Google, Eric Schmidt Convicted of Defamation Because of 'Suggestions' in Search

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]ssddx[/nom]The man most likely didnt want himself to be known as an offender until he is proven guilty?)[/citation]
The guy was found guilty, he is trying to appeal.
He thought Google was an easy target and thought he would get millions.
Big thumbs up to the French (for once) for using a bit of common sense and enforcing the law, but only to the extent of being a "paper" conviction.
When this guy's appeal fails and he goes to prison for kiddie-fiddling he will get a more rounded appreciation of real justice when someone beats him to death in the shower block.
If I was Eric Schmidt I would pay the 5001 Euro out of my own pocket for the satisfaction.
 
eddieroolz: "That's kind of silly. He was convicted of offending a minor. He deserves to be associated with those terms."

Article: "French law dictates that a person is innocent until all appeals have been exhausted."

So... Sorry, he's innocent.
 
@Botia: Google are condemned to pay for the fees (and the symbolic Euro), except if they manage to overturn the judgment through appeal - in which case, the fees are incumbent to the 'new' loser (if I'm not mistaken).
If they lose the appeal, they will have to pay for the first trial's fees, and the appeal's fees. Moreover, the appeal could consider that the symbolic Euro wasn't enough, and order Google to pay REAL damages.

Plus fees.
 
How is this stupid? Until he guy is convicted of being a satanic corrupter of minors, that stuff should not appear next to his name in a good search.

You want to operate in another country? Obey their laws.

The people who do not understand this are stupid. If he is actually innocent, these allegations will ruin his life.
 
[citation][nom]LORD_ORION[/nom]Until he guy is convicted of being a satanic corrupter of minors, that stuff should not appear next to his name in a good search.[/citation]

The man was convicted of being a "corrupter of minors". He is appealing his conviction.
 
[citation][nom]mitch074[/nom]Obviously, some people don't seem to understand that not all legal systems are US-like.In France, the court system doesn't require lawyers[/citation]
You don't need a lawyer in US courts either. You can choose to represent yourself.
[citation][nom]mitch074[/nom]This has a cost.In order to prevent trivial trials, costs are paid for by the parties - the loser pays.[/citation]
This is a bias against lower income people who may fear losing a case will cause them financial ruin, even if they know they are in the right. No one should have to "bet" their financial security in order to seek justice. Having said that, a judge in the U.S. may order that the loser of a case be ordered to pay court costs as well in a civil suit.
[citation][nom]mitch074[/nom]However, compared with the US system where lawyers can bill whatever sum they want, in France, these costs are fixed by the hour, by the number of persons forced to stop their normal activity, etc.[/citation]
It is true, lawyers are able to charge what they want just like any other laborer or professional (we call it free enterprise), but you don't have to hire the most expensive. Many are very reasonably priced. Also, if you are being charged with a crime a lawyer is provided for free, if you like.
[citation][nom]mitch074[/nom].The fact is, in France, Google represents 90% of all search results, and more than a third of the population has Internet access. Internet is thus a media like any other, and Google a 'publication' with some clout, and Google associates the guy's name wit 'satanist'.[/citation]
Really? Google is a publication? Google is just a window to what is already out there in the internet. Why not sue the maker of the web browser as well, since the the web browser is what displayed the result of of what google found on the internet. How about the computer manufacturers, since they are running the browser that displayed google search results that displayed what was on the internet?
[citation][nom]mitch074[/nom]Google displays the results of said algorithm.Google has control of said displays, as it's been shown that they can influence it in other cases in other countries.As such, considering the algorithm labels the guy as a satanist, Google is responsible for the guy being labeled a satanist, however he hasn't gone through all recourses, so he hasn't been fully convicted.[/citation]
The problem with this is that Google didn't technically say he was a satanist. It didn't say "So-and-so is a satanist". It just brought the word up next to his name. I'm sure many French newspapers would have printed "So-and-so is accused of being a satanist", and therefore loosely associated him with satanism.
[citation][nom]mitch074[/nom].Now, compare with the US system, where someone can sue someone else for looking at them oddly and get USD 50 000.[/citation]
What? If that were true, I'd be a millionaire.

Anyway, Viva Le France and God Bless America
 
I remember the good old days when you searched for:
"Paris Hilton isn't a whore"
You got the suggestion:
"Did you mean: Paris Hilton is a whore?"
 
There just as bad as we are in the U.S. I better not hear only in the U.S. from peeps from other countries ever!

That out of the way, it looks like they are trying to get google for the money the 1 euro might open them up for more lawsuits to be filed by the same person. I'm just guessing here so take it as it is.
 
