Court Doesn't Buy Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood's Argument: Puts His Google Demands On Hold
from the nice-try,-jim dept
Back in December, we noted that Google had gone to court to try to stop a ridiculously broad subpoena issued by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood. For quite some time now, Hood has been publicly attacking Google, based on what appears to be near total ignorance of both the law and technology. Oh, and maybe it also has something to do with the MPAA directly funding his investigation and authoring the letters that Hood sent.Either way, Google pointed out that the broad subpoena that Hood issued to Google clearly violated Section 230 of the CDA in looking to hold Google accountable for other's actions and speech. It pointed out other problems with the order as well -- and while Hood insisted that his subpoena was perfectly reasonable, it appears that a federal court isn't so sure. Today the court told Hood that he's granting a temporary injunction on the subpoena, noting that Google's argument is "stronger."
This certainly is nowhere close to over, but it does highlight that Hood's repeated arguments that he has every right to hold Google accountable for the fact that sometimes people use the search engine to find illegal stuff, isn't particularly convincing to at least one federal judge.
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: attorney general, jim hood, mississippi, section 230, subpoena
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Say whatever you want, but the clock is ticking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The ruling in that courtroom today was a travesty of justice.
There are people lining up to go after Google- people that care about the law, and not letting a corporation decide how an entire country is run.
Like I said, say whatever you want, and defend your beloved corporation. But this is only the beginning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The people going after Google (i.e. MPAA) are just as criminal and nefarious as Google, if not more so, and is just using the law as a weapon to beat down what they wrongly believe is hurting their profit margin.
Stop pretending like Google is some malicious evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems to me Google might do a better job of running the country than the politicians have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean like the **AA proposals that were to subject everyone to random checks having to prove content on their devices was authorized by them?
You mean like the public domain gutted by years of lobbying and cash stripping any benefit from the largest stakeholder the public?
You mean like groups buying special access to laws and its enforcement to support their business model form the 1950s that they refuse to adapt while demanding veto power over innovation because it MIGHT somehow hurt them?
Yeah, I'll take Googles evil over that anyday.
As far as I know Google hasn't bought off an AG to investigate the thorns in its side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny, the MPAA seems to be very much in charge these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have to bash your head with a sledgehammer every morning or are you naturally this bloody dense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're actively against corporate lobbying and other forms of bribery? So you're actively against a State AG taking money from corporations who tell him who to go after? I think you have a hypocrisy problem with your stated ideals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, I see. So you've already convicted Google (in your mind) of obviously ridiculous charges. Good to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's like "conspiracy to not control your fellow passengers whether they have paid the fare?"
Very good, sounds like you're in for a post guarding a bridge and enforce that upon anyone who passes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright is a conspiracy to facilitate infringement on creation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Every ISP in the US and throughout the world are facilitating piracy being as they allow people to commit copyright infringement and everyone of these ISP's are profiteering from this copyright infringement being as they are receiving payment and charging these people for the copyright infringement. /sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Which bits [of Google] are illegal?
I don't know why they bother storing all those 0s anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So what? The fact that there are plenty of headline hungry AG's out there means nothing.
Their efforts will also run smack dab into Section 230 since it's a Federal statute and applicable in their individual states too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How many AGs can your guys afford? I guess they wouldn't have to buy them all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clueless in Mississippi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
comparison
1) Websites exist to provide information for people that want it.
2) Websites can opt-out of being indexed
3) Google indexes those sites which have not opted-out
4) Google provides a service for people to search that index to find services/information they are looking for.
5) People sometimes search for "bad things" like unauthorized content
B) Telcos
1) People and Businesses get telephones so friends/customers can contact them.
2) They can opt-out of being listed (indexed) [ unlisted number]
3) Telco & Yellow Pages index all the phone numbers/names which have not opted-out
4) Telco & YP provide a search service so customers can find what they are looking for (used to be a free book delivered to your house)
5) People sometimes searched for "Bad Things" (like escort services)
So what makes "A" illegal and "B" legal again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: comparison
/Sarc, (but if the shoe fits wear it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: comparison
Yes, turns out there are people out there writing their own books, making their own music or even movies. And even giving them away under free licenses. And people might even learn such competing content exists by perusing search engines like google.
Clearly, there must be done something against this, otherwise people will NOT buy the things the MPAA or RIAA deigns to offer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did you read the subpoena? Hood asks for details about Google's own actions. Why pretend otherwise?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/17/technology/document-google-subpoena-from-mis sissippi.html?_r=0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just can't make this stuff up
On one side, you've got an AG who was exposed for having his 'investigation' paid for by a third party with an axe to grind, and his legal documents written by the same third party. And who also tried, badly, to bluff his way out of it and act as though he had never even met or talked to the people writing his press releases and legal filings.
On the other hand you've got a judge who sees something off with the AG and his request, and refuses his fishing request.
And the judge is the one you imply is acting suspicious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just can't make this stuff up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just can't make this stuff up
The horror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you have any actual, you know, evidence that those commenting who don't agree with you are pirates, please, by all means share, because I don't know about other posters, but even completely free, legal or not, I still could not care enough about the rubbish the *AA's put out to bother with it.
Really, don't you lot have any better arguments other than the tired 'Everyone who disagrees with me must be doing it because they're a criminal!' line?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We wouldn't have a bunch of liars calling this sensible injunction a "travesty of justice" for one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can do what they want however they want. Who is going to stop them when they break a law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the new justice?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150302/07014530180/should-punishment-falsely-accusi ng-people-crime-match-punishment-crime-itself.shtml
Maybe we should fire up a kickstarter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2016 UPDATE: Overturned on appeal
Google v Hood (5th Cir. Apr 8, 2016)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]