Google brings internet free-speech battle to Supreme Court

Armed with the support of human rights and civil liberties organizations,Google is atthe Supreme Court of Canada on Tuesday to appeal a ruling it says poses a threat to freedom of expression and access to information both in Canada and around the world.

Google wants to overturn a Canadianruling it says could pave the way forcountries to use their courts to block worldwide access to any internet content they don't like.

According to documents filed by Google's legal team, a decision made by the B.C. Supreme Court effectively issues "a permanent, mandatory, worldwide injunctionintended to silence speech regarding the existence of publicly accessible websites on the internet."

Free speech groups are really, really concerned about this case, because of the precedent it sets- DinahPoKempner, general counsel for Human Rights Watch.

This all started with an intellectual property rights case in B.C.

The defendant acompany accused of stealing trade secrets from Burnaby, B.C.-based technology company Equustek was ordered to stop doing business online.

According to B.C. court documents, Google was not a party to the legal action, but had "voluntarily" complied with Equustek'srequest thatthe defendant's web pages be removed from internetsearches originating in Canada.

However, Equustek thenargued that because web sales are global in nature, Google should not only block the infringing company from appearing inweb search results on Google's Canadian domain, Google.ca, but Google sitesworldwide. The B.C. Supreme Court agreed and issued the order Google is now fighting in Canada's highest court.

• Googleordered by B.C. judge to blockwebsitefrom search results

Canada could set 'international law norm'

The concern, according to David Price, a lawyer for Google, "is the principle of whether a court in Canada can direct Google to take an action to delistsomething [including search results] in a manner that may not be consistent with the laws of other countries where Google does business."

In turn, if Canada helps to setan "international law norm" establishing thatglobal search removal orders are OK, Price saidother countries and courts "may seek to impose a delisting obligation on Google that would end up being effective in Canada that would not be based on Canadian conceptions of freedom of expression and the right to access information."

Issues of jurisdiction are "one of the earliest internet problems," said Tamir Israel, a staff lawyer with the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), who has been closely watching the case.

"Because [the internet]was this network that wasn't in any place at once, and was everywhere at once, it was one of the first challenges that was flagged. Like, how are laws, legal systems, which have always been territorial and based on physical territory, going to work on this medium?"

Rights groups intervene

Several high-profile rights organizations, includingHuman Rights Watch, the Canadian Civil Liberties Associationand theElectronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), have listed themselves as intervenorssupporting Google's case in the Supreme Court.

"Free speech groups are really, really concerned about this casebecause of the precedent it sets," saidDinahPoKempner, general counsel for Human Rights Watch.

"Courts are experimenting with this idea as a way to deal with the problem that the internet is transborder," PoKempner said. "In this case we have to be, I think, a bit deferential to the speech impact, the rights impact, and not simply to the problem of the individual intellectual property right holder."

• Googlemust respect 'right to be forgotten,' EU court says

That impact, according to a news release issued Monday by EFF, "censors Google search results for users everywhere" and "violates our rights to freely search the web without government interference."

"We've argued essentially that they should only be ordered [to delete search results] in the most extreme circumstances, where the rights at issue are so fundamental that they outweigh any concerns about free expression or the right to receive information," said Vera Ranieri, astaff attorney with EFF.

'Red herring' argument

Barry Sookman, a senior partner atMcCarthy Ttrault law firm specializing in technology, internet law and intellectual property, says raising the threat of globalimplications for freedom of speech is a "red herring."

"The nature of the alleged speech [in this case] is a websitepurely devoted to selling illegal goods," said Sookman, who is representing various music and publishing groups concerned with intellectual and cultural property protection as intervenors on the other side of the Google case.

"There could be a future case, with different facts, where the court would have to say, 'OK, is there some unnecessary interference with speech?'" he said. "But that's not this case."

But both Google and freedom of speech advocatessay the implications reach far beyond the specific details of thecase itself.

"The idea that just any country in the world can issue a global injunction is disturbing," saidPoKempner.

• Google hits global renewable energy goal in effort to curb pollution