Destined For Failure: Woman Sues Search Engines Over Revenge Porn Search Results
from the errors-in-target-selection dept
Someone else who doesn't understand Section 230 of the CDA is suing search engines for "refusing" to delist revenge porn. The short complaint -- filed in New York and spotted by Eric Goldman -- is signed by an actual lawyer, but the complaint is so devoid of legitimate (or any) legal arguments, it could be mistaken for a pro se attempt.
According to the complaint, a number of sexually explicit videos were posted to porn websites after a relationship went bad. The plaintiff contacted the websites and had the videos removed, which would seem to have solved the problem. But it didn't. According to the plaintiff, Yahoo, Bing, and Google searches for her name still bring up websites containing the explicit videos. Here's the wording used in the complaint [PDF]:
5. That Plaintiff contacted Defendants, Google, Yahoo, and Bing to remove the name ANGELE BRILIHON BOLOU ABODO from Defendants' web search engine.
6. That the search Plaintiff's full name on Defendants' website led and still leads to pornographic videos of the Plaintiff, and other derogatory comments aimed at the Plaintiff and containing Plaintiff's full name.
A search for her name does pull up everything she complains of. According to Abodo, these search results have prevented her from getting a job and have tarnished her reputation.
However, her complaint demands the removal of her name from search engines, which is an impossibility. She obviously wants the search results for her name removed, but hasn't actually asked for that in her complaint.
This filing will be sent back for amending as soon as a judge reads it, but applying some fixes to that particular language won't turn this into a winnable case. Her other efforts -- contacting websites to have the videos removed -- is something she's had some success with. It won't work with every site and there's almost no chance the "derogatory comments" scattered around the web will be removed, no matter how much she petitions these websites. But that's going to be far more productive than this litigation will be.
Section 230 gives the sites immunity for users' comments. It's also the reason targeting search engines isn't likely to result in delistings. Search engines return search results. They're in no way responsible for the content contained in the search results.
This is the easiest route -- far easier than tracking down those making the comments or posting the videos -- but it has about the same chances for success. Even with the damage being done to Section 230 by courts recently, it's going to take far more than this bare-bones pleading to even begin to mount a successful legal battle over unflattering search engine results.
But this short filing does lie at the crux of an issue where Section 230 is likely to receive the most collateral damage: revenge porn. Legislative efforts have been made in many states and, with almost no exceptions, the efforts include language that undermines the protections of Section 230 by attempting to shift some degree of culpability to service providers. The same sort of damage could result from a precedential ruling in a federal court if any revenge porn-based case makes it that far.
The underlying activity is horrendous and does a significant amount of damage to victims, but shifting the responsibility anywhere but the person posting the content poses the risk of opening up service providers to criminal charges and/or civil litigation -- something that would do tremendous harm to openness and freedom of the internet.
This isn't the case that's going to start that ball rolling, however. The actual perpetrators aren't listed as defendants, which means this is nothing more than a low-cost Hail Mary by Abodo and her legal rep.
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: cda 230, lawsuit, revenge porn, search results, section 230
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ahem. Another shiny example of Ms Streisand in action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"21. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, GOOGLE was and still is a web search engine operated by MICROSOFT."
Microsoft must have been thrilled to learn this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already gone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already gone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Already gone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already gone
I would have never found and watched it had she never filed this lawsuit. When will people learn that you can't censor the Internet and if you want something hidden don't bring attention to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some people seem not to understand or learn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some people seem not to understand or learn
AFTER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Some people seem not to understand or learn
The better advice is don't make explicit videos ever then there will be nothing to safeguard. In the original situation here, I presume the the partner of the complainant had a copy and posted them, but in other situations the female could do the same thing to a male. In that part of our society that's sexist, such videos might enhance the reputation of the male unless he's married or in a serious relationship with another, but who knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republican action?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Republican action?
If CDA-230 goes away, then the major web sites need to go dark just like they did for SOPA.
I wonder what Hail To The Cheeto would say about not having Twitter available? After all, Twitter may not want to be legally or financially liable for anything Cheeto Face says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Republican action?
They won't 'need to', without 230 they'd pretty much have to. Running a site that hosts user-submitted content would be insanely risky without a law in place saying that sites aren't responsible for what their users post, especially given how massive penalties for copyright infringement can reach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've got enough experience of this to know that if you behave well yourself and your own personal online activity depicts you as a decent and reasonable person, that's how people will see you. As for the sex tape, again, it just makes the poster look bad: would you buy a used car from that man or entrust him with personal information? I think not.
[ 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tort for harm and distress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]