Google Appeals Moronic Court Order Demanding It Hunt Down Third Party Sites And 'Take' Offending Content 'Back'
from the the-googlenet dept
Search engines own the internet. The rest of us are just renting space. At least, that's what a Texas court seems to believe. Google is in court fighting a gag order telling it to chase down and remove certain mentions of a certain lawyer from the internet. (via WaCon)
[I]n a stunning and all-encompassing gag order signed over a year ago and now being appealed to Houston's 1st Court of Appeals, attorney Calvin C. Jackson, who was accused of forging attorney signatures on court records, demands Google erase all mention of those accusations from the entire Internet including other websites.Jackson, who settled over these allegations (details also under a gag order), now wants it all to just go away. And he's gotten a Texas court to agree with him. Not only does he want the past erased, he's also seeking to bar "Google" from ever mentioning this unpleasantness again. So, we have both prior restraint and an impossibility, all wrapped up in a terrible gag order.
The requests Google is fighting play right to the edges of the "ridiculousness' envelope. Cleaning the internet isn't like expunging a criminal record, but this Texas court apparently feels Google (and other search engines) should be able to just go around deleting stuff, even stuff they doesn't own (which would be pretty much all of it).
The gag order, signed by visiting San Antonio Judge Richard Price in February 2013, forces Google and other search engines to wipe out all record of the allegations from the Internet. It also compels the search engine to find third parties who posted the information to get it back and destroy it."Get it back?" The hell? Does this judge really believe Google can just knock on the door of other sites and demand they hand over the "hard copy?" Once again, we have someone with power mistaking his home page for "The Internet." Google and other search engines index the web. They are not in charge of the web.
Judge Price doesn't seem to have any idea how Google is supposed to prevent future discussions of this case from appearing anywhere on the web. He just seems to feel a big company like this should be able to do anything he imagines it can. If he ever decides to leave the judicial racket, I'm sure the MPAA can set him up with an office, if UK Prime Minister David Cameron doesn't snatch him up first.
Let's not worry about that First Amendment. Let's just let Calvin Jackson control his past and future via court orders. Except that's not working out very well for him. The order may be sealed but the gag order doesn't cover this sort of discussion, or Google's arguments against prior restraint and impossibility. All he's done (with the court's blessing) is ensure more discussion of past allegations. And until this order gets reversed, every site discussing this (like us) will apparently be waiting for Google to knock on the door and ask that we turn over our "originals."
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: calvin c. jackson, deleting history, gag orders, internet, liability, search, texas
Companies: google
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Was he perchance visiting from 1840?
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
One Funeral at a time...
But the stupid never quits... regardless of which age you live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One Funeral at a time...
James Clerk Maxwell is remembered today as the scientist who discovered the physical laws behind light and electromagnetism. He's known today as one of the most brilliant physicists in history. Unfortunately, he died an untimely death in 1879, of stomach cancer. He was less than 50 years old.
It was decades before anyone else as brilliant as him came along. People looking back at his work say he was on a direct course to Relativity... but then his light was snuffed out. If he hadn't died, we might not even know Einstein's name today. (Or we might remember him for discovering something even cooler, because he would have had all that extra progress to build on, had Maxwell's death not set physics back by decades!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My opinion
Now I believe there are at least a half dozen other reasons why the above statement is not defamation. But that's not the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: My opinion
So, let me modify my statement. Trail's comment was unmistakeably opinion to a reasonable person and therefore it is not defamatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: My opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give an idiot...
After all, how can you make decisions about something you know nothing about?
But... hey... apparently, they do it all the time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give an idiot...
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Give an idiot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Give an idiot...
NOT when it is willful, and a lot of these cases are willful, they (Lawyers,Judges,Politicians) "Pay/have paid for" assistant to do that "internet" thing. It's a sign of affluence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Give an idiot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give an idiot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was he perchance visiting from 1840?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Destroy the Hard Copies
Have we got some hard copy for you!
The Internetz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forcing Google to remove libelous content indexed from third-party websites is ridiculous in and of itself, but to force them to remove legitimate content takes huge cojones and an utter disregard for our legal rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get it Back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get it Back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
NOT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not how our courts are supposed to work. It is greatly offensive to me that a judge would think he can tell people that they cannot talk about a case that they are not a party to, AND that the gag order itself must remain a secret. This is offensive even in a national security case - but in this case? It's ridiculous.
The best you can say for the judge regarding this order is that he may not have read it before signing it. In which case he is not doing his job, and should be fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/rules/trcp/rcp_all.pdf (rule 76a, which is around page 65.)
This isn't a close call, and the judge should be reprimanded for issuing such an order and then gagging the order itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, yeah.
How do we fix it? Do we need technology courts like we have family courts? Do we need tech translators that can be appointed to help judges understand what they have power over?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, yeah.
A part of me really wants to say "yes" but I fear the entities that would buy their way onto such boards; RIAA, MPAA, Beyer, Monsanto, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The REAL Mistake Makes Googlies Rich
Er, no. I guess that you were trying to be funny, but he (the judge) is mistaking Google for "The Internet". It's a common misconception in the general and generally uninformed public and Google likes it that way because they want people to think of Google first and go there first. It makes Google shareholders mucho money.
I tell people that Google is a little like the Internet's unofficial Yellow Pages (remember those?) and then people generally "get it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The REAL Mistake Makes Googlies Rich
First off, the obvious (and when I say obvious I mean OBVIOUS) implication is that the judge's homepage is Google.
Second, no Google doesn't want that. What you refer to is the genericizing of brand names and it's actually a bad thing, as brands are supposed to be differentiators, but if your brand name is genericized (Kleenex, band-aid, xerox, etc...), it loses the ability to differentiate and you gain negatives from your competitors. e.g. "I hate this xerox machine!!" is bad for Xerox, but could easily be said by someone frustrated with a (for example) HP copier.
http://ndrichardson.com/blog/2012/09/11/brand-genericide-when-brand-names-become-commonplace/
Cheers,
Trails
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The REAL Mistake Makes Googlies Rich
It depends on whether you think server side (probably not his "home page") or client side (probably his "home page")
Second, no Google doesn't want that.
Yes they do. Maybe you need to re-read the post.
What you refer to is ...
In the future I'd suggest that you address what the post says and not what ever "straw man" you care to construct (i.e. the rest of your diatribe).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unbelievable
How can anyone be this ignorant?... it would be like believing that there was an elf on a treadmill running our cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unbelievable
For a lot of people, computers and the internet have long passed that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, anyone?
What I MEANT to say is to wonder if Google complied with the court order that compels them to violate the CFAA, would Google be shielded from prosecution?
What about just within the state of Texas?
Probably not. But being prosecuted for obeying a court order would probably count as entrapment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cannot give it "back"
"Sorry, I already turned it into CO2. It cannot be 'backed.'"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]