The regulation of Google's search results has come up from time to time over the past decade, and although the idea has gained some traction in Europe (most recently with “right to be forgotten” laws), courts and regulatory bodies in the US have generally agreed that Google's search results are considered free speech. That consensus was upheld last Thursday, when a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Google's right to order its search results as it sees fit.
The owner of a website called CoastNews, S. Louis Martin ( http://www.coastnews.com/contact.htm ), argued that Google was unfairly putting CoastNews too far down in search results, while Bing and Yahoo were turning up CoastNews in the number one spot. CoastNews claimed that violated antitrust laws. It also took issue with Google's refusal to deliver ads to its website after CoastNews posted photographs of a nudist colony in the Santa Cruz mountains.
Google then filed an anti-SLAPP motion ( http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-california ) against the plaintiff. Anti-SLAPP regulations in California allow courts to throw out lawsuits at an early stage if they're intended to stifle free speech rights. In this case, the judge agreed ( http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Order.pdf ) [PDF] that Google was permitted by the First Amendment to organize its search results as it saw fit.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/court-agrees-that-googles-search-results-qualify-as-free-speech/
(Score: 3, Interesting) by nukkel on Tuesday November 18 2014, @05:24PM
Why this needed judiciary review is beyond me. The right to free speech is self-evident; for those who would doubt, it is reaffirmed in the Bill of Rights.
Google.com Is just a www search engine. It is not the Directory of Reality and All That Which Exists Within.
(Score: 1) by mathinker on Tuesday November 18 2014, @05:38PM
> Why this needed judiciary review is beyond me.
It's simple. Having a justice system means that one inevitably has to deal with frivolous complaints.
The only defenses against this are the high cost of legal representation (which are bypassed by offenders by representing themselves pro se), and stripping from repeat offenders the right to complain (something which hardly ever happens).
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 20 2014, @08:23AM
e.g.
If you go to http://fatphil.org/this/does/not/exist.html, and get a 404, and then delete "exist.html" from the URL, then you are *guily of **hacking*** according to case law precedent (there's probably record of that in comp.risks in the last 5 years).
e.g.
If you want to keep a copy of a webpage, and use wget to fetch it and its associated images, then you are guilty of using an *automated hacking tool* according to another legal decision (that string's googlable, again comp.risks).
e.g.
Adding a URL pointing to a resource on someone else's server to your webpage has been considered illegal *stealing of bandwidth*.
e.g.
Oh - be careful when using google to find the above, as using flags like "site:" and "inurl:" on google search has been considered *advanced hacking techniques*.
e.g.
The following has also been accepted as a fact in a court of law: "One cannot delete the Web browser from KDE without losing the ability to manage files on the user's own hard disk." (Prof. Stuart E Madnick, MIT, "expert" witness for Microsoft during their anti-trust lawsuit, 2002/05/02)
Stupidness is *massively* in the majority in the US court system. We definitely need more of the above.
Other countries aren't free from such asshattery either. Pages about (paedophilia-related) censorship have been censorred under paedophilia-censorship laws in Finland, for example. (lapsiporno.info)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by buswolley on Tuesday November 18 2014, @05:39PM
Note. It appears that the freespeech argumant is Google's, the plaintiff's argument is related to antitrust law. Can there be a case where free speech violates anti-trusts law due to monopoly?
subicular junctures
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jackb_guppy on Tuesday November 18 2014, @06:11PM
I would say yes.
Google "speech" is business speech. It is advertising. It is also editorial. Even their board and founders (those that speak for Google) are included in Google "speech".
There will be cases for this to be fully debated and legally looked at.
1) Does a monopoly truly have "free" speech? Free as freedom to say anything? Is sequencing a list of information actually "speech" or just editorial or business process or all of the above and more?
2) Does the head of super large company can speak for themselves? Or is everything they say went introduced as "President of ___" is that actually business speech, ie: advertising, so "truth" is advertising kicks in?
The list goes on and on.
Think in terms of President Bill Clinton - if he is introduced as Bill or Mr Clinton or President Clinton, does his freedom of speech change? Does the impact of his words change? If it does change, how much freedom is there?
