Interestingly, the majority addressed a Google argument centered upon concerns regarding the possibility of international censorship:

"Google’s argument that a global injunction violates international comity because it is possible that the order could not have been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, or that to comply with it would result in Google violating the laws of that jurisdiction, is theoretical. If Google has evidence that complying with such an injunction would require it to violate the laws of another jurisdiction, including interfering with freedom of expression, it is always free to apply to the British Columbia courts to vary the interlocutory order accordingly. To date, Google has made no such application. In the absence of an evidentiary foundation, and given Google’s right to seek a rectifying order, it is not equitable to deny E the extraterritorial scope it needs to make the remedy effective, or even to put the onus on it to demonstrate, country by country, where such an order is legally permissible."

In other words, if an interlocutory order with international scope would violate foreign freedom of expression legislation (or other legislation in general), it would be possible to seek to vary the interlocutory order by raising those issues specifically.

This framework should be familiar to jurists in Canada, as it resembles the Paramountcy doctrine.

Whether or not this case will be widely used is unclear. This case is nearly 100% fact-perfect for the Respondent - it honestly looks like a civil-rights test case. It is very possible that imperfect everyday facts provide sufficient fuel for judges to distinguish this case from the case in front of them.

The dissent is interesting because it lists a number of pieces of evidence the dissenters would have needed to see before moving forward, including the impact of the first order on sales figures. These dissents often provide counsel with information regarding how to structure future cases in order to avoid outstanding concerns.

These are my first pass thoughts. I'll probably read it through another two times before the day is done.

The previous framework was, "you can demand whatever you want within your borders; if it is unacceptable, Google will leave." This decision throws a bit of a wrench into that.

In the Canadian decision, the de-listing order is contingent on that order not being contrary to compliance requirements elsewhere in the world. However, the SCC doesn't have knowledge of all of those laws, nor should it. Accordingly, it stated the burden upon showing a contradiction rests with the applicant, Google, who didn't want to comply with the order. Google would need to cite specific laws they were in contravention of, rather than just pleading that there may, maybe, somehow be a contradictory requirement. What if there wasn't? Should Google still get to plead international comity in that instance? No.

Positive freedom of speech legislation might work as an alternate requirement, but this was not plead, and this was not a situation where the speech in question is political or particularly protected. It is a very clear instance where a supplier has fled Canada (and they can't find where they're based) in order to attempt to continue crystal clear trademark violations which are causing actual damage to a Canadian business.

The current international trademark framework means that the majority of nations in the world would actually require compliance with this order (well, not exactly, but close enough). The big question is how that machinery should be activated. If the Respondent had the money to pursue passing-off litigation in every jurisdiction, they would likely arrive at a similar result, but functionally, a small company won't be able to pay x200+ times the legal fees for a similar result while their dealflow is being sapped.

This decision, even read very broadly, wouldn't provide countries with the ability to de-index items. Countries don't need that ability; they already have it. Most, however, have bound themselves not to exercise it, but certain, like China, actively pursue control as an overt element of their policy agenda.

I feel like I'm doing a bit of a disservice to the topic, because there is a lot of small nobs and levers that I can't get into without exploding this into a 20 page memorandum. I am confident in stating that the freedom of speech concerns arising from this case are not as dire as portrayed.

Edit: Made the middle a bit clearer.

The government isn't proposing anyone do anything; A private party is, and asked for the court's help. The second private party is very clearly acting illegally and appropriating the value of the first party's brand. They've gone as far as to flee the province to try and dodge the court order which attempts to halt them from doing so. The first party asked google to take down their listings because those listings are the channel through which the illegal brand appropriation is occurring. The court agreed.

Google said they didn't want to comply with the order partially on the basis that there might be some compliance contradictions. The court said "Sure, but you didn't plead any evidence that that's the case. We judge what's in front of us. If you're serious, we have a mechanism to deal with it. Make an application like anyone else who wants to amend an interlocutory order. Bring us evidence there's another law which prohibits you from taking the listing down, and we'll amend the order".

The reason why courts only judge what's in front of them is so that the other side can actually argue against their points. If Google said "Law X from Country Y prevents us from doing that", the Respondent could reply "The only thing Law X from Country Y does is regulate how sweet twinkies can be, please stop lying to the court". The alternative, forcing the Respondent to prove that there is NO contradiction in every other country, is impossible. Google's response, however, requires 1 list distribution email in legal saying "Anyone have a problem in their country? Let me know". This is the "balance of convenience" portion of the RJR MacDonald test.

I wonder how this would be applied to a physical storefront from a global retailer that happened to have presence in Canada...I suppose they'd be forced to remove physical non-Canadian products from even their non-Canadian stores. Because hey, retailer, show us where it's illegal for you to remove this product. You can't? Then apply our ruling worldwide.

Is my analogy off? Or is it, as I suspect, the fact that the decision is easier to accept digitally part of the reason why it's being levied? The RJR MacDonald test appears incredibly subjective.

This test, if in fact it is narrowly construed as show-us-where-you-can't, is a scary defendant test to counter decisions. Or if the test is being vaguely construed for these means, it is equally scary.

You need three things to satisfy the test:

1) a serious issue to be tried 2) irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted 3) that the relief is just on the balance of considerations

Note that irreparable harm and balance of considerations are terms of art, both of which heavily restrict the ambit of what is admissible under those sections of the test, a process which is continually monitored by the development of subsequent jurisprudence.

But even if the injunction test is satisfied,

The physical products hypothetical you're advancing is incomplete and leaves out a number of facts which are instrumental in the court's ruling. Assuming the ruling is applicable outside of those parameters requires that clear arguments be made regarding why changing those parameters isn't a big deal.

As an exercise, try to go through the ruling and pull out each of the factual elements which the court seems to rely upon in coming to their decision. You'll note they rely on a lot of determinations to get to the decision they ultimately arrive at.

Other replies have gracefully dealt with the physical goods analogy more directly: things get ripped off shelves all the time. That's why the Apple v. Samsung cases are so high-stakes.

