{"id":799421,"date":"2022-08-17T10:30:51","date_gmt":"2022-08-17T10:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/2022\/08\/17\/australias-top-court-finds-google-not-liable-for-defamation\/"},"modified":"2022-08-17T10:30:51","modified_gmt":"2022-08-17T10:30:51","slug":"australias-top-court-finds-google-not-liable-for-defamation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/2022\/08\/17\/australias-top-court-finds-google-not-liable-for-defamation\/","title":{"rendered":"Australia&#8217;s top court finds Google not liable for defamation"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Australia&#8217;s highest court overturned on Wednesday a ruling that had found Google engaged in defamation by supplying a link to a contested newspaper article, throwing the spotlight again on how online libel cases are handled in the country.<\/p>\n<p>The seven-judge panel of the High Court of Australia voted 5-2 to throw out an earlier finding that the Alphabet Inc unit played a part in publishing the disputed article by acting as a &#8220;library&#8221; housing it, saying the website had no active role.<\/p>\n<p>The decision brings fresh confusion to a question that has been simmering in Australia for years about where liability rests for online defamation. A years-long review of the country&#8217;s libel law is yet to give a final recommendation on whether large platforms like Google and Meta Platforms&#8217; Facebook should be accountable.<\/p>\n<p>The case stems from a 2004 article which suggested that a criminal defence lawyer had crossed professional lines and become a &#8220;confidant&#8221; of criminals, according to the published judgment. The lawyer, George Defteros, found a link to the story in a 2016 Google search of his name and had Google remove it after it was viewed by 150 people, the judgment said.<\/p>\n<p>Defteros sued in a state court which found Google was a publisher and ordered it to pay him A$40,000 ($28,056). Google appealed the judgment, culminating in Wednesday&#8217;s decision.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The Underworld article was not written by any employee or agent of the appellant,&#8221; two of the panel judges wrote in Wednesday&#8217;s ruling, the appellant being Google.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;It was written by a reporter with no connection to the appellant, and published by an independent newspaper over which the appellant had no control or influence.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Google &#8220;does not own or control the internet&#8221;, they wrote.<\/p>\n<p>A Google spokesperson was not immediately available for comment.<\/p>\n<p>Defteros said in a statement that the process had been &#8220;long, drawn out, expensive and extremely stressful&#8221; but he felt vindicated because the court agreed the article was defamatory even though Google was not liable.<\/p>\n<p>The ruling comes after the High Court last year found a newspaper publisher liable for defamatory comments left beneath an article that it had posted on Facebook.<\/p>\n<p>The difference between the 2021 Facebook case and Wednesday&#8217;s case was that the media companies last year &#8220;invited and encouraged comment&#8221;, while Google &#8220;did not provide a forum or place where it could be communicated, nor did it encourage the writing of comment in response&#8221;, the judges wrote.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Australia&#8217;s highest court overturned on Wednesday a ruling that had found Google engaged in defamation by supplying a link to a contested newspaper article, throwing the spotlight again on how online libel cases are handled in the country. The seven-judge panel of the High Court of Australia voted 5-2 to throw out an earlier finding that the Alphabet Inc unit played a part in publishing the disputed article by acting as a &#8220;library&#8221; housing it, saying the website had no active role. The decision brings fresh confusion to a question that has been simmering in Australia for years about where [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-799421","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-it-2"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/799421","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=799421"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/799421\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=799421"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=799421"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/telecomlive.in\/web\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=799421"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}