(Score: 1) by monster on Thursday November 20 2014, @08:43AM
I think the matter goes backwards, in fact.
That CoastNews website is just one of several websites which offer some kind of information. Why then, I would ask, would it have a right to a better rank? I think we all could agree that what a search engine does is ordering web pages according to a criteria (the search terms) using some subjective measures (do it by "pagerank" calculation, do it by just tossing a coin, whatever). Appearing on the top spots of other search engines, which use different subjective measures, doesn't mean that Google is actively punishing the rank of the plaintiff, it could just be that they give more value to different aspects than Google does.
Any rank system is inherently "unfair" to some of the ranked items. Haven't you ever felt that some game you like wasn't given enough "rank" in videogame magazines, while the "Call of Fifa: Madden Creed XX" of that year gets it like it was a quantum leap in gaming? It's the same. In both cases, it being "Free Speech" just means "Free to express publicly the result of your opinion" and opinions are just that.
I know that saying Google et al are the evil is now fashionable, but that doesn't mean that there is always an evil motive behind every thing they do.
(Score: 2) by jackb_guppy on Friday November 21 2014, @02:02AM
You are very correct. The issue starts to get sticky when you push to larger and larger market share. This leads to what was the ultimate monopoly AT&T (before 1980).
The start of story goes:
That dial phones came from a mortician in Chicago has not getting business because another mortician was paying the operators to pass the calls to them.
Once you have dial phones, how do you find anyone? A phone book was born. (most of us used it a high chair whne you were small!)
How do you order names in the phone book? The choice was alphabetically.
How do you make your business notiable? That is where AAAutoCare came from - to be first in book.
AT&T then added yellow pages. That was sorted in a different order, by business types (undertaker, plumber), so your business is findable again.
AT&T made money by selling ads in these pages so a towing company can have page, 1/2 page, 1/4 page, column sized ads, that where then delivered to everyone in the area once an year.
AT&T made money off that mainly to pay for printing and delivery, but still money.
Now jump forward today. Google has ranking system, it has a large (some may argue a monopoly, at to at least lock on) on today's search (~today's white and yellow pages). Why should that company not publish the search engine rules? So all have fair changes to be found. AT&T published two lists, one alphabetic and the other service/need/class then alphabetic. A business knew how it worked and a choose names and classes that show cased their business.
Why does a company get to have editorial right to sequence information to hide one business from another? How is that free speech? Is Google no more than operators at the beginning of the story being paid to pass the call to another mortician??? There ads on the pages, so they are being paid. That is why this is sticky and legally important.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday November 21 2014, @03:29PM
So if you ask me to recommend a locksmith, am I committing a crime if I don't list every locksmith in the area? Should it be illegal for me to tell you "I've used this company in the past, they're pretty good"?
Google doesn't have a monopoly like AT&T did. Google doesn't control access to the web pages the way AT&T controlled access to phones. Google
Do you really want a law passed mandating that all search engines must return identical results? Because that seems to be what you're asking for...
(Score: 2) by jackb_guppy on Saturday November 22 2014, @12:42AM
No, it is question of understanding and "800lb gorilla". Oh, Google does control the access from one name "locksmith" to another name www.locksmith.com" that points to number (IP). Alos does Bing, Yahoo and many more. But how can you trust what is being returned, if the system is unknown. Had does business work it getting itself in to that MASTER WORLD WIDE "PHONE BOOK" and get people to "call"?
AT&T of old was the ultimate monopoly, so controls are required.
Google is not there yet (Yahoo and Bing are still trying) and may not ever be, but with millions of searches going on, just like AT&T of old had millions of phone books in people homes that was use heavily. Some "order" to process may need to be required.
EU has forced Google (and others) to forget information. FCC required Google to flag the ads on page. (I think Yahoo needs to do more).
Now about you supplying recommending a locksmith:
1) If you were my friend and ask you... then no problem.
2) If you were the operator on phone... then a problem.
3) If you were Google... That can go both ways.
Right now, if I use Google and ask for locksmiths, it returns the ones in my area. - hence a better phone book - generally... then no problem.
If the order of those locksmiths was sorted by a business relationship with Google and not CLEARLY shown that relationship is there.... then a problem.