> That's why the Apple v. Samsung cases are so high-stakes.

It would be like the US court told Samsung they couldn't violate Apple's US patents on phones sold in Mexico.

However, the only consequences that can be imposed for failing to follow the order relate to doing business in Canada. Any corporation has to decide for themselves whether complying with the local law, even if it requires action somewhere else, is worth it for them.

It is in fact quite common for countries to leverage their local power into effecting a worldwide result. E.g. the US embargo on Iran cut off anyone doing business there from access to US financial institutions, and almost nobody wanted to risk that.

However I am curious, do you know of any example where a country ordered a company not based in their country to change something for other countries including the country they were based in? Surely there are sweatshop or other working condition examples, I just can't find any where the changes were required to apply for operation in other countries too. I suppose it would be like your answer to my hypothetical, I'm just curious if it has ever happened.

> It would be completely justified in requiring this to happen worldwide

I disagree if the company isn't based there (assuming by justification you meant to us as humans as opposed to legal justification).

The retailer in this case is Google, and their entire business model rides on being able to ship an information product worldwide - that is, their index.

How is it Google's responsibility to no longer aggregate their index, since they are now expected to deviate from the information generated from the expressions of others' statements, upon which its index was originally based? Is a quotation no longer an acceptable device to publish or derive information, in Canada?

Unless Google is committing a crime by repeating what was said, or pointing to someone who said something, then why is it legally permissible for Canada to order Google to do anything at all here?

Even if Google is citing someone who did something illegally in their index, is it a crime for Google to quote what was said, and to publish the fact that persons said something -- nationally, let alone internationally?

It sounds like this defense was screwed up on two fronts:

1) Where does Canadian law allow anyone to remove or suppress what was recorded in a non-binding quote containing what was previously observed to have been published by others, in a civil trial?

2) Freedom of speech, as a form of detailing quotes in the aggregate, in any other country in the world is not compatible with the idea of removing recorded quotes from the aggregate product of what was internationally found in a survey. That is the precedent. What was and will be found on the internet from the standpoint of other countries Internet connections, does not change just because Canada doesn't like it.

Pursuing #2 seems be the best option since the courts completely breezed over #1. The need to stick to the fundamentals that their product has never actually guaranteed correctness or truth, nationally or internationally. The Google product guarantees an aggregation of quotes. The product attempts to arrive at correctness or truth by algorithmic-ally deriving meaning from the aggregate, not the other way around.

... Google (the product) does not derive the aggregate by manually specifying exceptions one after the other whenever John Doe catches someone lying on the internet. To do so on an international scale would forcefully change Google (the product), not in compliance with any Canadian law (afaik), and not in compliance with any international precedent.

It would be akin to suing a newspaper to have information forcefully removed, in all countries of the world, even though it was published with valid quotes and perfect reporting. If Google (the product) wanted to do this in a way that was respectful of the nature of the request, that it is based on a quote, it would be better to think of the court's decision as being a qualifier on the nature of the information -- "This website may be untrustworthy. (Legal Information: ...). But this request cannot be compelled internationally, because it is not Google's responsibility to ascertain correctness of the contents of a quote. For something that was internationally said of the quote, Google can internationally do with that information whatever they please.

The fact that the Google product is an aggregation of quotes, I think, has escaped the courts. And that may be what they are accidentally glossing over when trying to compel Google to change those quotes, internationally, in a civil trial.

Google is free to tell Canada to shove off... if Google doesn't want to do business in Canada anymore. And it's in Canada's best interests to protect their citizens' intellectual property both locally and abroad.

There's nothing "absurd" about this decision. Canada has said that this must be the case if Google does business there. There's a huge issue with people's notions that no country should be able to regulate Google's behavior. The nature of them being an international corporation should not mean they are immune to everyone's laws.

Rather than an international corporation being subject to nobody's laws: International corporations should be required to follow all of them.

    > The US prohibits American companies from selling
    > weapons...

    > The nature of them being an international
    > corporation should not mean they are immune
    > to everyone's laws.

    > International corporations should be required
    > to follow all of them.

Presumably, in your example they would likely pull out of Saudi Arabia, given the scope of the impact on everyone else versus their income from Saudi Arabia. In this case, Canada has ordered one search result, so Google obviously is going to comply rather than losing the Canadian market (and it's three offices there).

Countries have no inherent requirement to make it easy for international businesses to operate, and I don't feel they should. They should be looking out for their citizens first and foremost, and that's exactly what Canada did here.

But rather, my point is: If a company wants to do business in multiple countries, they are going to have to obey multiple countries laws. Nobody's required to do business globally, and no country is required to enable it.

And if the threat of losing access to Google search is such a risk that a country would need to capitulate to a corporation's demands, it would only be more evidence for the need to bust that monopoly up.

Nope, it's about alleged trade secrets, not trademarks.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/14/10/2014BCSC1063.ht...

> The current international trademark framework means that the majority of nations in the world would actually require compliance with this order

Given the above, I'm not sure if it's still true. And even if it was, I fail to see why Canadian court should be allowed to effectively make this decision for others. Have all countries in the world obliged to recognize Canadian censorship orders yet?

> I am confident in stating that the freedom of speech concerns arising from this case are not as dire as portrayed.

Meh, it's not exactly reassuring if you say that this ruling doesn't matter because it's business as usual.

Read the link you cited, specifically paragraph 5. Look up passing-off as a tort, then look up Subsection 7 c) of the Canadian Trademarks Act.

There are often trade-secret dimensions in situations where a supplier is committing trademark infringement, but this is a clear situation where there's PLENTY of trademark infringement going on.

Canadian legal precedent doesn't apply in other countries. This isn't like setting a precedent within your own country.

Legally, yes. I bet Chinese courts don't recognize Canadian precedents. However, China is now free to claim that if Canada chooses to enforce censorship in China, they will be free to enforce censorship in Canada by similar means, if they ever feel like doing so.

Also, it didn't happen without some level of pushback from the American government. Now imagine the drama if China tried to impose their court orders on the US soil that way.

For example no court is ever going to find Tiananmen Square never happened.

