Comments on: Google defames us all, but should we sue?

By: Edward James

Edward James — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 03:55:40 +0000

Often those with an entitlement to sue just forget about it and move on. Nowadays with Google search those “triggers” can and often do resurface, being quoted or referred to as uncontested fact. If injured parties start taking the needed legal action on published items which keep offending. I expect lazy publishers will get the message and lift their game. Edward James

By: Were Rat

Were Rat — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 11:11:52 +0000

Seems a ridiculous decision to me. If everyone who could sue did sue then the courts would be clogged with trite and trivial suits. Oh wait!

By: Peter Shute

Peter Shute — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:31:42 +0000

Your analogy is correct but it fails at the end: while most people do “..engage in dialogue. We clarify. We retract. We apologise. We move on. And we forget.”..
we do not wrap up that conversation with the good, the bad or defamatory bits and publish it in a book..or as Google does, in their search engine.

Therein lies the libel and the court has no other choice if is to abide by the laws on libel, notwithstanding that Google is very powerful and declares innocence.

Some people think this is all too hard and Google should not be imposed upon like this but if you research a bit further you will find Yahoo, after caving in on the same case (you refer to it) respond to letters and requests to remove defamation’s and are very active about it.

If they can do it, so can Google.

By: Steve777

Steve777 — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 08:41:49 +0000

I agree with Sean Doyle above. We need some sort of defamation law as a last resort but too often it seems to be used by those with deep pockets to silence or intimidate critics and opposition. The advent of the Internet has made things that much more complicated. When a defamation occurs, emphasis should be on correction and apology, not money except for provable financial damage resulting from malice or negligence.

By: Edward James

Edward James — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 07:40:04 +0000

As a political activist I have almost always used the internet to publish. I remember when reading Crikey years ago the term public trust journalist was used I liked it, in fat it inspired me. I am enjoying the fact that news papers are no longer the gatekeepers of what gets oxygen. While I spend thousands on paid announcements because I am no journalist I still get plenty of space with on line publications. While I understand the truth is not always a defense. I often bet my house on the idea politicians I name and on occasion identify as liars in print will not sue. with well over forty thousand words published and heaps of instructive photos. I have never forgotten. It only takes one. Edward James

By: Sean Doyle

Sean Doyle — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 06:41:36 +0000

Surely, given that the court found fault with Google because they failed to act in relation to Mr Trkulja’s complaint, the issue isn’t one of over zealous people rushing to their lawyers but of major companies acting responsibly with what they put out into the public domain. Google had a chance to do what you suggest that the “average citizen” does but failed to do so.

Defamation law can be used to silence dissent online, but it has been used by the rich and powerful to silence others well before we were sizzling cat pictures around the world. The issue is the way defamation law works in Australia (and many other countries) as a tool of the rich, given that only they can use it with fear of being financially ruined. Sadly, a low cost defamation law is unlikely given politicians are one of the main beneficiaries of the current system.

By: Gavin Moodie

Gavin Moodie — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 02:48:04 +0000

We should recall that defamation applies to oral as well as written statements. Most oral statements are made to few and are remembered by fewer, thus lessening damage.