Max Mosley Sues Google For Unflattering Search Results -- Creating Even More Unflattering Search Results
from the it's-like-a-slow-motion-collision-between-a-ROFLcopter-and-a-FAILboat dept
Max Mosley knows a thing or two about scandal. After an alleged "Nazi-themed" sex party was caught on tape and delivered to the entire world via News of the World (and the internet in general), Mosely attempted to wrangle an injunction out of the UK courts. It was pointed out that the "dam had already burst," thus rendering an injunction useless.Undeterred, Mosley attempted to have a law crafted that would require that certain people (rich, famous, rich and famous) be notified by newspapers, etc. ahead of the publication of possibly damning information, presumably to allow said rich/famous people to file injunctions preventing the publication. Needless to say, this also failed.
But Max is nothing if not determined. Mosley is now bringing lawsuits against Google in France, Germany and for some reason, California in order to prevent the further spread of the Nazi sex party story.
In his testimony at the Levinson Inquiry, Mosley clarified his legal "strategy:"
I think we have litigation going on in 22 or 23 countries at the moment, and it's just an ongoing process because -- I mean I'm trying to do everything I can to get this material removed from the web and it's not easy, it's ongoing, it's very expensive, but Germany is actually the number one example. Because of the Nazi thing, it got very much picked up in Germany.Yes. Well, Germany is still rather touchy about its position as world's greatest villain for years 1939-1945.
One of the difficulties is that Google have these automatic search machines so if somebody puts something up somewhere, if you Google my name, it will appear. We've been saying to Google, you shouldn't do this, this material is illegal, these pictures have been ruled illegal in the English High Court. They say we're not obliged to police the web and we don't want to police the web, so we have brought proceedings against them in France and Germany where the jurisprudence is favourable. We're also considering bringing proceedings against them in California.As automatic as Google's "search machines" are, they don't add n to x randomly. If something shows up in the search results, it's because something exists on the internet. Whether or not these pictures were ruled illegal by a high court has nothing to do with Google's search engine. If the pictures are still available on the web, then Google will find them. The attempt to grant a search engine some sort of anthropomorphic properties (including a vindictive streak) is imaginative but hardly a sound basis for a legal battle. Notice also: proceedings are being brought where "jurisprudence is favourable," rather than for any sort of logical reasons.
But the fundamental point is that Google could stop this material appearing, but they don't, or they won't as a matter of principle. My position is that if the search engines -- if somebody were to stop the search engines producing the material, the actual sites don't really matter because without a search engine, nobody will find it, it would be just a few friends of the person who posts it. The really dangerous thing are the search engines.Mosley, I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt. Perhaps you just misworded your statement. Search engines don't "produce" anything. They can bring you results, but they do not produce content. (And when they do start producing content, I assume we'll hear even more whining from content producers, rather than less.) So, search engines aren't "dangerous." They're agnostic. Or impartial. Or (if we're granting them human qualities) "unemotional" and "uncreative."
Mosley is himself a lawyer. And he has engaged the services of other lawyers. Now, either somebody in this group is thrilled with the possibility of endless billable hours or no one involved understands search engines. Simply put, this legal battle will have no end. Every time Mosley files a suit or testifies in court, new articles appear linking him to the very event he's trying to get the collective internet to forget. If he would stop trying to make it all go away, chances are it would recede into the metaphoric past at a much faster rate. Right now, he's stuck in a loop and he's trying to sue his way out of it.
If Mosley is acting as the advisor for his legal team, he's in trouble. Here's a quote from his official statement that was presented to the inquiry:
It is sometimes assumed that the Internet is not subject to the law - that it operates as a sort of Wild West with its own rules which the courts cannot touch. This is a fallacy. The Internet and those that use it are clearly subject to the law like everyone else. It may sometimes be difficult to enforce the law because of the international nature of the Internet. But that is a separate question.Ah. The Wild West. We never tire of hearing the internet compared to a dusty, corpse-strewn, sepia-toned image of the past. If anything, it's more like international waters, where national laws can't stake a claim, where gambling using funds from offshore accounts is rampant, pirate ships laden with freshly burned DVDs dot the waves and bottled water prices exceed even the most ruthless rave promoter's dreams. Or maybe it's more like Sealand, an offshore community that respects no national law and in return, is respected only by budding teen anarchists and people who think Neuromancer already happened.
We make a shopkeeper or a publican responsible for what they sell and to whom. There is no reason not to do the same to Internet service providers.Another terrible analogy which makes one wonder whether Mosley is going to target ISPs if the Google lawsuits fail to produce the intended results. Blaming Google for unpleasant search results is a bit like blaming the guy manning the porn store counter for bringing you the porn you asked for. And blaming the ISPs for not preventing unwanted content from existing is like blaming the porn store for porn. Either way, it is not the responsibility of "search machines" or "shopkeepers" to police the internet to protect you from stuff. The internet does not exist to protect your reputation. Even if Mosley's recounting of the events is entirely factual and that the tabloid manufactured the situation for loosely termed blackmail, his complaint should begin and end with the offending publication. The dissemination of this sordid business is not the responsibility of Google, Internet service providers or a lack of a tamed "Wild West." And every piece of litigation only adds to the very thing Mosley is trying to subtract.