If an owner of locksmith shop does not get equal time on the list... THAT IS LEGAL QUESTION.
Is Google allowed to place their "thumb" on who is in and out, for a general question "locksmith"?
Showing paid ads and CLEARLY marking is correct... they are doing that today
Showing locksmiths in area - but only showing 3 in area helpful.
But is it: first 3, random 3, closest 3, cheapest 3, best reviewed 3, secondary paid system 3)... IS NOT KNOWN and black-box testing may show which one. This is where LEGAL comes to play. Is the owner of "world largest search engine" rigging the system? How does anyone know?
Please find where Google defines how it chooses which 3 locksmiths are chosen.
AT&T of old, had those rules well presented. Had cutoff dates, to be included or not. Had regional grouping that you knew if you were in or out., so if you wanted a wide area you can buy/request. And yes they made mistakes, some good some bad. But generally, everyone "knew" the system. Do you know what the system is used by Google? (No, I am not talking about OS or CPUs)
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday November 24 2014, @01:06PM
There's absolutely no comparison between the old AT&T monopoly and Google today.
AT&T installed the phones, they assigned the phone number, and they printed the phone directory.
Google doesn't do much hosting. They don't sell domain names. And they're only one of literally hundreds of directories. Not only do they not have a monopoly over the whole chain, they don't even have a monopoly over a single link! That's a HUGE difference. With AT&T, you can't get in the phone book unless you bought their phone service and their phones, and you couldn't create a competing phone book because only AT&T knew everyone's info. Today, every phone company has their own phone book and every city has multiple phone providers. That's where we are with the Internet. We've got multiple search engines which are totally decoupled from the hosting and addressing. So it's easy to compete. Anyone can set up their own search engine. I've got one of my own in fact, took a couple hours to get set up, and it costs me $0. When nobody can put a website online without paying Google, THEN you can start making comparisons to the old AT&T system.
Oh, and regarding your other comment -- linking to a *tabloid* doesn't help your case much...
(Score: 2) by jackb_guppy on Tuesday November 25 2014, @02:22AM
You are holding this too tight. This why a legal clear definition is required. There is just gray.
Also is not just tabloids...
https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=google+eu+monopoly&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 [google.com] http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/09/19/why-googles-european-monopoly-doesnt-matter-whatever-the-eu-says-about-it/
But you may complain about ZNET...
http://www.zdnet.com/european-parliament-calls-for-googles-breakup-to-end-ongoing-antitrust-probe-7000036061/ [zdnet.com]
(Score: 2) by jackb_guppy on Saturday November 22 2014, @11:27AM
I find this is interesting.... http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2383012/europe-to-call-for-break-up-of-google-in-bid-to-end-search-monopoly [theinquirer.net]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday November 18 2014, @06:03PM
I beg to differ, Google or it didn't happen.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @07:48PM
It certainly doesn't apply to the dispute over google refusing to run ads on a site the features a nudist colony.
In that particular case, contract law applies. The AdSense terms of service are quite specific about what Google does or does not permit.
I don't have a problem with the nudist colony myself - I'm from Santa Cruz, I have a close friend who is a member there.
But the US Constitution specifically provides for contracts, and the courts have consistently upheld contracts based on the terms of the contracts AS WRITTEN. So if you sign a contract in which you agree to do something stupid in return for something of little or no value, then the courts will require you to do that stupid thing, because that's what you agreed to in the contract.
The first amendment, in my understanding only forbids the government from censoring speech or writing. It doesn't say anything at all about what a business can or cannot do in the way of speech. It's quite common for businesses to practice forms of censorship, that would be flatly illegal were a government agency to do the same thing.
Each of the different search engines have their own criteria for ranking different sites that would otherwise have equal relevancy for a given keyword. In some cases they are required to be different because of patents. Google holds a patent on PageRank, for example. To the extent bing and yahoo can consider link popularity, they have to do so in a way that does not infringe on the claims made by the pagerank patent. In other cases their criteria are trade secrets. In general but not always the courts won't force a company to disclose a trade secret.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday November 18 2014, @09:41PM
That's a common mis-conception. Stanford University holds US Patent 6,285,999 and Google has an exclusive license [wikipedia.org].
