan Turley
The French are in love with government. They are also notoriously petty and small-minded. For all their putative sophistication, they do not seem to un derstand that one can not go through life without being offended. (The rot has set in over here and in England as well.)
My pal encouraged I could like this web site. They was fully correct. The following offered actually made this working day. You actually can not consider merely how a great deal time period I did put in for this info! Thanks a lot!
When you want to search for any information, product or service online, the very first page you might open to meet your searches is Google. There are many people round the globe, who prefer Google as their main search tool. This gave Google top position in the list of search engines. Starting out as just a search engine, Google has continuously adapted to the market and vigorously added new features and services under the Google umbrella.,
Our own blog page
<.http://www.caramoantourpackage.com/caramoan-tour-package/
I do think it’s important to either get a reliable translation if you don’t know French. To your credit, Prof. Turley, you did post a link to the French for those of us who can read the language.
But as an example of how important it is, just imagine if a French law professor wrote a commentary on a US or British court decision while admitting that he did not read English and had not obtained a translation from a person who understands legal English.
There is also the odd phrase, “defies logic and legal principles.” Are you an expert on French legal principles? Do you think it likely that you may understand the principles of French law better than the justices of a French Superior Court of First Instance (in this case, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris 17ème chambre)? All this, without ability to read language, seems unlikely.
ishobo,
I’m sorry, I assumed posters would understand I meant a good translation from a reputable translator … relying on a search engine is so far outside the realm of possibility that I never considered it.
@Blouise
I am sorry to say I don’t know of any good translation service for those that do not speak French (or any other language besides English). I suppose you could try the Yahoo or Google translators. Being fluent in French (as well as my native English, and a bit of Spanish and Portuguese), I have never used them and cannot attest to their accuracy. I would guess they would not be that good, especially for documents with jargon.
Tony Sidaway sums up the case pretty well — Google had the ability to alter the results as they have done so on other occasions.
I am sure Turley can find a person at GWU that is fluent in French. It is irresponsible to post the above commentary where Turley admits he has not read the opinion and knows nothing of the case other than what was printed in the AFP article, especially on a site that is supposed to be a respected legal blog. If I want this kind of sloppiness, I can get it at Huffington Post.
ishobo
1, September 27, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Google will appeal this ill-conceived decision….I do not read French, but on its face I find the decision to be nonsensical and maddening.
–
How do you know it is ill-conceived if you do not read French? And if you do not read French, how can you know the facts of the case?
====================================================
A good translation?
Google will appeal this ill-conceived decision….I do not read French, but on its face I find the decision to be nonsensical and maddening.
—
How do you know it is ill-conceived if you do not read French? And if you do not read French, how can you know the facts of the case?
This reminds me of your comments on the Amanda Knox case. You did not speak Italian and had no knowledge on the facts of the case, yet had no trouble parroting the information coming out of the Friends of Amanda group.
Here is a suggestion, stop talking about things you know little to nothing about as if you are an expert.
“One interesting aspect of the ruling is the so called “snowball effect”, or “effet boule de neige”, that can be induced by Google’s use of the algorithm on its public website. This is a form of pernicious feedback whereby the damaging items attached to the plaintiff draw attention to themselves, are copied and thus gain a higher rank in the search engine list directly because of the company’s decision to permit the application to make these suggestions on its websites.”
—————————
No doubt the reasoning BP employed when rushing to buy up all that internet real estate.
Blouise,
No different from the Ocean or Sea…Profiteers everywhere….If you have a well paid Prophet in Congress your Profits will soar beyond belief….and to think Jack A…did prison time for what others do and are free….
AY,
It’s too bad the government limits the production of “private stock” … France has its own corporate monsters …
In France Blouise and even Italy….. even the commercial wines are better than the stuff sold here…..au naturale….no shit added….well…maybe a few toe nails but hey that’s even strained out…better than the per cent-age of acceptable rodent parts in Peanut Butter, here in the US….
Perhaps the French should develop their own search engine … heh, heh … now that’s a good one …
Dear Prof … enjoy the trip … go out into the countryside to find some very good wine from individual families private stock … look for Ina Garten
One interesting aspect of the ruling is the so called “snowball effect”, or “effet boule de neige”, that can be induced by Google’s use of the algorithm on its public website. This is a form of pernicious feedback whereby the damaging items attached to the plaintiff draw attention to themselves, are copied and thus gain a higher rank in the search engine list directly because of the company’s decision to permit the application to make these suggestions on its websites.
It also counted against the claim of neutrality that the algorithm operated differently if you typed the name in differently, and that a similar feature on another company’s website produced quite different results.
I read French. As a European myself I see this is an open and shut case of defamation for which Google Inc. and Eric Schmidt bear responsibility. They took it upon themselves to use an algorithm that, during the course of its normal action, placed damaging suggestions about the plaintiff on their website.
It was established by the court that it is possible for Google Inc. to filter damaging suggestions, and that it did so in regard to trivia such as words that some people don’t like to see, but not words certain to cause severe damage as in this case.
“John Henley” … cute!
Google translate isn’t always perfet, but here’s the decision in Googlified English:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Flegalis.net%2Fspip.php%3Fpage%3Djurisprudence-imprimer%26id_article%3D2985&sugg=w&act=url
I agree with what was stated in the article by the professor. How can one be subjected to search engine terms. Especially after listening to John Henley’s…..song…Johnny Can’t Read…
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP_2_mxiXlo&fs=1&hl=en_US]