"This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites that are in violation of several court orders."

For example the US has a law, see https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ223/html/PLAW-111p... for the exact text, which limits the enforceability of foreign judgements within American courts where they impact free speech. This was litigated in Trout Point Lodge v. Doug K. Handshoe and it was found that a Canadian copyright decision is not necessarily enforceable in a US court.

Now given the facts of this case, a US court is likely to uphold the Canadian decision. (That happened in the previously cited case as well.) However not necessarily so. And if not, remanding the decision to a lower Canadian court to decide what should happen in the USA is emphatically NOT the correct course for deciding what legal decision should be enforced in the USA.

Had they pleaded the above law and indicated that there were real and substantial concerns in this case, the outcome may have been different. I think Google didn't because this is a picture perfect passing-off case which is illegal straight across the WTO.

---

Edit: This passage from the ruling makes it clear that a key piece of the SCC rationale is very, very specific to this case:

"D and its representatives have ignored all previous court orders made against them, have left British Columbia, and continue to operate their business from unknown locations outside Canada. E has made efforts to locate D with limited success. D is only able to survive — at the expense of E’s survival — on Google’s search engine which directs potential customers to D’s websites. This makes Google the determinative player in allowing the harm to occur. On balance, since the world‑wide injunction is the only effective way to mitigate the harm to E pending the trial, the only way, in fact, to preserve E itself pending the resolution of the underlying litigation, and since any countervailing harm to Google is minimal to non‑existent, the interlocutory injunction should be upheld." [Emphasis added]

There are a number of requirements for obtaining an injunction. The key case for determining if an injunction will be granted itself is RJR Macdonald. It provides a fairly large bulwark to stopping stupid injunctions from being used. It requires that the issue be serious, that the harm caused by it be irreparable, and that the balance of convenience favor the arrangement sought. These aren't easy hurdles to jump over.

Other bits that I found interesting:

> [107] Google asserts that the Court does not have the authority to make an order of the kind sought. In issue is whether the Court has “subject matter competence”. The plaintiffs and Google agree that the type of order I am asked to make has never before been made by a Canadian court.

> [119] I do not accept Google’s submission that the Court only has authority to make an order against a non-party in relation to contempt or to further fact finding necessary to effect justice. Lack of precedent should not be confused with lack of subject matter competence.

> [133] I conclude that the Court has authority to grant an injunction against a non-party resident in a foreign jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances.

=====

Something I have to wonder about: there's nothing here that speaks to the technical difficulties intrinsic to the process of de-listing a website.

Say Google blacklists "www.very-obviously-illegal-under-canadian-law.com". The offending party then registers "www.completely-irrelevant-url-1.com" and "www.irrelevant-url-2.ca" and so on. Is Google expected to permanently block these URLs? What if some of these URLs were obtained illegally (or more generally, what burden of proof must be achieved to demonstrate that a website should be blacklisted)? Is there some way for people - especially prospective buyers for these DNS records - to know that these URLs have been blacklisted?

=====

Ruling link: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/14/10/2014BCSC1063.ht...

They also of course don't address the most most important part, which is that a Canadian court ruling on something that is no longer even happening in Canada (since that is where Google already removed the results) has very dubious jurisdiction.

This must be about the only good part of treaties like CETA, it gives Google the ability to sue Canada for this nonsense in a court that can't even spell "product relabeling".

Another hypothetical question: Can Canada require some retailer in the US to remove another non-Canadian company's products in the US just because the retailer and a competing company both have presence in Canada?

If push really came to shove Google would leave Canada--no offices, no ad sales, no shipping physical product there. Maybe even put a clause in their ToS saying that their products couldn't be used from Canada. If they did all that and Canadian courts still tried to fine it or award damages against it then other countries' courts would refuse to enforce those rulings.

This also comes into play w/ recent EU rulings. With a large company, fragmenting features in location-specific ways is reasonable. But for other smaller companies, they have to weigh whether the loss of customers costs less than location-specific feature implementations.

In general, with the internet, we should err on the side of lesser regulation IMO (which can appear to favor businesses over consumers). But this has been a political discussion for ages, predating globalism.

In reality, it is not easy to measure such RoIs positive or negative.

Canada has no concept of the 1st amendment,Canada as all kinds of limits on Speech that will never be allowed under the US Constitution.

Section 1 of the Constitution of Canada (1982) outlines freedom of speech. Just about the only thing you can't do, outside of pursuing damages in the court system for specific cases, is stand on the street screaming "Let's kill all white/black/asian/aboriginal people right now". For that, you might land yourself in some trouble.

A standard example is that in Canada, a judge can impose publication bans on information presented in court. These bans can be temporary (don't report on the presented facts until the case is decided) or permanent (the rape victim may not be named).

In the USA such bans are unconstitutional. Therefore US media is allowed to report on details of Canadian cases that Canadian media can't.

My first exposure to the Internet was during the trial of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo and I well remember the arguments between Canadians upset that the case was being reported on against the judge's orders, and Americans who wondered what part of the phrase "free speech" the Canadians didn't get. Having just moved from Canada to the USA myself, it was a nice piece of culture shock.

The difference in the Bernardo case is that in Canada persons detained or charged with an offence are innocent until proven guilty. I'd wager that reporting on a case against a judge's orders creates the presumption of guilt, counter to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is hardcoded into our law here, whereas it is not in the United States where it is inferred.

Frankly that case seems perfectly rational to me, as it protects the innocent who might be smeared and have their lives ruined by such reporting, for the price of denying us the intrigue and scandal of those kinds of cases -- but I was too young to remember the Bernardo case itself.

The presumption in Canada is that there is a balance to be found between different kinds of rights, and the government can be trusted to do a reasonable job of finding it. I remember feeling that way, and wondering how a rational person could see it otherwise.

The presumption in the USA is that government is fundamentally untrustworthy and our enumerated rights exist as a protection against the government. While we may feel for the person who gets smeared by public rumor, we are scared of giving judges power to casually order the media around. This becomes in a sense a self-fulfilling prophecy. We hold our government to low standards, and our government fails to achieve them, which confirms the low opinion that we have of our government.

