Australian man sues Google for defamation over results published online by other websites, wins - Polidicks

[IMG]http://resources2.news.com.au/cs/newscomau/v2/_shared/base/css/images/icons/homepage-title.png[/IMG] Source: [url]http://www.news.com.au/technology/man-wins-defamation-case-against-google-over-images-published-online/story-e6frfro0-1226507563956[/url] [img]http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/10/19/1226170/171434-tony-mokbel.gif[/img] An Australian man has successfully sued Google after his image was posted next to gangland figures including drug baron Tony Mokbel, pictured. Source: Herald Sun [quote][b]AN Australian man has won a landmark defamation case against Google after images of him were published alongside gangland figures including drug baron Tony Mokbel.[/b] The man - who has lived in Australia for 42 years also claimed that a Google search for his name brought up stories about an unsolved shooting in 2004, causing damage to his reputation leading him to be ostracised within his migrant community. A jury found Google liable for defamation in the Victorian Supreme court yesterday - a first in Australian history. Google argued in court that it was not a publisher and therefore could not be held responsible. Its search processes were automated and based on algorithms that crawl the web for content, Google said. The jury had to deliberate on two separate issues: the first was the publication of a photo of the man that appeared on Google's image search. The second had to do with a URL that appeared on Google's web search that linked to a web page containing the defamatory content, which included the man's image. The jury found that Google was able to rely on the defence of "innocent dissemination" up until 2009 when the man's solicitors contacted Google to have the image removed. However, it found that when it came to the URL, the man did not follow the proper process of reporting offensive content by Google - which can be achieved by filling out a form on its website and that Google was therefore not liable. In a damages hearing this morning, Google argued that it could not be a publisher as a matter of law as search engine operators are "active intermediaries", but Justice Beach of the Victorian Supreme Court rejected Google's argument. Justice Beach reserved judgement on damages and expects to deliver that ruling on Monday. The man told News Ltd that he was pleased by the decision. "This has been a big long battle I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy," he said. "I've lived in Australia (for) 41 years. This case is not about money, it's about protecting my family, my children and reputation.'' The man said he has been shunned from local businesses that he has patronised for years. "I used to go (to) a little restaurant every week. Now people won't talk to me," he said. "Google needs to be held accountable." Google declined to comment. The ruling comes almost eight months after the man won a similar case against Yahoo! who was ordered by the Victorian Supreme Court to pay damages of $225,000.[/quote]

how would you win that

[QUOTE=TheSporeGA;38262523]how would you win that[/QUOTE] Being australian.

[QUOTE]"I used to go (to) a little restaurant every week. Now people won't talk to me," he said.[/QUOTE] Why were these people googling his name, and why are they taking the internet so seriously

[quote] "I used to go (to) a little restaurant every week. Now people won't talk to me," he said.[/quote] Yeah okay

uh yeah I'd be pissed too if people thought I caused a shooting

Crikey.

To be honest he does look sinister as fuck. Now on top of looking sinister, he has proven himself to be an absolute asshat. Good job, dude.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;38265249]To be honest he does look sinister as fuck. Now on top of looking sinister, he has proven himself to be an absolute asshat. Good job, dude.[/QUOTE] Actually I'm seeing where he's coming from here, so tbh this is fair

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;38265249]To be honest he does look sinister as fuck. Now on top of looking sinister, he has proven himself to be an absolute asshat. Good job, dude.[/QUOTE] please tell me how suing a company that accidentally fucked up this guy's life by making it look like he caused a shooting makes him an asshat ffs stop bandwagoning because it's Google

[quote]"I used to go (to) a little restaurant every week. Now people won't talk to me," he said[/quote] Can someone answer me something? Every now and then in quotes I see people put words in either brackets or parenthesis. Why?

It means that part of the quote has been modified to make sense in the context of the article.

[QUOTE=Derp Y. Mail;38265874]Can someone answer me something? Every now and then in quotes I see people put words in either brackets or parenthesis. Why?[/QUOTE] To include words that were missing when they were being interviewed.

Ok, I think it's fair enough for him to object to that. I don't like the precedent it sets, though.

[QUOTE=Death_God;38265726]please tell me how suing a company that accidentally fucked up this guy's life by making it look like he caused a shooting makes him an asshat ffs stop bandwagoning because it's Google[/QUOTE] It's not Google's fault at all, tho. The algorithms are based on content on internet. They are not responsible for what people put there. Google gives you "map of internet". The guy should have sued the responsible news sites and requested them to take the story down as well as request THEM to ask google to de-cache the pages (they can do that).