Why Does Google Publish Libel?[/
We hope you do not mind us taking the opportunity to post on your forum.
We are not looking to promote our website (well, at least not today anyway) however having seen this particular thread, we'd like to let you know what has been happening to us and indeed to others that we know of with regard to unfounded and unsubstantiated libel on the Internet.
What is happening to us could easily happen to you too - and perhaps after reading this, you may want to check.
A few of the postings on this thread have links to articles (found on Search Engines such as Google) that claim dotWORLDS to be a fraud etc. These articles were, we believe written by one or more of our competitors, but as they were posted anonymously we can't prove it and there's little that can be done to bring the culprit(s) to court.
Google and other search engines spider links and articles on the Web all day every day and can disseminate them on their website, whatever the content, without any liability to themselves (due 1st amendment/freedom of speech laws in the USA).
So what does this mean. This means that tomorrow morning someone with a grudge against (as an example let's say) a member of this Forum could tell the world that that person is a fraudster, a criminal and a murderer (and that's just for starters). Within days if not hours, articles containing this "confirmed information" would appear on Search Engines and could remain on websites like Google for the next 30 years. Anyone, be it friends, family, potential employers would have intant access to this information simply by "Googling" that person's name.
"Ah, but couldn't that person complain to Google" you say (after all, they are totally innocent - except maybe for the crime of inadvertently having an acquaintance who is possibly a complete loony). Absolutely, but Google would do nothing without a court order. Google is not responsible for the content on it's website and in this regard, Google is protected by law.
So in dotWORLDS case what can be done. Well, in theory here is one scenario. dotWORLDS cannot sue the author of the libel (as dotWORLDS can't prove who it is) and Google's Website is protected by US law. Yes, you guessed it, in theory the only people/person dotWORLDS could have a go at, at right now is The Forum (ie: the origin for the new point of distribution) and/or the person who posted - which let's face it seems more than a little unfair seeing as the "information" on dotWORLDS was collected from what most would consider as an impeccable source (Google???) - a source you feel you can trust.
In effect, it is Google that potentially opens up its users (especially those users that trust Google the most) to very expensive and very lengthy litigation without notice. Maybe it's time that Google had a health warning on their website?
Please find dotWORLDS latest press release below. Oh yes, and as well as being shown below, you can also find it on
www.google.com.
Thank you for the opportunity to post
Why Does Google Publish Libel?
"At a time when Google proposes to amass ever more sensitive and personal information on Internet users worldwide, Google's lack of responsibility in actively distributing unsupported libel has given many, real cause for concern. It is the unique status of libel law in America that allows Google immunity from prosecution from anything they publish on
www.google.com. And yes, that includes anything they'd like to publish about you" claims Brian Retkin Director dotWORLDS.
London, England 5/31/2007 6:24 AM GMT (TransWorldNews) AND as published on Googleโs own website
By allowing defamation, libel and character assassination to be posted on their Search Engine by the unverified, the alias and the anonymous, Google undermines and threatens individuals and corporations alikeโ says Retkin โAlarmingly, Google operates such a policy without fear of accountability, responsibility or compensation for any unjustified degradation suffered by individuals or for the potentially huge costs incurred by businesses supplying bona fida goods and services to the economyโ.
โGoogleโs complete lack of care in this field is certainly not reflected in their own ambition as they adapt their Search Engine results to accommodate their own sensitivitiesโ says Retkin โIn facilitating their growth globally, Google often filters offensive material when catering to new markets with tighter controls. Unfortunately for almost everyone else, or at least those without a few million dollars in the bank to fight back, should Google distribute unsubstantiated and damaging libel about you, there's little that you can do about it โ at least not for a few years as thatโs how long they keep their information currentโ.