In the case of high profile cases, the Canadian approach is to say that the media can't report. Jurors show up each day, hear evidence, and go home. Then eventually they make a decision. The US approach is to select a jury that has not yet been biased by the case, and then put them in a hotel with no access to the media.

The controversy in the Bernardo case was because Canadian jurors could go home, turn on the TV, and hear an American station reporting on allegations that might or might not have enough evidence behind them to show up in court. So Canadians wanted American media to stop irresponsibly reporting on it. But how would YOU feel if another country wanted Canadian companies to follow THEIR laws? Yeah, that's exactly how Americans felt about the Canadian complaints.

Because history has proven time and time again that government can not, and should not be trusted.

>The presumption in the USA is that government is fundamentally untrustworthy and our enumerated rights exist as a protection against the government.

The presumption in the USA is that rights are not enumerated at all, we do not have enumerated rights. The Bill of rights is not designed or intended to list all of the rights a person has.

The constitution is a document outlining what government can do, if the constitution does not give the government the authority, the government is prohibited from acting.

This is almost the exact opposite of however other nations government is authorized where the government is giving total power and then some government powers are prohibited or limited.

I do not see how any rational person would want to give government near unlimited power.

And no, the USA does not say that rights are limited to the ones enumerated in the Constitution. However the ones enumerated in the Constitution do have special legal status.

I honestly have no immediate answers for situations like this. Our current frameworks don't allow for it.

Frankly, I support the idea of global democratic bodies working on issues like this for willing members. But I'm a natural born humanist, so I'm extremely biased!

In the US it's perfectly possible to go after someone for publishing/saying something, if in doing so they violated a law (for example, if they deliberately falsely described someone as a criminal), and recover damages and possibly an injunction against them preventing further harm to you.

However, it is designed to be as difficult as humanly possible -- verging on impossible -- to prevent someone from speaking/publishing in the first place. Ordering something never to be said or published at all (rather than allowing damages to be recovered after the fact) is prior restraint, and the US legal system is incredibly hostile to that.

So although there are times when it's permitted in the US, they're rare and the standard which must be cleared is very high. Which in turn leads to people from the US being surprised at the (from our perspective) seemingly casual way that prior restraints on speech are handed out in other countries.

https://news.vice.com/article/a-canadian-comedian-was-ordere...

Basically, a comedian made a comment in reference to a kid who'd sought donations because he was dying. His quip was:

"But five years later, he wasn't dead, he's not dying," he quipped on stage. "The little bastard, he's just not dying."

For that, the courts are making him pay some $42,000.

That would not happen in the United States. You may, or may not, agree with the court's findings - but it's a difference between the two countries and their liberties to express themselves.

Still in both cases, the public institution would have the final say in whether or not what was said should not be said.

Edit: I was healthily corrected on this point. Not libel, but slander was what I was asserting as a possibility -- in the case we were discussing I was totally incorrect.

This is simply false, and a bad understanding of United States libel laws. Firstly, these were verbal statements which would make them slander and not libel.

Secondly, these were _not_ false statements of fact (which is the only thing that constitutes libel or slander in the United States). Joking that the child was ugly is an opinion, which is protected by the first amendment. Joking that the child was not dead, and "wouldn't die" also isn't a statement of fact.

It's simply not factually true that the comedian would be exposed to any civil liabilities for those jokes were they made in the United States.

All that said, I agree with the vast majority of the people that those jokes were in extremely poor taste. I would encourage people not to support or listen to a comedian that mocks people in that way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commissi...

>Lots of Americans like to think that as soon as you moderately curtail freedom of expression, you've crossed some threshold

You have crossed a Threshold

>and you're now North Korea.

Nice strawman you have there.....

>it's possible to have reasonable constraints on expression!

Proving you do not have or support Free Speech, you support "Reasonably Restricted Speech" which is not the same thing

See, this is exactly what I said. I didn't need to build a strawman. You did it for me.

I'm free to run down the street swinging your fists, but if I swing my fist into someone's face and break their nose, that's bad. I think we can all agree on that, right? What if I told you that swinging my fists was a form of "artistic expression", or was part of my religion? Should I be free to express myself at the expense of the rest of society?

A "spoken crime" is not a "thought crime". There's no chip in your head, you're free to think whatever you like, even if you're not necessarily free to say anything you like.

For example, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building, offering a bribe, and threatening someone all seem like actions you could be arrested for in the USA where the only evidence is your speech (or a recording of it). Would these qualify as thought crimes to you and if so do you think there is a developed nation with free speech where they are accepted?

All people should be treated the exact same under the law

For example, I think that a country can be said to have free speech if it disallows people from promising to compensate someone in exchange for murder.

History has been pretty clear that curtailment of rights leads to government overreach and leaders using such power against people they don't like.

> But are you really gonna die on this hill?

Yep, its tasteless, but the alternative allow folks like you to edit what I read and eventually think. I rather deal with the filth then the sterile world of what is acceptable to you with only approved targets of derision and protest. Being in fear of every word uttered to be outside the bounds for some person who might hear would be the purest kind of horror.

Freedom of speech is there to protect the ugly not shine the widely accepted.

> And don't give me any of those "slippery slope" arguments.

Why not? Since that is the whole course of history. People don't lose rights overnight, it comes one drop at a time.

I don't think most people that are happy about the rule would find the particular actor or action sympathetic; you fight for free speech not because the actor is popular or sympathetic, but because you might need it when you and your actions are not popular or sympathetic.

is it because you have no counter argument?

I'm going to put on my brute hat, so I might earn some downvotes for simplicity or unpopular opinion here but I'll take a stab at it anyway:

It seems that many people often conflate what makes a right and what makes a freedom. That is, people want what they call freedom to do something, but what they mean is that they want the right to do something without penalty. Sometimes the opposite is true. As well, being free to do something doesn't mean there is no potential for incurring a penalty or tax or that you are entitled to it.

