Google's Tactics Result in Notice to Sue for Libel

Despite an agreement by Google to withdraw a number of allegedly defamatory postings from their Search Engines worldwide, dotWORLDS(www.dotworlds.net) claims their gestures are simply token and a continuation of their policy of obstruction and delay.

dotWORLDS believes that Google's refusal to fully address the subject of libel on its websites is a global problem and that there is little to stop the popular Search Engine from being hijacked by unscrupulous individuals for their own purposes.

Brian Retkin CEO of dotWORLDS says that Google has managed to defend its position by relying on the unique status of American law.

“The biggest obstacle that dotWORLDS will face is the court's grappling with Google's defence that it has no way to judge what is defamatory and that it cannot be in the position of having to make judicial judgments - which in the defamation area is notoriously difficult, even for a court to make," says Retkin. "This would be coupled with the preeminence of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech which is always given the benefit of the doubt in the USA and which has often proved to be a viable defence in Internet-related cases in recent years.”

With such uncertainty, dotWORLDS may find it hard to prevail, however dotWORLDS say they plan to fight this case from a new and different perspective and feel they can succeed where others have failed.

If dotWORLDS does succeed, the ramifications for Google could be immense. With up to 9 billion pages that would require proper scrutiny, Google could find themselves in need of much greater levels of staff and resources simply to ensure they stay on the right side of the law.

###

In stark contrast to what many see as a total disregard for the reputation of their users, Google vehemently protects their own privacy.   This was highlighted recently in a public relations fiasco after Google suddenly banned their staff from talking to CNet reporters for one year.  It transpired that the ban was Google’s punishment for CNet's "crime" of having published personal information on Dr Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO.  Unfortunately, there were red faces everywhere when it was pointed out that not only was the information already available in the public domain, but the same particulars on Dr Schmidt were also available on Google’s own websites.  

Google's over-reaction in this case was totally inconsistent with their handling of a man who had been falsely accused of being a paedophile by his wife, during their divorce hearing.   His name and photograph were posted on a police website and subsequently removed after the charges were dropped.  However, having picked up the "story", Google stubbornly refused to remove the pictures or postings they had published on their Search Engine.   According to Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum (WPF), the page remained accessible through Google and was only taken down after a long struggle.