Overclock.net banner

[TT] Google ordered by Australian courts to identify "libelous" bloggers

7K views 49 replies 30 participants last post by  Vakten 
#1 ·
Quote:
Online anonymity has been dealt yet another hard hitting blow, this time by Australian courts. In a case of defamation, the courts have ordered that Google relinquish all relevant evidentiary material about several bloggers who allegedly defamed businessman Shane Radbone.
It will be interesting to see if Google fights the order, considering this is a civil trial and not a criminal one.
Source
 
#2 ·
I hope they fight it tooth and nail. Or simply outright refuse to give up the data. The Aussies can impose penalties in the form of cash which Google would most likely just pay or restrict their service in Australia. Either way, Google should be able to weather this. They're freaking serious about their privacy.
 
#6 ·
I don't know what to think about this, I do find anonymity important and you should be allowed to express your opinion without fear of retribution... that being said, I also believe that people who falsely accuses someone (or a business for that matter) without any proof just to smear their reputation should be held accountable. With social media being what it is nowadays, a false accusation could bankrupt a small business or cause people to lose their jobs...
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purger View Post

Interresting. I wish there was more information... "Defaming" could mean a number of things... and what blog are they talking about? Darn half finished articles.
I never heard of the guy, quick google search brought this as the #1 result for his name. I'm assuming this is one of the blogs in question.
http://shaneshaneradbone.blogspot.ca/
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMHernandez View Post

I don't know what to think about this, I do find anonymity important and you should be allowed to express your opinion without fear of retribution... that being said, I also believe that people who falsely accuses someone (or a business for that matter) without any proof just to smear their reputation should be held accountable. With social media being what it is nowadays, a false accusation could bankrupt a small business or cause people to lose their jobs...
Someone on OCN that has sense!

I deal with defamation all the time. Unfortunately, we have ignoramuses that don't understand how sheepish people are in which why defamation is a criminal matter. It would be nice to have everyone educated in this world, but that's far from the case. Reason and logic tends to not be taught by the majority of professions with a relatively small basis of people in such fields who possess such capabilities, and therefore, people believe the first thing they read and have little to no investigative skills to find legitimate proof to claims made.

But I never read any of these and don't really care. I'm just speaking on a general scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010rig View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purger View Post

Interresting. I wish there was more information... "Defaming" could mean a number of things... and what blog are they talking about? Darn half finished articles.
I never heard of the guy, quick google search brought this as the #1 result for his name. I'm assuming this is one of the blogs in question.
http://shaneshaneradbone.blogspot.ca/
Wow, a lot of the claims don't even have references. Non are even remotely close to IEEE standards either! This blog must be legit.
 
#12 ·
Wow, I just read some of the possibly offending blog and I have to say I hope Google do comply with the court order. We could do with less of that kind of thing on the internet.

As for the freedom of speech and expression, we are allowed to say what we think, that is not a problem, however we are not allowed to present lies as fact - that is libel (written) or slander (spoken) and is illegal.

An example:

"In my opinion Joe Blogs is incompetent and could not pass an IQ test"
This is fine, covered under freedom of speach, as it presents my opinion only.

"Joe Blogs is incompetent and failed an IQ test"
This constitutes libel as I am presenting the statement as a fact, unless it happens to be true in which case it is fine.

For more examples carefully read some tabloid newspapers (like The Sun or Daily Star); they are masters at appearing to present opinion and gossip as fact whilst covering themselves against lawsuits.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: whyteoni
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by coachmark2 View Post

I hope they fight it tooth and nail. Or simply outright refuse to give up the data. The Aussies can impose penalties in the form of cash which Google would most likely just pay or restrict their service in Australia. Either way, Google should be able to weather this. They're freaking serious about their privacy.
Australia is going insane too, no longer supporting them now.
 
#16 ·
I thougth Defamation of Character was not allowed if you are specifically telling employers not to hrie the guy for X reason, or renters to not rent to the person, etc. etc.

Not justy blogging on an open website.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by tout View Post

If this is libelous then half the websites on the internet are. The last thing we need are internet police patrolling every website of the world... What would be done of sites like "The Onion?" Every humor site would be shut down. Enjoy the lock down of your freedoms if you agree with this sort of thing.
Are you seriously comparing actual defamation with satirical websites?
 
#19 ·
Privacy is all well and good, and the wonderful about being allowed to speak your mind is that everyone immediately knows who the asshats are.
BUT!
Privacy while breaking the law is not a right im willing to defend.

I mean, im all in favor of a free internet, but I dont think that means we all can just run rampant and do what we want without regard for other people.
Should someone who distributes child pornography online not be held accountable because he is doing it online?
Because I dont see much of a difference in practice between allowing defamation like that to happen online and allowing Child Pornography to be distributed here in the US online.
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by tout View Post

If this is libelous then half the websites on the internet are. The last thing we need are internet police patrolling every website of the world...
If someone wrote these things in a book or a newspaper they would be sued.

If someone said these things on TV or the radio, they would be sued.

If somone said these things in a public place, and you could prove it, they would be sued.

Why should the internet be any different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tout View Post

What would be done of sites like "The Onion?" Every humor site would be shut down. Enjoy the lock down of your freedoms if you agree with this sort of thing.
Satire != defamation.

And what lock down of freedoms? We are not, and should not be, free to break the law in the first place.
 
#22 ·
I dunno, I breezed through the article, didn't really seem that bad to me. So even though no "official sources" were provided on the blog (who the hell puts sources in a blogpost anyway??), a bit of googling I'm sure would show that these are not some baseless claims being thrown out by some pissed-off employee who only has an axe to grind. Shane is not the only one who is "targeted" in this blog either, but apart from some strong phrases that I would personally would not have used, I don't really see anything slanderous in there. Author stating his opinion based upon questionable circumstances and events that follow Shane, sounds perfectly like freedom of speech to me.

::edit:: Well, as life would have it, after 15 minutes on Bing and Google there's really not much meat to this story. Really can't find much about Shane Radbone, other than the same information posted on a variety of sites. Still don't think he should be able to sue, but that's just my opinion of course. I don't know Aussie law to really be able to add anything worth reading to this thread, so I guess my time here has run out
 
#23 ·
Love the aussies, but their government suck.
 
#24 ·
No. Online you should get treated the same as if it was in real life not on a computer.

If you steal online, you get charged.
oh wait that happens already.

You should not be protected on the internet if you do wrong on it.

Suck it up if you do something wrong but don't cower because you know you can't fight the battle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thingamajig View Post

Love the aussies, but their government suck.
Yes our government sucks.
 
#25 ·
What's Australia going to do if Google doesn't hand over the data... invade the US? The thought of that is just to hilarious.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMHernandez View Post

I don't know what to think about this, I do find anonymity important and you should be allowed to express your opinion without fear of retribution... that being said, I also believe that people who falsely accuses someone (or a business for that matter) without any proof just to smear their reputation should be held accountable. With social media being what it is nowadays, a false accusation could bankrupt a small business or cause people to lose their jobs...
About two years ago a local paper ran a story that my business was shutting down, far from it, all because another ISP did, and that we had taken "customer payments and ran", not providing paid services. Our phones blew up and it was just a massive mess. We called the paper and they told us off and said they weren't responsible for anything, even fact checking, and hung up on us.

It took us weeks to calm our current customers and clear the mess up, we lost a few, and who knows how much damage it did to potential customers. In the end we couldn't do much legally, as they were protected by various laws.

I am all for free speech, but the moment that causes damages and loss to another, it isn't free speech. Then again, that gets into a grey area of its own.....touchy touchy.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top