Google is not responsible for making sure websites are free from defamatory content before displaying links to them, a top German court has ruled. The case was brought by two people seeking the right to be forgotten.
Image: picture-alliance/AP Photo/M. J. Sanchez
Advertisement
Germany's highest court for criminal and private law ruled on Tuesday that search engines such as Google do not have to examine websites accessed through their pages for offensive content.
Instead, the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe ruled the search engine operators can wait until "concrete evidence" of violations of law, such as child pornography or acts of violence, are reported.
Fighting for the internet: Social media, governments and tech companies
Germany has passed a new law on social media in 2017, despite complaints from social media companies worried about the impact on their business. But how far is too far? DW examines the trends.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/W. Kastl
Free speech or illegal content?
Whether hate speech, propaganda or activism, governments across the globe have upped efforts to curb content deemed illegal from circulating on social networks. From drawn-out court cases to blanket bans, DW examines how some countries try to stop the circulation of illicit content while others attempt to regulate social media.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/W. Kastl
Social media law
After a public debate in Germany, a new law on social media came into effect in October. The legislation imposes heavy fines on social media companies, such as Facebook, for failing to take down posts containing hate speech. Facebook and other social media companies have complained about the law, saying that harsh rules might lead to unnecessary censorship.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/T. Hase
Right to be forgotten
In 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled that European citizens had the right to request search engines, such as Google and Bing, remove "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive" search results linked to their name. Although Google has complied with the ruling, it has done so reluctantly, warning that it could make the internet as "free as the world's least free place."
Image: picture-alliance/ROPI/Eidon/Scavuzzo
Blanket ban
In May 2017, Ukraine imposed sanctions on Russian social media platforms and web services. The blanket ban affected millions of Ukrainian citizens, many of whom were anxious about their data. The move prompted young Ukrainians to protest on the streets, calling for the government to reinstate access to platforms that included VKontakte (VK), Russia's largest social network.
Image: picture-alliance/NurPhoto/Str
Safe Harbor
In 2015, the European Court of Justice ruled that Safe Harbor, a 15-year-old pact between the US and EU that allowed the transfer of personal data without prior approval, was effectively invalid. Austrian law student Max Schrems launched the legal proceedings against Facebook in response to revelations made by former US National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, Edward Snowden.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/J. Warnand
Regulation
In China, the use of social media is highly regulated by the government. Beijing has effectively blocked access to thousands of websites and platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest. Instead, China offers its citizens access to local social media platforms, such as Weibo and WeChat, which boast hundreds of millions of monthly users.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/Imaginechina/Da Qing
Twitter bans Russia-linked accounts
Many politicians and media outlets blame Russia's influence for Donald Trump's election victory in 2016. Moscow reportedly used Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Instagram to shape public opinion on key issues. In October 2017, Twitter suspended over 2,750 accounts due to alleged Russian propaganda. The platform also banned ads from RT (formerly Russia Today) and the Sputnik news agency.
Image: picture-alliance/AP Photo/M. Rourke
Facebook announces propaganda-linked tool
With social media under pressure for allowing alleged Russian meddling, Facebook announced a new project to combat such efforts in November 2017. The upcoming page will give users a chance to check if they "liked" or followed an alleged propaganda account on Facebook or Instagram. Meanwhile, Facebook has come under fire for not protecting user data in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Image: picture alliance/NurPhoto/J. Arriens
8 images1 | 8
The case was brought by two people who wanted Google to prevent its search engine from displaying links to websites where they were verbally attacked by other internet users. They wanted search filters set up to stop the websites with offensive information from appearing in future search results, data about the people who had posted the offending comments, and damages. They claimed Google was partly responsible for the violation of their rights.
However, the court upheld a lower court decision which had ruled in favor of Google. Presiding Judge Gregor Galke said that to compel Google and others to check every link would paralyze the service in practical terms. "A general responsibility to regulate is incompatible with the function of search engines," Galke ruled.
"Instituting a general duty to inspect the content would seriously call into question the business model of search engines, which lawmakers approved and which society wants," the court said in a statement. "Without the help of such search engines it would be impossible for individuals to get meaningful use out of the internet due to the unmanageable flood of data it contains."
A Google tabletImage: AFP/Getty Images/J. Samad
The right to be forgotten
In May 2014, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that search engines, such as Google and Microsoft's Bing, should erase on request from individuals inadequate, irrelevant and outdated information from web results appearing under searches for their names. This has become known as the right to be forgotten.
The first "right to be forgotten" case in the English courts reached the high court on Tuesday. It was brought by a claimant who was convicted of conspiracy to account falsely in the late 1990s and who wanted Google to remove results that mention his conviction, which is now spent — effectively ignored because of the amount of time since the offense.
Google's refusal to erase two links to newspaper articles which referred to the businessman's conviction led to Tuesday's hearing in London. That case continues and another "right to be forgotten" claim against Google is to be heard by the high court in March.
Google transparency report
According to Google's transparency report, it has received requests for the removal of more than 2.4 million links and complied with about 43 percent of them.
According to Google's report, individuals from France, Germany and the UK generated 51 percent of all the delisting appeals. Celebrities accounted for 41,213 takedown requests while 33,937 politicians and government officials appealed.
