Defamation in the Google age: search engines as publishers of defamatory content (Lexology)

Lexology: Defamation in the Google age: search engines as publishers of defamatory content. “In the recent decision of Defteros v Google LLC [2020] VSC 219, the Supreme Court of Victoria held search engine Google liable for ‘publishing’ defamatory material. In doing so, the decision has extended the reach of defamation to encompass those who make available defamatory material originally published by a third party by way of hyperlinks.”

Breaking News Ireland: African king takes defamation case against blogger based in Ireland

Breaking News Ireland: African king takes defamation case against blogger based in Ireland. “A West African king claims he has been defamed in a series of social media posts by an Irish-based blogger, the High Court has heard. Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi, known as Ojaja II who is the traditional ruler and spiritual leader of the Yoruba people, claims that he has been defamed in video clips and other posts, that have appeared on Facebook and YouTube, by Esther Esabod Aboderin.”

Texas Lawyer: Will Social Media Be a ‘Free Speech’ War Zone for Parents Seeking to Disparage Ex-Spouses?

Texas Lawyer: Will Social Media Be a ‘Free Speech’ War Zone for Parents Seeking to Disparage Ex-Spouses?. “The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently issued a ruling that, if it starts a national trend, could undermine any hope of maintaining public civility between divorcing spouses, even when a child is involved.”

ChannelNews Australia: ‘Publisher’ Google Ordered To Pay $40K In Defamation Case

ChannelNews Australia: ‘Publisher’ Google Ordered To Pay $40K In Defamation Case. “In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Victoria has found that Google is a publisher and has been consequently ordered to pay $40,000 in damages to Melbourne lawyer George Defteros , who had sued the Internet company for defamation. Google had argued that the automation of its search engines meant it was not a publisher and not liable, but Justice Melinda Richards ruled against that.”

The Age (Australia): Melbourne brothel owner sues Google over bad reviews

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.”

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.”

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.”

NZCity: Sydney surgeon sues Google over negative reviews, but tech giant claims it is ‘subordinate distributor’

NZCity: Sydney surgeon sues Google over negative reviews, but tech giant claims it is ‘subordinate distributor’. “A prominent Sydney plastic surgeon suing Google for defamation over business reviews invited the ‘robust public criticism’ by using ‘puffery and hyperbole’ in his own advertising, the tech giant claims.”

Gizmodo: Australian Court Rules Media Orgs Are Liable for Defamation Posted to Facebook by Random Users

Gizmodo: Australian Court Rules Media Orgs Are Liable for Defamation Posted to Facebook by Random Users. “An Australian Court has ruled that media organizations are liable for anything defamatory that’s published to the public Facebook pages of those media companies, even if it’s just posted by a random Facebook user.”

Patch: GA City Officials May Be Allowed To Sue Social Media Critics

Patch: GA City Officials May Be Allowed To Sue Social Media Critics. “City officials are considering passing a law that would allow them to sue anyone on social media who they believe have defamed them. The ordinance, set to come before the Peachtree City council on Thursday, would allow a council member, the city manager or any city worker to sue its residents, at taxpayer expense, for damages.”