In Canada, you are free to say whatever you want. If it comes into contrast with what is socially (and subsequently legally) acceptable at the time, then you may or may not face consequences for your actions.

In Ontario you have the right to a prescribed health care plan, nobody is free to remove this from you once registered. You are free to let your card expire, at which point institutions are free to charge you appropriately[1]. It is your freedom to remain without a health card, but it's your right to obtain a new one. Just because you're free to let your free health plan expire, doesn't mean you won't necessarily face consequences for it.

This just goes back to other commenters' point, though: Canadians and Americans tend to define something like this a little differently. I also think much of the 1st world seems to be satisfied with making mistakes along the way to a more ideal solution to the issue. It's my hope that the mistakes get smaller as we go along (and the peoples' standards grow higher, so criticisms grow stronger).

[1] In my experience this has never occurred, though. Mine has expired previously, and I've never been denied or charged according to OHIP.

The Canadian constitution states that everyone "has the following fundamental freedoms [...] (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication."

I'll pose a couple of analogies to illustrate how I'm interpreting it:

If I wanted to tell my the CEO off at the company I work for in a grotesque manner, I'm entirely free to do so, but I'd likely lose my job. If he decided to fire back at me, HR would likely intervene to resolve the issue, but not before we're cordoned off to prevent further controversy. (I realize companies aren't quite analogues of countries, I'm taking a bit of a stretch for the sake of illustration).

If I picked a stranger out of a crowd and degraded him publicly, I'm free to do that as well, but I'd probably get punched. If instead of punching me, he decided to throw similar words back and a third person intervened to arbitrate and calm the situation down -- is my freedom then being imposed upon? What if the intervening individual was a police officer or a panel of people, or a body of interested people?

I see these things (like most things outside of technical fields) as far more gradient than binary, so I maintain a pretty strong bias, I know.

Same as in any other country, from Switzerland to North Korea.

None of these would be Constitutional in the US

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

Duke Paper on comparing Free Speech in the US vs Canada

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...

i can find more examples later if you want.

Canada's "Free Speech" code is much weaker, to the point that is not a Free Speech Code..

Of course I am a free speech absolutist so...

There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others.

I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment. You can also be charged criminally for direct threats of physical harm.

Your speech is not free in an absolute sense anywhere; your speech is free as defined by law in your jurisdiction.

Before you talk further on a topic you don't understand I'd suggest actually reading our constitution and not repeating what has been told to you by other Americans on the Internet.

Since the threshold for libel in the US is higher than at common law specifically because of First Amendment restrictions, “despite the existence of” would be more accurate than “regardless of”.

(This is a minor correction; your broader point is valid.)

>>>I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally.

Pretty sure I clearly stated this fact in my comments, further at no point did I say the US could define free speech globally, in fact in this discussion it is Canada not the US attempting the define speech globally.

I was asking if Canada feels it can define Free Speech in the US, and how that would be a violation of our constitution because we have higher protections for free speech than Canada. So clearly I understand Canada is a different nation.

>>>There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others.

This is actually false. If you believe that you completely misunderstand the history and purpose of the the US Constitution, and how that differs from the Charter of Rights in Canada.

The US Constitution is not a complete enumeration of rights, in fact if you read the Federalist Papers you will see a concern that the Bill of rights would lead to some people misunderstanding the purpose of the Bill of Rights, leading them to believe it was complete enumeration of rights when that was never the intention of the Founders. The US Constitution is a document that grants government power, any power not expressly granted to the government in the Constitution is a power forbidden to the federal government and is reserved for the States and the People. In contrast the Canada system of government where the government starts from a position of total power and the Charter of Rights removes some power from the government, this is a critical difference in how our governments are structured. The Charter of Rights in Canada is the total enumeration of rights for Canadian Citizens. This is the opposite approach of the US Constitution.

>>>I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment. You can also be charged criminally for direct threats of physical harm.

US History it riddled with bad court rulings, some of these are what you are referring to. Yes at some points in history the Supreme Court has been derelict in their support of Free Speech as required by the Constitution. True-threat jurisprudence remains a muddled mess. That however does not invalidate my statements, far from it. In recent years the Supreme Court has been rolling back many of these Terrible Terrible rulings of the past, restoring Free Speech to its proper constitutional level.

On the topic of civil liability, I do not find awarding damages for libel to be a form of censorship, Rights come with responsibility, so you are free to libel or slander or defame, but if you cause that person actual articulable damages then you will be responsible for those damages, that is not censorship. It should be pointed out that generally speaking in order for this happen in the US you have to be making false statements of fact that you knew to be false at the time you made them... Making true factual statements is a absolute defense, a protection not found in some other nations, however I am not sure if Canada has such a defense.

>>>Before you talk further on a topic you don't understand I'd suggest actually reading our constitution and not repeating what has been told to you by other Americans on the Internet.

I understand the topic of US Constitution very well, I will admit to be less knowledgeable on Canadian law, however I have seen enough news stories, and actual cases to reach the conclusion that the US has better protections for Free Speech than Canada Does.

Your prohibition on "hate Speech" which seems to be expanding to even include calling someone the incorrect pronoun, or the fining of Comedians, and the arresting of Americans for “smuggling hate speech” on their iPad the is pretty much proof positive that Canada has lower free speech protections than the US.

Also there is no 'Charter of Rights' in Canada. If you can't even name the document how can you puport to understand it?

[1] https://medium.com/@KelemenCari/american-speaker-arrested-in...

[2]http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/301661-th...

He was refused and detained at the border and not criminally charged. He has no right to enter Canada and can be turned away for any reason, but right-wing extremism is as good as any. There any many first hand accounts of Canadians trying to cross into the US for the inauguration and being rejected because their political views.

The thing about 'misgendering' now being a crime is an absurd farce. The law amends the criminal code so that gender identity is protected from discrimination in the same way as birth gender, race, age and other traits with the same penalties applying. Again, did you read bill C-16 or read a blog post about it?

What do you think happens in Canada if someone says a joke in poor taste? The Canadian stasi/krypteia hops out of a van and whisks them away in the middle of the night for re-education?