(GOOGLE: can it p) we all know where this is going.
(GOOGLE: chuck norris can) Pure win right there.
Silly french haven you ever heard of dont kill the messenger? The question is, Is he a rapist? if so what is the problem he mad his bed. now if he isnt one every one thinks he is and he did it to him self. good job doucher.
 
@blackened144: bias against the poor. Valid point - this is why there are also associations that can shoulder the costs for a trial, and that can afford it: while $5000 is indeed quite a sum (I forgot to say that the financial health of the payer is taken into account when summing up the costs), you have to consider:

- that it reached an Instruction Court, meaning the trial was elevated from a simple arbitrated dispute to a full trial. If it had been easy, it'd have been summarily judged and costs would have been much, much smaller (if kept track of at all);

- that the case was complex enough to require an elevation: had it been simple, the judgement would have been fast, and costs much smaller.

I'm not saying the French judiciary is the best in the world (far from it: it's damn slow, understaffed, and there are enough publicized matters of corruption yearly to fill up any soap writer's notebook), but due to some socialist background, those that don't have deep pockets can at least afford some real justice.

Also, "Viva le France" is meaningless: what language is that? Looks like a mix of Spanish and WB cartoons... Or you meant "Vive la France". At least that country doesn't seem to rely on an invisible entity for its justice: how binding is it to swear on the Bible to say the truth, if you're, say, Buddhist? (yeah, I had to steer away from Jews and Muslims, as their case is much more complicated here).
 
"These searches are algorithmically determined based on a number of purely objective factors including (the) popularity of search terms," she told the Telegraph. "Google does not suggest these terms. All of the queries shown in Autocomplete have been typed previously by other Google users."
Click to expand...

Well he'll sue google servers next time.
 
this is like someone putting up a poster for a movie staring Brad Pitt, then some mischievous individual graffiti is a Nazi after his name, i dont think Brad Pitt can sue the person who put the poster up for slander.... maybe im wrong
 
"Google has been ordered to pay symbolic damages of one euro plus €5,000 in legal fees"

- That's the outcome most of these lawsuits should have.
 
Well...
This Man needs to ask google to change this particular search and not ask for money for it.
Simple complaint to google... Why make a lawsuit? Gold digger?
This is what happens when people don't understand the concept of automated algorithms search engines or variations.

Regardless easily...
-GOOGLE DID NOT MAKE THIS PARTICULAR SEARCH - > SUE THE PEOPLE WHO MADE IT
-> USERS - > UNREASONABLE? YOU'RE UNREASONABLE! That's like sueing your favorite restarurant because they didn't seat you at its full capacity. When other people made reservations for it.
-GOOGLE DID NOT INTENTIONAL HURT THIS INDIVIDUAL - > Explained through the concept of their search. Wanted information of google's search engine? haha
-GOOGLE LETS YOU USE ITS SERVICES FREE -> Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, simple
-THERE WAS MORE FREEDOM INVOLVED MAKING THIS SEARCH THEN YOU WILL EVER KNOW, not only did you make it personal, but if you wanted the freedom to search anything you wanted then what's the point making this lawsuit.
-YOU WANT MONEY FOR NOTHING - CLEARLY BY THE INTENT TO GET MONEY FROM THE DECISION - > settle for request, simple

Something to think about: Other interests besides this man's, other companys? Stock value? ... what ever else tied to these events.
 
@tburns: that's it - exactly.

My basic law classes were nice: the teacher was a lawyer, a real one in real business, and I never saw him smile. However, the cases he described were so damn fun that although he may not have cracked a smile (gotta keep up the decorum and all that), we all sure had a blast.
 
that's like Tom Cruise going to the library and asking the librarian to see any books or articles about him, then suing the librarian when she says, "here's an article claiming you're mentally unstable for being a Scientologist"
 
Google should be more careful as to what they suggest of course its merely a suggestion but we all know that that they made the suggestion style search to help us find what we are looking for. In this case the man has not exhausted all appeals and by law is not guilty till he has (which is to make sure one really is guilty before one is judged like that by its peers). If we would use google to look up whether this guys i guilty or not it suggest he is.

The guy not only got 1 euro but he also claimed for 1 euro this was a case to clear his name not for money if he had wished to he could have claimed a lot more damages. Obviously one could make the conclusion he only claimed 1 euro to show his best side (not being greedy and just wanting justice). In any way i really wonder what would happen if any of those loud mouths Americans above googled there name and got suggestions they think are not just.

Google should drop suggestions in protection of our privacy! not to censure the result of a query.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom