First Amendment Protection For Search Results? 76
An anonymous reader writes "A legal paper (PDF), commissioned by Google and written by Eugene Volokh and Donald Falk, makes the case that search results should be protected under the First Amendment, thereby making regulation of search results illegal. The authors say a search engine 'uses sophisticated computerized algorithms, but those algorithms themselves inherently incorporate the search engine company engineers' judgments about what material users are likely to find responsive to these queries.' Cory Doctorow's reaction: 'I think that the editorial right to exercise judgment is much more widely understood than the sacred infallibility of robotic sorting. I certainly support it more. But I wonder if Google appreciates that it will now have to confront people who are angry about their search rankings by saying, "I'm sorry, we just don't like you very much" instead of "I'm sorry, our equations put you where you belong." And oy, the libel headaches they're going to face.'"
Re:Google: "Corporation is a person"? (Score:5, Insightful)
So... where, oh shill-who-just-made-an-account-to-post-this-the-second-the-story-came-up (hi bonch!), does Google say they are entitled to 1st amendment protections because they are a person? Hint: they don't, because the 1st amendment doesn't just apply to people, it applies to, well, everything, including corporations. It has nothing whatsoever to do with corporations being "people." Please, there is enough to bash Google on without having to drag in completely irrelevant stuff.
And if that person was "blocked" from publishing, clearly he made an agreement with Google that required their permission to publish: otherwise, they wouldn't be able to block it. Clearly, he shouldn't have, and I don't know why you would.
They get it both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, they get it both ways.
If it is protected speech, then the gov't can't shut them down.
But when someone sues them for libel (or the like), they can equally claim that their search results are their opinion, which they are entitled to express, and not facts, which could be subject to dispute. As it happens, there has already been a case just like that. In their response, Google said something along the lines of
In that case, Google prevailed.
Re:Google: "Corporation is a person"? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I disagree with the "corporation is a person" argument, I do recognize that a corporation is an assembly of persons who should not be stripped of their consitutional rights simply because they get organized. In fact the US Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to assemble to petition the government.
Re:Google: "Corporation is a person"? (Score:2, Insightful)
While I disagree with the "corporation is a person" argument, I do recognize that a corporation is an assembly of persons who should not be stripped of their consitutional rights simply because they get organized. In fact the US Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to assemble to petition the government.
A big part of the corporate personhood debate is whether a corporation has a right to anonymous speech. The 1st Amendment doesn't specifically cover anonymity, so the courts have to weigh the pros and cons of accepting anonymous speech as protected speech.
For individuals, a big benefit of anonymity is not having the Pinkertons come and beat the shit out of you for speaking your mind about labor laws. This societal benefit outweighs the societal costs of protecting anonymous speech (increase in slander, libel, and the general spreading of falsehoods)
When it comes to corporations, however, the balance shifts. I do not think the benefits of protecting anonymous corporate speech outweigh the costs.