Portfolio Court Orders for Personal Gain, I Wrote an Amicus

Google to remove them from appearing in search results. When people searched for “natural sapphire company. It’s not unusual to have to go back to google multiple times. For follow-up deletion requests due to the situations. I’ve describe above – content is move to new pages due to pagination. Portfolio google ignores some content because they don’t pay enough. Attention to infinity. Portfolio Scrolling and some of the worst. Sites deliberately move content to defy google’s removal actions. Because this is more than just a black-and-white case. Where some guy tried to forge court orders for personal gain. I wrote an amicus curiae brief to.

The judge, appealing for clemency. Because of the public interest in this case. And for the benefit of the many defamation victims who find it difficult to get help. Portfolio i have posted a copy of my brief here. In the amicus brief, i pointed. Out to the judge how elusive justice is for victims. Of defamation in this country. Portfolio In 1996, our legislature consciously provided. Liability protection in section 230 of the communications. Decency act for online publishers of content created. By third parties in order to allow those. Companies to earn more ‘money. some might argue that this immunity. For many online websites is contrary to many

Portfolio

Years of Traditional Portfolio Case Law in The Offline World,

Where publishers may have to assist victims of defamation in attempting to have content nullified or removed. Defamatory. but, this immunity for more profits (and to promote the growth of lawmakers consider regulations lawmakers now recognize that this situation must be correct. In a recent article published in usa today, senator mark warner presented a white paper of proposals for potential new regulations for technology companies. Portfolio In his white paper, warner suggests it’s time for lawmakers to remove some of the section 230 immunity for these companies in defamation cases. He also noted how victims repeatedly have to request referrals from companies like google in a “whack-a-mole” scenario, Portfolio how content is replicated, and how these companies are often slow to respond – which describes exactly what arnstein endured when he was.

Extremis:“currently, Portfolio the Onus Is on Victims

To comprehensively research and report this content to the platforms – which often take months to respond and are not subsequently obligated to proactively prevent the same content from being re-transmitted. In the future. Many victims describe a “love at first sight” situation. Portfolio Even if a victim has succeeded in obtaining a judgment against the user who created the offending content, the content in question in many cases will be re-uploaded by other users. »senator warner further suggests that these Hat this url was false and defamatory and should be removed, Portfolio ripoff report moved the content of the page to a new url

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.