Shooting Victim Sues Google Over Search Results On His Name
from the good-luck-with-that dept
sinsi alerts us to a bizarre lawsuit in Australia where shooting victim Michael Trkulja is suing Google, claiming the search engine has some liability for his getting shot. The reasoning? Apparently searches on his name would take you to pages suggesting that Trkulja was involved in organized crime operations. It doesn't appear that he has any other info linking his shooting to this particular webpage or to the fact that the shooter may have done a Google search. It also does not appear (at least from the article here) that the guy is blaming the website in question -- just Google for leading people to it. Not sure what sorts of laws there are in Australia concerning such liability, but it's hard to think of a scenario under which this lawsuit should make sense under any legal system.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blame, liability, search engines, shooting
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Google has money. And it makes perfect 100% sense in the Legal System of the Entitled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
We have torrent trackers being sued out of operation for 'copyright violations,' Google execs in legal jeopardy for a youtube video, etc. Is it really hard to think of a scenario where this guy prevails?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
We have torrent trackers being sued out of operation for 'copyright violations,' Google execs in legal jeopardy for a youtube video, etc. Is it really hard to think of a scenario where this guy prevails?
Excellent point, it apparently is making sense under a lot of legal systems, but it really shouldn't make sense if anyone involved cared about the implications of such nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I sue Google?
The soup was from Campbells. I bought it at Stop & Shop. I heated up the soup in a microwave made by Kenmore. The unit was purchased at Sears. I drove to both Stop & Shop and Sears in my truck made by Toyota. I bought the fuel for the truck at Cumberland Farms.
I am able to search on all of those terms on Google and get search results that say nothing about burning my tongue. They need to remedy this situation before someone else is seriously injured.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can I sue Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can I sue Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If my company was sued in a foreign country over something like this, and they won.. I would simply stop serving that country. They don't deserve technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's what he gets...
That's what he gets for playing Mafia Wars on Facebook and leaving his profile public. [insert laughs here]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There must be some mistake...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i hit google with:
"burned my tongue" +soup +michael
turns out you and your singed tongue come up in as the second link...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How long before a) someone turns Michael burning his tongue into a news story or b) some clueless lawyer actually offers him legal help? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the first, now. :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
under kangaroo law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gotnick versus Dow Jones.
Dow Jones challenged the appropriateness of the case being heard in Victoria. The Victorian Supreme Court (the commercial court) found that the case could be heard in Victoria. Dow Jones appealled to the High Court of Australia (= US Supreme Court)who found against Dow Jones.
Gutnick was allowed to sue for defamation and since the laws agaisnt libel and slander in Australia are very different from those in the US (and there is no First Ammendment or nay other guarantee of free expression) he won substantial dmaages.
The case has potentially very serious implications for freedom of expression, and for the freedom of access to information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(ie, What a strange game, the only winning move is not to play)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]