US judge to rule if attorney general may investigate Google

While Google has cited free speech rights to avoid censoring search results, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood believes they are liable for the content they display.

|
Mark Lennihan
File - Attendees at the National Retail Federation listen to a discussion about Google Wallet, in New York.

Does Google help criminals by allowing its search engine to lead to pirated music or by having its autocomplete function suggest illegal activities?

Mississippi's attorney general suspects the company does and wants to investigate further, yet the Internet giant says companies aren't liable for what people say and do online.

The Mountain View, California-based company says Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood is infringing on its free speech rights. The company wants U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate to issue an injunction saying it doesn't have to answer a subpoena from Hood, and wants the judge to bar the attorney general from filing civil or criminal charges.

Lawyer Peter Neiman told Wingate during a three-hour hearing Friday that Hood, indirectly though his investigation, is trying to give states the power to filter the Internet.

"They're trying to cloak themselves in 'Let's make the Internet safer,'" Neiman said.

The Democratic attorney general, though, says Google profits off illegal activity through its own conduct.

The showdown between Google and Hood escalated last fall when Hood sent a 79-page subpoena to Google. That document demands the company produce information on whether Google is helping criminals by allowing its search engine to lead to pirated music, having its autocomplete function suggest illegal activities and sharing YouTube ad revenue with the makers of videos promoting illegal drug sales.

The judge said he will rule Feb. 24.

Google contends that Congress made it immune from Hood's investigation when it passed the Communications Decency Act in 1996. That law says Internet service providers aren't responsible for content provided by others. Neiman said everything Hood has cited is third-party content.

"There are real, concrete things that Google did to change its constitutionally protected editorial judgment to try to mollify the attorney general," he said, saying the company changed its autocomplete filter and began limiting ads on some YouTube videos.

Assistant Attorney General Doug Miracle said federal law does not make Google immune from investigation. The law might be a defense against a lawsuit, he said, but Hood has filed no such suit and is still trying to determine facts.

"They're asking the court to tell the attorney general he cannot investigate," Miracle told Wingate.

The state lawyer denied that Hood was "chilling" Google's speech rights.

"The only thing that would be chilled would be the attorney general's ability to enforce the consumer protection laws," Miracle said.

Google and supporters say Hood is part of a covert campaign by movie studios to use legal action to achieve enhanced piracy protection that Congress has rejected. Neiman pointed to a letter that Hood sent Google that was largely drafted by the Motion Picture Association of America, as well as the hiring of former Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore by the Digital Citizens Alliance, a nonprofit group funded by movie studios and other companies.

Miracle said that Neiman's discussion of the movie industry was a "real red herring" and said Hood was only working with crime victims.

"He's going to work with the people and the industries who are affected by the problem," Miracle said.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to US judge to rule if attorney general may investigate Google
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2015/0218/US-judge-to-rule-if-attorney-general-may-investigate-Google
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe