nemonowan Wrote:Quote:robkelk wrote:That does not seem to be what the Canadian court is demanding, though.Quote:nemonowan wrote:So, when will Google have to start censoring Holocaust Denialist sites because those materials are forbidden in Europe? Or information about contraception because it became forbidden in Iran? Or pictures of women driving because it is illegal in Saudi Arabia? Or anything referencing gay marriage because it is forbidden in Russia?
They won't - they'll just have to make sure the .com website isn't available in those countries, which (with redirects to country-specific sites based on IP addresses) is already a Solved Problem and already implemented.
Any more red herrings?
Again, I must admit, the articles are extremely unclear about just what remedy was expected from Google. The sentence that I quoted was what gave me the impression that the judge decided that nobody in the world should be able to use Google find the websites that sell the infringing product. And blocking google.com inside Canada would not do that.
If you have any information that clarifies this point and shows that this decision was not a massive legal overreach and a dangerous precedent, Rob, please post it. I would be overjoyed if my concerns were misfounded. But leave the sarcasm out.
You are correct - the decision does not place a territorial limitation on the injunction.
The decision also cites 379 F 3d 1120 (9th Cir 2004), reheard in 433 F 3d 1199 (9th Cir 2006) to support the injunction's applicability in the USA despite its being granted in a non-US court and its limitation of Google's freedom of expression - so there is no overreach and no precedent was set by this case.
And I have not used sarcasm at all in this thread.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012