I'm glad that you enjoy the political and social climate as much as you do, but we're fine over here. If you want to visit I suggest you show respect and tolerance or you may find Canadians aren't always friendly.

IANAL and dunno if it formally passes as "a crime", but

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1694958/54-dawson...

[270] I also find that, when Ms. Dawson was referred-to with male pronouns in the report of the occurrence on June 18, 2010, it amounted to discrimination on the basis of sex. Notwithstanding that her legal name was Jeffrey, she advised the officers that she was a transsexual female and was not treated as such.

I suppose C-16 will now allow this to be called discrimination on the basis of gender, not sex. Whatever.

I wonder if it's a hate crime in Canada to claim that the problem of misgendering is not a crime and "an absurd farce". Be careful what you post :)

Also that quote is about police misconduct, not criminal charges.

Also, I fail to see how providing a few links as context for the GPs last paragraph as the P requested should elicit such a rude and threatening response from you.

So if I oppose all Religion, if I believe All Religion is a threat to the safety, security, and mental health of people. If I believe indoctrinating children into any religion to be a form of child abuse. And I wish to give a talk, or wish to write a book on said subject, you believe I should be barred from speaking or publishing said book in Canada as "hate speech"

In this circumstance I think it would come down to tone, and perceived intent. If you were to march with hateful picket signs screaming obscenities in front of a church on Sunday you might be asked to leave by the police for reasons besides hate speech.

First, you'll likely be confronted by people passing by who think you're being an asshole.

If you were renting a hall, or holding a speech at a university about your researched theories on why we should change something in our society or petitioning government and other social groups, you wouldn't have a problem (except maybe personal. Fundamentalist/Evangelist groups can get as bad here as in the US)

That said, this particular case doesn't have much to do with hate speech and other areas where a clear difference can be seen between US and Canadian law. There are cases in the US where a publisher has been penalized simply for linking to infringed intellectual property -- notably https://w2.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20020703_eff_2600... -- and that takes away a lot of our moral authority to criticize Canada for misguided decisions like this one. If 2600 Magazine were Canadian, we would certainly have brought our own legal pressure to bear against your country to try to force you to comply with our IP laws.

it is this difference in definitions of protected speech that causes people from the US to attack Canada for the current state of free speech, I think.

Section 1 of the Charter outlines that these Rights and Freedoms may have reasonable limits placed upon them in accordance with the principles of a free and democratic society.

This alone - reading each constitution - demonstrates the fundamental difference in approach that each country's legal system takes to its freedoms.

I think your takeaway is quite true. Personally, I don't think we've yet resolved which approach is better, though as you can probably tell by my other comments I'm leaning toward Canada's. That's open to change, but not yet.

Is there precedent for ordering ISPs to block a domain like this in Canada? I note that we've always been able to access sites like pirate bay.

Regressive is an interesting choice of wording. Freedoms, as always, are relative -- the classic your right to swing your fist ends at my nose sort of thing. Canada has progressive notions of free speech that fully enables the overwhelming majority of speech, encoded in Charter of Rights. But just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, or threaten the president, you can't incite hate in Canada. Most people would call demanding the right to incite hate deeply regressive, and indeed, it is the most regressive who need that protection.

Please stop with that

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

>or threaten the president,

Actually you can, the Secret Service will investigate to determine if it a "True Threat" but the number of people actually prosecuted for threatening the president is exceeding low, don't confuse the Secret Service Investigation with a suppression of speech.

>Most people would call demanding the right to incite hate deeply regressive, and indeed, it is the most regressive who need that protection.

Speech that is popular and not offensive does not need protection int eh first place

This is example comes from dubious (in terms of it's accuracy in reflecting even the then-current state of Constitutional law) dicta in a since-overturned case upholding suppression of core political speech.

Utterly irrelevant, though this is the copy/paste regurgitated reply whenever it's mentioned.

Go yell fire in a theater right now. You will be hit with a variety of fun charges. Just as you have absolutely no right to announce threats against other persons, most defended being the president or any other politician.

All speech has limits.

Because speech has worldly consequences.

Most likely, you'll just be thrown out of the theater.

If you actually dircectly provoke a riot by doing that, then you'll be subject to criminal sanction. Without inciting imminent lawless action, it's protected speech.

> All speech has limits.

Free speech has limits, but the “fire in a crowded theater” example (and the “clear and present danger” rule it came along with) is not an valid example of the limits (or the operative rule).

edit: More extensive discussion in this comment and its follow-ups: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14657979

So a government can censor a website worldwide because the company can't provide a law saying it's illegal for them to self-censor?

In the US, with the murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and subsequent acquittals occurring at an alarming rate with increasing public outrage, it might be only a matter of time before a court somewhere rules in the favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a particular murder off the Internet on the grounds that his or her constitutional rights being violated (i.e inability to find employment, friendship, etc), and companies such as Google being forced to comply with the court's rulings.

Which in the context of "murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and subsequent acquittals" sounds bad, because it's possibly against your concept of justice, but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims are leveled on a person and this is high in many search results, or people are defamed through libel and the jurisdiction doesn't allow allow for a legal remedy?

I mean, if I seed the internet with 20 SEO optimized sites about how you're a murdering rapist, should Google's right to keep that in results be defended? Freedom of speech is complicated, and not absolute in the United States. We have laws for libel and slander to prevent just this sort of thing, and I don't usually see those being called a bad idea. Perhaps that should be an indication that this issue isn't as black and white as it's often portrayed, and deserves a more moderate, considered solution.

You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record. The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU.

So your assertion is that no baseless claim can make it to court only to be defeated or dismissed later and become part of the public record?

> The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU.

That's one potential danger. Let's not lose sight of other potential dangers just because we're focused on one that's getting a lot of attention in the moment.

What the judge did (which I agree was despicable) and what the DA did (which doesn't matter) has no bearing on whether or not there will be a re-trial in 4 months. Cosby will appeal if he's convicted so from that point of view you could skip the trial entirely, his best bet is that he may be found not guilty.

