Shulou(Shulou.com)11/24 Report--

Sina Technology News Beijing time on August 18 morning news, it is reported that on Wednesday, local time, the Australian Supreme Court overturned Google's website to provide a link to a controversial newspaper article suspected of defamation.

The Australian High Court panel of seven judges voted 5-2 to overturn an earlier ruling that the Alphabet subsidiary played the role of a "library" and played a role in publishing the controversial article. The court said the website did not play an active role.

The new ruling brings new confusion to a question Australia has been pondering for years: where is the responsibility for online libel? The country's years-long review of libel laws has yet to make final recommendations on whether large platforms such as Google and Meta's Facebook should be held responsible.

According to the published verdict, the case originated from a 2004 article in which a criminal defense lawyer crossed professional boundaries and became a "close friend" of criminals. The verdict said the lawyer, George Defteros, found a link to the story when he was searched by Google in 2016 and deleted it after 150 people viewed it.

Defteros filed a lawsuit in a state court, which found that Google was a publisher and ordered it to compensate the lawyer A $40,000 ($28056). Google appealed the verdict.

"the article was not written by any of the appellant's employees or agents," the two jury judges wrote in Wednesday's verdict. The appellant in this case is Google.

"the article was written by a reporter and has nothing to do with the appellant. It is published by an independent newspaper and the appellant does not have any control or influence over the newspaper."

They believe that Google "does not own or control the Internet".

A Google spokesman had no immediate comment.

Defteros said in a statement that the process was "long, expensive and stressful," but he felt he was right because the court held that although Google was not responsible, the article was defamatory.

Last year, the High Court held a newspaper publisher responsible for defamatory comments left at the bottom of an article it posted on Facebook.

In response, the judges said the difference between last year's Facebook case and Wednesday's case was that media companies "invited and encouraged comments" last year, while Google "did not provide a forum or place to communicate and did not encourage comments in response".

Welcome to subscribe "Shulou Technology Information " to get latest news, interesting things and hot topics in the IT industry, and controls the hottest and latest Internet news, technology news and IT industry trends.