The Age (Australia): Melbourne brothel owner sues Google over bad reviews. “A South Melbourne brothel owner is taking legal action to force Google to reveal who wrote its bad online reviews, some of which direct customers to a nearby competitor. The Boardroom of Melbourne, which bills itself as one of the city’s top brothels, wants the Federal Court to force Google to hand over the IP addresses linked with the negative reviews after the search engine giant refused to reveal the identities behind them and take them down.”
defamation
Ubergizmo: Swiss Court Rules That ‘Liking’ Hateful Content Could Be Considered A Crime
Ubergizmo: Swiss Court Rules That ‘Liking’ Hateful Content Could Be Considered A Crime. “We need to be more careful of our online social media activities. This is because in recent times, we’re starting to see the implications of what we do online affect our offline lives. More recently, over in Switzerland, the courts have ruled that it is possible that ‘liking’ or sharing online posts that are deemed hateful or defamatory could be considered a crime.”
ABC News (Australia): Gangland lawyer Zarah Garde-Wilson launches court action to unmask Google reviewer
ABC News (Australia): Gangland lawyer Zarah Garde-Wilson launches court action to unmask Google reviewer . “Melbourne gangland lawyer Zarah Garde-Wilson is suing technology behemoth Google in a bid to unmask an online reviewer who she suspects is actually a legal competitor.”
BBC: Google ordered to reveal author of Australian dentist’s bad review
BBC: Google ordered to reveal author of Australian dentist’s bad review. “An Australian court has ordered Google to identify the person behind an anonymous bad review of a dentist. Dr Matthew Kabbabe, a teeth-whitening specialist in Melbourne, sought the order so he could sue for defamation.”
InformationAge: Lawyer wins $750,000 over bad Google review
InformationAge: Lawyer wins $750,000 over bad Google review. “An Adelaide-based lawyer has won a $750,000 defamation pay-out against a woman who posted three negative Google reviews of his business, despite never being a client.”
SC: Intermediaries like Google can’t claim protection from defamation (CanIndia)
CanIndia: SC: Intermediaries like Google can’t claim protection from defamation. “The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that intermediaries like Google cannot claim any protection for publishing defamatory content online prior to the 2009 amendment to Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act. The apex court has asked Google to face trial.” Just to make clear, this is India’s Supreme Court.
Techdirt: Indian Court Orders Global Takedown Of ‘Defamatory’ Video From YouTube, Twitter, Facebook
Techdirt: Indian Court Orders Global Takedown Of ‘Defamatory’ Video From YouTube, Twitter, Facebook. “I’ve mentioned in the past that, from Techdirt’s earliest posts, one key topic is how you handle ‘jurisdiction’ on the internet, since the internet is global, and laws don’t always work that way. Indeed, allowing for global jurisdiction for any particular government’s laws would inevitably mean that the most draconian and the most limiting laws rule around the globe — and that should worry everyone.”