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: lawsuits, max mosley
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not saying you can't reach proper logical conclusions, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My brain is scarred forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It came up in the ongoing Leveson Inquiry over here in Britland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
It wasn't 19,000,000 dead, it was 19 the US News-Content industry exagerated the numbers in the news reels ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
Too Soon?
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
Make all the jokes you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
Standing in a long ass line for something no one really wants to do and remarking "damn this is jewish", is funny every time. Its holocaustastic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
Well, it was worth the fun. 19M neurons for a good laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
You should visit a prison camp or two, before EVER making such jokes again. Might I suggest Auschwitz in Poland and Westerbork in The Netherlands?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
> most offensive one ever, and unbelievably
> unfunny...
Not even close to the most offensive joke in human history.
Hyperbole fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am so going to get "report"ed for this one ....
And for anyone telling you it's not ok to make Holocaust jokes... Fark em. 8)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why isn't he suing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't disagree with anything you say regarding the pointlessness of his ongoing legal battle, but to downplay the cornerstone of /his/ justification seems a little awry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is true. Perhaps I wouldn't have been as disingenuous if he hadn't decided to bring this all back up to the surface again. If it wasn't for this pursuit of Google, the public would remember him as "the guy who sued the News of the World and won," if they remembered him at all. Plus, that lawsuit was squarely targeted at those who wronged him, while his other legal targets are all over the map.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He's not just getting it spread more widely, he's causing the story to dilute and lose facts that work in his favour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Look, as I said, I don't actually disagree with anything you're actually saying
He's wrong, what he's doing can't work, but basically (and I'm slipping into his narrative here) he's an old guy that doesn't really understand how the internet works, and he's been horribly entrapped by a tabloid and he's trying to repair the damage and flailing around somewhat in the process...
He's only, what, 10 years out of date with his methodology?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course the reason this offends Max so much - and which US readers may not be aware - is that his father is Oswald Mosley - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley - leader of the UK Fascist Party and supporter of Nazism.
Its not just Germany that is touchy about its Nazi past; Max is too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Looks like OOTB has a new account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Max Mosley?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if he knows...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I almost fell out of my seat laughing. ROFLOL!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand Effect.......FAIL
"if somebody were to stop the search engines producing the material, the actual sites don't really matter because without a search engine, nobody will find it, it would be just a few friends of the person who posts it."
REALLY????
A few friends??? The average Facebook user has at least a few hundred friends. Add six degrees of separation to that and you have a ridiculous network of people sharing information.
What about those email lists that we use to share all our jokes and funny videos at work?
Fuck it. It's all Google's fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streisand Effect.......FAIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
blaming the porn store for porn
"I demand that you tell me, how I got inside this filthy place, with its filthy books and videos. Oh yes, I've read and seen them all, and they're all incredibly filthy!
Not to mention those dildos over there, I've tried them too, and they are dirty! You dirty scoundrel!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
+5 Internets to Dark for the "collision-between-a-ROFLcopter-and-a-FAILboat dept" ... gave me a good laugh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Proof that this is a pirate site! Why are you trying to steal the internetz I clearly won by writing that line, which you then stole out of my brain and used in this article?!!?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You might be able to charge him for rental though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is this what people shouldnt be talking about so everyone can stop talking about it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosley_v_News_Group_Newspapers_Limited
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suppose a few of you know this
Inside the towns there were not shootouts all the time and the most recorded ever for an entire year for deaths by murder was five. Even the OK Corral had a grand total body count of three.
While I could link to the original source, I am going to link to what first turned me onto the facts, which was written with great humor as you can probably guess by the link alone:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18487_6-ridiculous-history-myths-you-probably-think-are-true. html
I keep wanting to use the wild west wasn't so wild bit against the copyright maximalists, but you guys tend to get to refuting every single thing they say first, so I never end up feeling the need to bring it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I suppose a few of you know this
Any possibility that in a disperse, low law enforcement population where most men had guns, most would be reluctant to use them?
What about homicide rates rather than totals?
Thanks for the link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To produce
Maybe he used "produce" in a different sense of the word. "To produce" can mean to make available or to present for view, as when "producing" evidence or a witness. In that context, you don't create evidence or witnesses, you find them and let other people access them. If that's what he meant, "bring you results" isn't too far off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To produce
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently you never tire of revelling in the absence of the rule of law. Most of us look at the picture you paint not as a good thing, but as something to be entirely avoided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2. Put 2 and 2 together to recognize the facetiousness of my statement.
3. Defend the honor of Sealand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Fourth Reich
Well I can't approve of their censorship. This is a case of think before you open your mouth or more correctly realise what a little shit everyone will think you are if you believe it fun to dress up as a Nazi. A sex party only makes it twice as worse when then people wonder what type of mickey mouse operation it is you are running.
The correct response to fix this disaster is to be humble and apologize, have those responsible resign or be fired, state this is only a few bad employees and not general company policy and then book annual trips for workers to learn about the persecution of the Jews.
Now what do they do? Run around trying to have every sign of this event removed. Well if they can remove it then they most own it. Ownership means they did it. So enjoy your company drunken Nazi sex parties.
Not good for business of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Fourth Reich
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Fourth Reich
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sooo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]