False allegations are common enough that allegations shouldn't be reported until proven, but they are.

Off search engines, not the internet.

In my opinion it should.

It makes much more sense to fight the actual source of the offending content, those 20 SEO optimized sites containing false information or the company that counterfeits those products (in Google's case). By forcing Google to alter its index you're shooting the messenger and wrongfully consider the problem solved.

If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder, and understandably and justifiably would not want Google (or anyone else) to portray otherwise.

Having an unbiased conduit is essential for the truth else the conduit for nearly all information in the world will say only what people with money and influence say is correct.

Having bad people say damaging untrue things is a necessary cost we must be willing to bear in order to have a truly free internet.

The right to be forgotten is a cure worse than the disease.

Is it? It's not a necessary thing that we must be willing to bear to have freedom of speech in the United States (if you believe we have freedom of speech in the United States). We have libel and slander laws, and other exceptions. I don't see people shouting those down often. Do you believe those should not exist? If not, what makes the internet different?

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

Right now if you google my name, there's a forum out there that says I'm a child molester based on zero evidence, and the only reason it's up is because I am following my legal requirements as a website operator per the ToU to not release personally identifying information on one of my users. I've talked to attorneys about it, but the consensus is that I'd need at least $30k to chase the guy down, with no guarantee of a return at the end, and that in the meantime harassment from this guy would get worse.

So maybe people saying damaging untrue things is a necessary cost for freedom of speech, but it's sure as hell a pain in the ass if you're on the wrong side of it.

The latter part is true, the former part is less so; you can use John/Jane Doe lawsuits and then subpoena third parties to discover the specific identities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_subpoena

If they were reluctant their host might well be willing to drop them to avoid being dragged into it.

YOU can probably avoid thousands of dollars in costs by doing a bit of legwork they probably aren't as lucky.

As far as the host, the problem turns into the same one as the IP enforcement has: Kill one head, and two more appear. My slanderer appears to not have a job, so it's no problem for him to keep moving on and getting new hosting. And for the next host he lands on, I've made myself a real target of that website.

Half the time I feel like this is a real problem with UBI proposals -- if we let people have free time all day, a certain fraction is going to waste it with libel or gamergate or SJW stuff, where the people who actually do something with their lives get attacked for no apparent reason. Like, I'm a huge fan of UBI, but without social support for self-worth outside of paid work, it's going to create a whole new set of social problems. Still a more tractable problem than poverty, I'd hope.

That is not the case. You are describing "found innocent." "Not guilty" is just that: the absence of having been found guilty of a crime.

In other words, legally that person has not been found to be guilty of murder, but they also have not been found to have not committed murder. Nothing has been found one way or the other.

In America, we find people not guilty. We also uphold the innocent until proven guilty thing. Perhaps your jurisdiction is different?

If they are not found guilty, the presumption is innocence.

This has legal ramifications in the civil justice system (the one where somebody sues another), where the barrier of judgment is a "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

OJ Simpson escaped a murder charge with a verdict of not guilty, but was found in civil court to have committed the tort of "wrongful death", and had to pay a lot of money (civil court cannot jail you).

Does anyone really think OJ Simpson was actually innocent?

People who have not yet been found guilty are presumed to be innocent. You are absolutely correct. However, the statement I disagreed with was different. It was "If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder." Legally, that person is presumed innocent, like everyone else, but being found not guilty grants no special "definitely didn't commit murder" status.

Yes, this sounds bad for the internet in many ways. One recent particular case comes to mind of this guy who is suing Encyclopedia Dramatica (a 4-chan style wiki with a satirical and intentionally humorous backstory for most internet memes). The banner on top of their site asking for donations for a legal battle now says:

>> "JONATHAN MONSARRAT FILED A SLAPP SUIT AGAINST US. "

SLAPP = https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public...

This is a guy who had a profile on the wiki because he was internet famous setting up a fake dating site while a student at MIT in order to get preference to message all girls who signed up. He was investigated for harassing girls. http://hlrecord.org/2003/04/dating-service-creator-accused-o...

He's also a known lawsuit troll who is trying to repair his name in search engines via DMCA claims and lawsuits. He has also sued online commenters who spoke ill about him: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130608/08444123372/jonat...

More about the latest lawsuit here: http://theralphretort.com/encyclopedia-dramatica-in-danger-o...

This just offers people like him another outlet to waste peoples time in court.

But in practice the Streisand Effect has the opposite effect of actually helping him protect his name so I really wonder what practical benefits this really provides anyone.

It seems like there are far more illegitimate reasons for this to be used than good ones. And considering there is no automated way to filter these I'm much more inclined to say there should NOT be a centrally controlled way to remove things from being listed on Google in this way.

Even with this particular court case if a business moves away or shuts down then Google's algorithms will eventually downgrade the ranking of the companies presence online in relation to that location. If they want a global presence then it's up to them to outrank other sites by getting press or for Google to properly flesh out the better sites.

This is a problem that is obviously better solved by Google's engineers than the courts.

"Murder is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought."

So if they are found innocent, it wasn't Murder thus the scenario your suggesting is not valid. The principle of Innocent until Provent Guilty still applies and is a fundamental tenant of American law.

The original comment stated a murderer (alleged in this case) is tried and found innocent of Murder by a court of law and then, due to this ruling, may take down information to the extent it defames them.

My point was that if a Judge/Jury acquited the alleged murderer, then they are, by definition, not guilty of murder.

Of course, it's rarely that black and white, i.e. OJ Simpson or someone getting off on a technicality, but since were discussing this at a high and abstract level, the alleged murderer should not be considered and treated as a murderer.

Furthermore, my second point was that everyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and be innocent until proven guilty. The fictitious person in question should never have been called a murderer in the first place, just an alleged murder.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/06/global-internet-takedown-...

https://www.eff.org/cases/google-v-equustek

"Such a broad injunction sets a dangerous precedent, especially given that it is likely to conflict with the laws of other nations."

Well that's terrifying.

> So Equustek obtained a further injunction from the court ordering Google to remove the websites from its global search results.