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday November 18 2014, @09:49PM
Why this needed judiciary review is beyond me. The right to free speech is self-evident; for those who would doubt, it is reaffirmed in the Bill of Rights.
I think you will find the right to free speech is not all that free. There are already classes of speech that are outlawed, hate speech, fighting words, false advertising, Perjury, liable, etc.
There are exceptions to every provision in the constitution.
Generally, rights in the constitution apply less exactly to commercial establishments, corporations, etc, than they do to individuals. You personally can get away with having nothing to do with [insert-disliked-group], but once you open a business, you better be prepared to service [insert-disliked-group], or face the consequences.
The bigger the business, the less leeway you will be given. Put up a sign to sell watermelons out of your garden, you can probably still kick [insert-disliked-group] off your lawn. Try that at the local grocery store, you'll probably get burned down, try it at a national chain, somebody is going to jail.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by CirclesInSand on Tuesday November 18 2014, @10:02PM
Self evident:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
...means literally what it says. You are alive. You have the freedom to make choices. You have the freedom to decide the purpose of those choices. These are "self evident", unless you are stillborn or have a mental impairment. The only metaphorical part of the statement is that these are "rights" in relation to a "creator"; that metaphor is used to emphasize that governments have no business with the self evident rights.
Rights in relation to a government are not self evident. That doesn't even make logical sense. Rights in relation to a government must be declared, justified, and defended. If having a right to avoid governments interfering with speech was "self evident", then everyone would have that right. We wouldn't even need to write it into law. But such a right is not self evident; in fact, in most of the world it doesn't even exist at all.
There are reasons why we insist on freedom of speech. Among the foremost of them is that it is the strongest defense of all other rights. Without freedom of speech, your other rights may as well not even exist, because you can't bring complaint about violations. This is why national secure letters (NSL) have gag orders, to prevent anyone from declaring their injury or information each other about them.
Another reason is that in order to have regulated speech, someone must be given the power to declare what is acceptable speech and what isn't. This is simply too much power for any organization to have. The fear it would create in minority unpopular opinions would create a terrible country to live in.
So please, stop assigning the phrase "self evident" to every right whose reasons you can't be bothered to defend. The original users of the phrase didn't, and neither should anyone else.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @05:58PM
Good lord that's an ugly site. Maybe Google just didn't want some reject from 1995 making their results look unhip?
(Score: 1) by nwf on Tuesday November 18 2014, @07:08PM
Wow, that did bring back flashbacks. And it even uses flash!
(Score: 1) by Wierd0n3 on Wednesday November 19 2014, @12:47AM
I found it funny that you click their search link and that is powered by google search.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @07:54PM
That's what appelate courts do.
A superior court is a trial court. It doesn't set any precedent. One could use the judges opinion as a persuasive argument but no other court is required to abide by that opinion.
Were the plaintiff to appeal the decision, and then if the appellate court to agree with the superior court judge's original opinion, then the appellete court would be upholding that one opinion.
I would argue that to "uphold a consensus" would be something only the supreme court could do.
I know some people who are heavily into novel legal theories, like this joker here in Clark County Washington that got the idea that if he declared himself to be a "Sovereign Person", he could stop paying taxes - so the county seized his property then auctioned it off, to pay his property taxes.
Just because a judge said something, doesn't mean that what the judge said is enforceable as law. again that's the function of the appellate and supreme courts. It's quite common that trial judges in the same courthouse directly contradict each other.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday November 18 2014, @09:28PM
A superior court is a trial court. It doesn't set any precedent.
That's simply NOT true.
In the absence of a successful appeal, this ruling stands as precedent.
And precedence is a powerful thing in US law, it can even overrule constitutional provisions (for a time).
You need merely point to a case that occurred anywhere, any time, that is even tangentially related to bolster your case in court.
You can bring the actual signed legislation in to a lawyer, show them chapter and verse, and the first question they will ask you is "do you have any citation for that?".
In effect, asking for a ruling by a judge somewhere, anywhere, before they will grant any weight to the actual text of a law.
Until or unless overturned on appeal, in California at least, this case has already set a precedent.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.