Company Continues To Insist That Google Is Responsible For Libel On Any Site It Links To
Can a day go by without a story about a ridiculous lawsuit against Google? The latest is really more of an update of a case we wrote about a few years ago, where the company Dotworlds sent us their own press release, claiming that they were suing Google for linking to sites that contained libel (according to Dotworlds) against it. That, of course, was ridiculous, since Google is not the responsible party at all, and simply provides a search engine. We pointed that out in our post about it, and the folks from Dotworlds responded using an emotional, rather than legal, argument basically saying that it’s too much work to figure out who was actually responsible, so why shouldn’t they take the easy path and sue Google? The company is apparently now suing Google in the UK, since the UK’s libel laws are a lot stricter. So it’s entirely possible that a judge will find that Google somehow is liable for the content on others’ pages. The head of Dotworlds claims that Google is liable here because he’s informed it of the libelous statements — but that doesn’t change the simple fact that Google is not the one publishing those statements. Blaming Google for finding libelous statements is blaming the tool, not whoever is actually responsible. It may be easier, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.
“basically saying that it’s too much work to figure out who was actually responsible”
– why don’t they google the other companies?
Yes, Google is responsible for the libel, the same way that the gun is responsible for shooting someone. When used properly, both Google and a gun are tools, it is how they are used that has the affect.
#2
The obvious difference being guns are designed to kill people, Google is not designed libel people.
Hey, I’m thinking of suing the Yellow Pages. I looked up a company there, used their services, and they sucked. The phone book guys should be held responsible for this!
There is now a 35% chance that this thread is hijacked by gun nuts… Maybe if I mention abortion and evolution, I can totally wipe out any hint of a bogus lawsuit against Google?
I certainly hope the court tosses this out, though I am uncertain how English courts operate.
#5,
Well really, guns are just like abortion, they are both designed to kill people.
40% and climbing…. 🙂
no, the reason they are suing google is because they are hoping google will give them money to go away, rather than risk getting scheduled in a courtroom with a judge who can’t see how preposterous the claim really is.
too lazy to find out who’s slandering them? nah, too greedy to care i’m sure.
#8 is right which is exactly why the USA needs trot reform so when people or companies and lawyers do crap like this it will cost THEM money.
“trot reform.” What a concept!
#9 – Yes… THAT kind of reform that punishes those who use the courts for sport is a good idea…
The danger is making sure we don’t go down the path some would take which is to restrict private citizen’s ability to use the courts to address grievances and some would even like to build legal shields to protect businesses in ways that would allow them to abuse consumers.
But if reform could ensure justice, lower costs, and leave consumer’s with a valuable tool, then let’s do it.
#11 – OFTLO – You can usually judge the intent of political drives by who does the driving. If tort reform were going to benefit the public, it would be slandered as “liberal” by the the usual corporate corruptos. Instead they’re pushing for it like some holy cause. Well heck, it ain’t rocket science to conclude that justice, lower costs, and leaving consumers with a valuable tool have nothing to do with the tort reform agenda.
12—Right you are. I laugh at BushCo talking about the need for tort reform. I am reminded of him standing in front of our troops saying he would do everything he could for them and then the next day he signed a bill to reduce VA benefits. There should be a “special word” for that type of duplicity. Maybe “politician” does cover it though.
More proof that humanity is not a viable species.
Maybe they should sue their ISP as well. The smartest $45 I ever spent was on an RG-23 (saturday night special). The gang I pointed it at certainly believed it was only good for killing them, and decided against beating me up and raping my girl friend. Too bad the anti-gun nuts try to pass laws against guns, only the law abiding obey the laws.
#6 – Yes, that’s why it is so fun to laugh at people are somehow anti-gun but pro-abortion.
…huh?
#15, Phillep,
You are a phony bastard. Were you trying to convince us or yourself with that crap.
I welcome trot reform.