Comments on: Leveson: the Internet Pops In http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2012/02/01/leveson-the-internet-pops-in/ A conversation. Mon, 21 May 2012 12:30:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Katy http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2012/02/01/leveson-the-internet-pops-in/#comment-377516 Katy Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:00:57 +0000 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/?p=15789#comment-377516 If you are interested in press freedom here is a great debate by Worldbytes, where volunteers consider the Counter Leveson Inquiry, a campaign launched by the online journal Spiked. Journalist Patrick Hayes challenges participants not to go along with the inquiry's dangerous assumptions. He argues that free speech and a free press with no 'buts' are essential for democracy. http://www.worldbytes.org/dont-shout-at-the-telly-the-leveson-inquiry/ If you are interested in press freedom here is a great debate by Worldbytes, where volunteers consider the Counter Leveson Inquiry, a campaign launched by the online journal Spiked. Journalist Patrick Hayes challenges participants not to go along with the inquiry’s dangerous assumptions. He argues that free speech and a free press with no ‘buts’ are essential for democracy.
http://www.worldbytes.org/dont-shout-at-the-telly-the-leveson-inquiry/

]]> By: Mike Perez http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2012/02/01/leveson-the-internet-pops-in/#comment-319198 Mike Perez Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:53:51 +0000 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/?p=15789#comment-319198 Is Google really being asked to police the internet? Surely all they are asked to do is obey the law, albeit in jurisdictions where, as you say, the law varies. Saying that Google is being asked to police the internet is a bit like saying I am asked to police the roads whenever I get in my car. The truth is I'm not. I'm asked to obey the law myself, not make other people obey the law. This is where the analogy with Google becomes clearer. No one would ask Google to stop illegal material being posted on the net. That would be unreasonable and Google anyway do not have the power. However things are less clear when Google reproduce illegal material on their own pages. For example linking the word "crook" with a French insurance company for which they were recently fined in France. Or, in the Mosley case, reproducing the illegal images on their own pages. Google's first line of defence is that their crawlers are robots and simply provide links on the basis of predetermined algorithms. That doesn't really work. It's a bit like me building a robot which goes out and kills someone then saying 'it wasn't me, it was my robot'. Google then go into the freedom of speech arguments which of course are very jurisdiction-dependent. I think we will find that the pressure will go on the search engines and service providers to see that text and images are not reproduced in places where they are illegal. This will likely start in the EU. You could see the beginnings of this in Ms Keller's uncomfortable meeting with the UK parliament's joint committee which is well worth watching on the relevant player. Is Google really being asked to police the internet? Surely all they are asked to do is obey the law, albeit in jurisdictions where, as you say, the law varies.

Saying that Google is being asked to police the internet is a bit like saying I am asked to police the roads whenever I get in my car. The truth is I’m not. I’m asked to obey the law myself, not make other people obey the law.

This is where the analogy with Google becomes clearer. No one would ask Google to stop illegal material being posted on the net. That would be unreasonable and Google anyway do not have the power.

However things are less clear when Google reproduce illegal material on their own pages. For example linking the word “crook” with a French insurance company for which they were recently fined in France. Or, in the Mosley case, reproducing the illegal images on their own pages.

Google’s first line of defence is that their crawlers are robots and simply provide links on the basis of predetermined algorithms. That doesn’t really work. It’s a bit like me building a robot which goes out and kills someone then saying ‘it wasn’t me, it was my robot’.

Google then go into the freedom of speech arguments which of course are very jurisdiction-dependent.

I think we will find that the pressure will go on the search engines and service providers to see that text and images are not reproduced in places where they are illegal. This will likely start in the EU.

You could see the beginnings of this in Ms Keller’s uncomfortable meeting with the UK parliament’s joint committee which is well worth watching on the relevant player.

]]>