Search engines and global takedown orders: 'Google v Equustek' and the future of free speech online

The Supreme Court's decision in 'Google v Equustek' (2017) to uphold a global content takedown order remains controversial and consequential to wider debates about governing the internet. This commentary examines the Court's underlying assumption - a common view in takedown juris...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Osgoode Hall law journal (1960) Jg. 56; H. 2; S. 231 - 270
1. Verfasser: Diab, Robert
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: Osgoode Hall Law School of York University 01.12.2019
Schlagworte:
Copyright
Freedom of speech
Injunctions
International law
Internet
Jurisprudence
Litigation
Search engines
Social aspects
Supreme Court decisions
CANADA
ISSN:0030-6185, 2817-5069, 2817-5069
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The Supreme Court's decision in 'Google v Equustek' (2017) to uphold a global content takedown order remains controversial and consequential to wider debates about governing the internet. This commentary examines the Court's underlying assumption - a common view in takedown jurisprudence - that where a portal directs a critical mass of users to a harmful site, it facilitates harm and no longer engages in valuable speech. This ran contrary to the Court's more considered view of links in 'Crookes v Newton' (2011) as a form of mere reference and valuable per se for enabling the internet as a public forum. This commentary argues the Court should have applied its theory from 'Crookes' to search engine links as no different in principle from others, while conceding that, at scale, links that merely refer can facilitate harm. Drawing on the 'Copyright Act' and the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability, the author proposes a test for takedown orders that strikes a better balance between free speech and private interests.
Bibliographie:OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL, Vol. 56, No. 2, Nov 2019, 231-270
Informit, Melbourne (Vic)
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:0030-6185
2817-5069
2817-5069
DOI:10.60082/2817-5069.3481