> Google appealed and argued it was not a real party to the dispute, and that a global injunction would violate freedom of expression.

Google didn't object in principle to removing the listings from google.ca but did object to removing them from the the main site results. What does that mean, there's actually no objection in principle but there's enough technical challenge or cost to modifying the global results that they're willing to fight it in court?

1. If you are a company based in and operating as a legal entity in Country X, the laws of Country X apply to your business as a whole, including services you offer in Country Y and Country Z.

2. If you are a company based in and operating as a legal entity in Country X but are offering services in Country Y, the laws of Country Y apply only to the services you offer in that Country Y.

All of this can then get mushy and complicated based on international governing bodies, multinational trade agreements and nation-state soft power but absent those constraints, I believe this holds.

The Iran example is due to political trade embargos, which apply not only unilaterally to all companies but are also often a part of international trade agreements via NATO, the UN, and the EU. It's a very different nature than the CA ruling in this case.

The second example, they can't actually pass that law. They can have requirements that companies must comply with to get/keep government contracts, but that is very different because the company can stay in the US and simply not try to win a contract.

https://www.google.com/search?q=datalink+gw1000

https://yandex.ru/search/?text=datalink+gw1000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Service_for_Supervisio...

I'm not even sure if what I posted makes much sense, I was somehow stuck in the context of using alternative search engines to evade censorship and figured that parent suggests that these links may have something to do with it.

That precise argument may be well-intentioned, but it threatens free speech because it sets a precedent placing a burden of acceptable effects and results of free speech.

In other words, should Tiamen Square be de-indexed globally because free speech in China does not require it. Should torrent trackers be de-indexed--free speech does not require illegal file sharing, after all? What about bit torrent clients? Tor browser?

This site may or may not be rightfully de-indexed, but it is not because of some limitations of free speech.

edit: Nevermind, I misread. There is no fraud or impersonation occurring.

"Equustek Solutions based in Burnaby B.C., which manufacturers networking technology. Equustek had successfully sued another company for relabelling its products and passing them off as their own."

When the evil corp lost in Canada, it moved out of the country and continued the same practice.

Frankly, I'm disappointed in Google for fighting this in the first place. SMH. Imagine if this were Apple rebranding Samsung Galaxies as Apple devices. Of course Google should remove those product listings.

This case is much more complicated however. It's two business partners who had a falling out and both tried to put each other out of business. The marketing guy kept their own brand and customer base while the tech guy tried to rebrand and sell his products on his own. The marketing guy hired an engineer to make a new product that does the same function. The tech guy accuses him of copying his technology.

http://robertfleminglawyers.com/pdf/2012_BCSC_1490_Equustek_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_passing_off#Reverse_pa...

Otherwise you might have uncrawled, but indexed entries in search results, if a URL is popular for some reason (linked somewhere else etc.)

See https://youtu.be/KBdEwpRQRD0

> You can prevent a page from appearing in Google Search by including a noindex meta tag in the page's HTML code. When Googlebot next crawls that page, Googlebot will see the noindex meta tag and will drop that page entirely from Google Search results, regardless of whether other sites link to it.

> Important! For the noindex meta tag to be effective, the page must not be blocked by a robots.txt file. If the page is blocked by a robots.txt file, the crawler will never see the noindex tag, and the page can still appear in search results, for example if other pages link to it.

And just to clarify, this article was about Equustek obtaining a further injunction from the court ordering Google to remove the websites from its global search results.

Assuming this is the case, is it fair to force one company to expend the effort altering their search results when others don't have to? Did Google do anything wrong that Microsoft (Bing) or Yahoo didn't?

My journalism teacher used to say that legally speaking, there is no such thing as free speech here.

Either way, I'm sure the Supreme Court has considered this.

In the US speech is one area where the courts (sometimes) enforce abstract ideals over justice over the needs of the state and the demands of law enforcement.

Should everyone get a chance to vote for choosing it? Should we decide based on population of respective countries? Or do a one-country-one-vote thing? Maybe one dollar of GDP, one vote? Why should Chinese commercial law have any bearing on a trade dispute between Honduras, Belgium, and Spain?

There is absolutely no "International community" involved in this process. It's a private settlement between directly affected parties.

These agreements also tend to be incredibly undemocratic, and are often hilariously hostile to the interests of the constituents of said governments. Be careful what you wish for - what you'll get is less like the European Union, and more like the TPP.

Something like this has existed since league of nations days. The model appears to be a convention which individual states accept and pass into their national laws, and then a tribunal to adjudicate on disputes about the terms of the convention - so the tribunal only sees a small number of cases. Not routine stuff.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03195054

This page lists some of the adjudications.

A new court for the issue on display here would require a bunch of countries to get together and agree on a common set of standards for free speech, and that seems unworkable at present. The US and Europe don't even see eye-to-eye here, never mind the US and the Middle East (blasphemy laws), or Russia (LGBT material is "degeneracy"), or China (criticism of the Party).

Can I buy google ads pointing to those blocked websites?

I'm not sure that phrase means what you think it does... Or perhaps you simply misunderstand what Google does?

If I were to file a complaint on the site about how someone named "djrogers" is a condescending jerk on HN that broke into my house and stole my wallet, that complaint would be posted on the site within minutes with no fact checking, and then Google would rank it almost instantly at the top of their results for "djrogers". One day you might Google your username and see this complaint in the #1 position, and you would probably contact the site saying that this is absolutely false. The site's owner, Ed Magedson, would personally respond essentially saying that he has been sued many times, that he has always won, and that the report isn't going anywhere...unless you pay thousands of dollars (allegedly the fees go to "investigate" the veracity of the claims in the report, after which it will be amended or removed if found to be entirely false - but only if you pay). He will make extensive reference specifically to how well his site ranks in Google, with the implied threat that if you do not pay, anyone who Googles your name will see this defamatory information (which they will).

When you know that you are assisting in the commission of a crime, you are aiding and abetting.

[1] https://moz.com/blog/the-anatomy-of-a-ripoff-report-lawsuit

What are you actually suggesting?