British Man Suing Google For Defamation
London businessman Brian Retkin has launched a landmark legal battle against Google that seeks to make the world’s largest search engine liable for publication of inaccurate, malicious or harmful material on the Internet. If successful, the case would make search engines responsible for the content on the Internet and could trigger strong limitations on the free flow of information online.
The 48-year-old man from Wembley began the court proceedings after Google directed users to Web pages that he claims contained “deeply offensive and commercially damaging” material about his various enterprises. For example, one page accuses Retkin of profiting from the September 11th terrorist attacks by providing free registration of domain names that preyed off the stark patriotism at the time. Thus, it is no surprise that such allegations are rumored to have originated here in the U.S.
Retkin, who owns and operates a domain name registrar, claims that for three years he has been trying to persuade Google to remove the defamatory material.
“There comes a point,” said Mr Retkin, “when someone must take responsibility for this material. These allegations were posted anonymously so there is no way of suing the author. Where it has appeared on internet discussion forums we have asked them to remove it but it keeps popping up again at other internet addresses. The only solution is for Google to remove it and give an undertaking they will remove it permanently.”
While US judges have ruled that search engines like Google are immune from defamation lawsuits, the law in Britain takes a different approach, as search engine immunity from defamation is conditional on the search engine not having received formal complaint. So, technically, Retkin actually has a chance of winning.
Realistically, however, let’s be serious. Google is the main source of information throughout the entire globe, and no legal system in its right mind — assuming Britain has its head on straight — would dare to make it censor itself. Retkin needs to show a little backbone. Most everyone on the Internet has been defamed at one time or another. Sure it’s not pleasant and can be very hurtful, but unfortunately it comes with the territory. The Internet is full of trolls and you can’t go around suing search engines because of what they say. Don’t like it, don’t use the Internet. It’s that simple.
We understand that there are many who are rightly concerned about this case. However, what is happening to us is also happening to others and be under no illusion, it could also happen to you.
Google and other search engines spider links and articles on the Web all day every day and can, in the USA, disseminate the information contained whatever the content, without any liability to themselves (due 1st amendment/freedom of speech laws).
So what does this mean? This means that tomorrow morning someone with a grudge against you (maybe someone you looked at in a funny way 20 years ago) could tell the world that you are a fraudster, a criminal and a murderer (and that’s just for starters). Within days if not hours, articles containing this “factual information” would start to appear on Search Engines, under your name, probably near the top of the list, lingering on websites like Google for perhaps the next 30 years. Anyone, be it friends, family, potential employers would have instant access to this information simply by “Googling” you. Your life is about to change forever. You have no idea how much.
Ah, but couldn’t you complain to Google – after all, you are totally innocent of all charges – except maybe for the crime of coming into contact with a complete loony. Absolutely, but Google would do nothing. You would need a court order. Google is not responsible for the content on it’s website and Google is protected by law. No, just go away and search all cyberspace. Take it up with the anonymous author who doesn’t exist.
If, as has been pointed out that the information on Google’s Search Engine is not always 100% accurate, then perhaps Google should make this clear. Google is a phenomenal product and it is understandable that many have absolute faith in it. However, at the very least there is imbalance and this imbalance is clearly reflected in dotWORLDS case, where despite the fact that Google has published numerous withdrawal notices on Google.UK, not a word of this is mentioned in Google.COM. Why not? If there is a question on authenticity, why aren’t users in the USA told. You may not care one way or the other, but this is not a level playing field of information and as a direct result Google are putting their USA users in jeopardy.
Repeat publicly any libel that you (or anyone else) find on Google – even if you believe to be 100% accurate – and it is only you that is at risk. If prosecution follows, it will be you that is dragged off to court and if convicted, it would be your big problem and yours alone. Unfortunately, “I found it on Google” is no defense and you can be sure that Google will not be there to help you out. Of course, Google are protected and face no liability whatsoever as in the USA as they aren’t accountable. This would not be the case in the UK and elsewhere.