Is this the same Google that's now begging for even more personal information about you, your family, your lifestyle and any other sensitive data you might care provide? โWell, yes it isโ says Retkin โToday, Google needs you. Google needs you for their databases, for their marketing projects and for umpteen other schemes under development. On this subject at least, Google can't wait to help you out. The questions that arise are whether or not Google can be trusted to use the information responsibly and whether, on past performance, their proposals should even be considered?โ
Why has this been such a worry to so many? โIn our case and for some timeโ say Retkin, our company dotWORLDS has been trying to persuade Google to remove numerous grossly libellous articles published on their Search Engine. Google's initial response was that they had no responsibility for any content displayed on their websites and that complaints should be directed to the author. However, as these articles were written and posted anonymously (an option available to anyone with even the most basic knowledge of the Internet) there was no way of tracing the culprit(s) even though we were fairly certain it came from one or more of our competitors.โ
dotWORLDS feel that these libellous postings would probably never have been seen but for the Search Engine, as they believe that the attacks on them are all but indistinguishable from so many other unsubstantiated and obscure grudge web pages on the net. โRatherโ say dotWORLDS โit is Google's web-crawl system that allows for just about anything, no matter how inaccurate, spurious, nonsensical or even illegal to be gathered unscreened, recorded, indexed and ranked, later to be disseminated at Googleโs inclination to millions Internet users across the worldโ
There are rulings that Google can rely on in cases such as dotWORLDS and they are the same rulings that would probably govern the use of your private information should Google get hold of it. For example:
1) Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (USA), 1996....โฆThis Act specifically states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." That legalese means that, unlike print and broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others.
2) Excerpt from BBC report from November 2006 entitled "Bloggers and US internet providers cannot be liable for posting defamatory comments written by third parties, the California Supreme Court has ruled" .......Overturning a decision by the San Francisco appeal court, the court ruled that people claiming they were defamed online could now only seek damages from the original author of the comments - and not the website which re-posted it. The court ruled that that Internet Service Providers were protected by US Federal law that said providers of chat rooms or news groups are not considered the publishers of information furnished by others. "The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications," said Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan.
Still, itโs not all bad news. Using legal argument, dotWORLDS estimate that they have forced Google to remove over 1500 libellous links from Googleโs websites worldwide (eg: google.co.uk, google.fr etc) โ with the notable exception of Googleโs American website
www.google.com. Even so, dotWORLDS are convinced that despite the differing libel laws, theyโre moving closer to fulfilling even that challenge. More recently dotWORLDS claim they discovered that Google had begun re-publishing libel in the UK, that under threat of court action from dotWORLDS, Google had agreed to withdraw. โWe believe that Google have now committed a serious offence under English lawโ say dotWORLDS
Search for dotWORLDS on Google's UK website (
www.google.co.uk) and dotWORLDS claim you wonโt find much of the libel remaining. DotWORLDS say it was a very different story not so long ago although much has been achieved since then. What you will find instead are a number of legal notices at the bottom of the search pages to the effect "In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 3 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org".
Whilst this is a victory for dotWORLDS, it is by no means a total victory. Make exactly the same dotWORLDS search on Google's USA website (
www.google.com) and included on the information displayed you will see the libel that Google has deleted on its other websites. Even more disappointing for dotWORLDS is that there is little or no mention of the Google/dotWORLDS dispute โWhere is the balance?โ says Retkin โWe havenโt seen dotWORLDS legal requests to Google, nor any of Googleโs deletions notices that have been posted on Googleโs other websites. We havenโt even seen the hyperlinks to information on the deletions dotWORLDS forced Google to make. This alone should be of great concern to anyone relying on Googleโs information as truth (although why shouldnโt they). In the case of dotWORLDS, not only is Google potentially misinforming their American users but they are also putting them at risk of immediate legal action should they repeat the libel publicly. In a lengthy and expensive hearing, the plea โI saw it on Googleโ is not a defense. It is only Google that has protectionโ.
Whether or not Google wish to remove libellous content on their USA website, having already made a judgement call to delete it in the UK, should the same information on the Google/dotWORLDS dispute be displayed on Google USA. โYesโ say dotWORLDS โby refusing to publish crucial information on their own home ground in the same way, Google's claim that they are not the arbiter of the Internet becomes spurious. Have Google intentionally censured their own content and if so, what is the reason? Coming directly from Google office, this information on the dispute should be the first thing displayed. However, on Googleโs USA, website the information it doesnโt even seem to exist - at least not where itโs supposed toโ.
Google for us was about relevancy, accuracy and quality, say dotWORLDS โbut out of approximately 8 billion results currently available, suddenly somehow more than 1 billion are related to Google. Can there really be 1 billion interesting, relevant and/or different things to say about them? Perhaps the quest is now for quantity whatever the cost? Perhaps Google believe that the Search Engine with the most web pages can triumph over all others. Perhaps this has become a race to an indeterminate finish line. If so, perhaps this is the answer to the question: Why does Google publish libel? Perhaps itโs just because Google canโ.
[email protected]
www.dotworlds.net