So, what do Google do in their own back yard. Well, take the case of Cnet. A reporter a CNet wanted to see how much information could be gathered on the net within a short period of time. After locating some personal information about Dr Schmidt, Google’s Chairman (amongst other things) the data was published. Google, incensed at this invasion of privacy, immediately banned its staff from talking to CNet reporters for one year. Embarrassingly, it transpired that not only was the information already in the public domain, but the same information about Dr Schmidt was also available on Google’s own websites.
“Google’s reaction to CNet is totally inconsistent with its handling of a man who had been falsely accused as a pedophile by his wife during divorce hearings, The man’s name and photograph were posted on a police website but were removed after the charges were dropped. However, having picked up the story, Google did not remove the pictures or postings it had published on its search engine. According to Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum (WPF), the page remained accessible through Google and was only removed after a long struggle.
There are 11.5 billion pages on Google. But really, how much of it is truly meaningful. Has this become a race for quantity over quality. Search “Google” on Google and you will find 1 billion entries. Great company – yes it is – but are there really a billion things to say about them. Spend 10 seconds on each page to find out and you will be at your computer for around the next 317 years (give or take a few days).
Yes, freedom of speech must be preserved and protected, but there is a fine line that is often blurred. It’s not about backbone. We have built up an organization with members and users in over 90 countries around the world and we feel absolutely justified in trying to protect it. As far as we are concerned, Google have been playing games with us for years – responding, ignoring, apologising, removing and re-inserting to their own agenda and in no particular order. This matter could have been settled long ago, amicably and without publicity. On our side at least, we have a mountain of letters and paperwork to prove that
Google is in no way responsible for fact checking. The search engine is simply a method of delivering what is out there, not altering nor controlling it. Even if Google chose to chastise certain sites/articles for reporting false content, the sites would still exist. They cannot prevent information from being propagated. Welcome to the internet, folks.
I hope he hits Google hard. Google won’t even delete defamatory posts connected to someone’s personal information in their own forums. Why do they have a ‘report’ link on their forums if they’re always going to hide behind the ‘we’re just a portal, you need to sue the poster’ nonsense? Why are the courts making these companies take no responsibility for what they do to others? It’s not as if they would be picking on little guy. They can leave that to monster companies like Google, Mattel, and all the corporate bullies just like them.
Erika, Google is the big boy and what they put in their search engines is what the largest percentage of people on this planet will see. That’s the issue. If it wasn’t PROMOTED by Google, it would be just some obscure site on the Internet. Pretty powerful place Google has on the planet, huh?
Don’t be naive, Google ‘chastises’ and bans sites ALL the time for their own security, the security of big business, on just the ‘word’ of another individual who says they have a copyright, and for rules that only Google knows exist. Welcome to the big business-owned Internet.
Google are responsible in the UK for what is published on their Blog sites. At present they are trying to get round this by demanding legal action rather a simple sworn statement telling them of a defamatory blog on their site. As this will cost complainants thousands of pounds it will limit the number of complaints. However it has now been determined that they are liable to prosecution and they will be made to account for their unethical and (in Europe) illegal actions.
This loony I came in contact with 25 some years ago, is ruining my reputation. I talked to this guy back then b/c I felt really sorry for him and his deplorable situation. His name is Robert Elton Maas or Robert Maas from the Bay Area, California. He is dragging my name and those of several other women through the mud by writting delusional, sick, postings about us. Anyone who reads his postings can after a few sentences conclude that he is not normal. Some of his postings made me scared for my life. I have asked the groups, moderatiors, and Google to remove the postings to no avail. I cannot believe that some pshyco decides to do this horrible things, and I have to pay the price for things I have never done, and seeing my name come up 77 times when I google it. I am afraid this is going to affect my career. I will start digging for any rights I may have, and if I am able to, I will have a lawsuit against Google and Robert Maas soon. I am not taking this quietly anymore.