Digital Rights Groups Side With Google In Fight With Miss. AG

A high-profile court battle now underway between Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood and Google could affect the free speech rights of all Web users, a coalition of digital rights groups argues in court papers.

The organizations are asking U.S. District Court Judge Henry Wingate in Jackson, Miss., to prohibit Hood from enforcing a subpoena demanding a host of information from Google. Much of the information requested by Hood appears to relate to copyright infringement by outside companies, including those that appear in Google's search results.

“The issue before this court has ramifications far beyond the parties to this case,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Democracy & Technology and Public Knowledge and other watchdogs say in a friend-of-the-court brief filed last week.

They argue that forcing online service providers to address subpoenas like Hood's could result in such high expenses that intermediaries might stop offering interactive platforms.

“Requiring online service providers either to respond to subpoenas directed primarily at third-party conduct — or to engage in protracted and expensive litigation to challenge their propriety — could result in extraordinary costs for those providers,” the groups argue.

They say that even if large online service providers can absorb the expense, smaller ones might not be able to do so. “Smaller providers would ... likely either adopt the restrictions required to avoid such a burden, or leave the business altogether, depriving users of valuable platforms for speech. Either outcome would, in turn, chill the online speech of Internet users who communicate via these platforms,” the digital rights groups argue.

The court battle dates to late last year, when Google sought a restraining order that would prohibit Hood from enforcing a subpoena for “millions” of documents relating to the activity of outside companies.

Google said at the time that Hood had spent the last 18 months threatening to sue the company, or even prosecute it criminally, unless it blocks “objectionable” content. Hood's concerns appear to center on allegations that Google enables piracy through its search engine and also on YouTube. Google allegedly indexes sites where users can find infringing material and also allegedly enables users to upload infringing material on YouTube.

When Google didn't agree to block material, Hood retaliated by issuing an “enormously burdensome” subpoena, the company said in court papers.

Google argues that the federal Communications Decency Act immunizes intermediaries like itself from liability for making available content created by others.

Wingate counters that he's investigating whether Google has violated Mississippi's consumer protection law, which prohibits businesses from engaging in deceptive and unfair trade practices. He says that the material he requested “is directly related” to discovering whether Google violated Mississippi law, and that Google shouldn't be “the arbiter of whether its conduct violates state law.

An anti-piracy organization is backing Hood, arguing that Google isn't protected by federal law for material it creates — including its own ads, as well as its statements to consumers.

The digital rights groups side with Google, arguing that the federal Communications Decency Act is aimed ensuring “that Internet service providers could not be strong-armed, under threat of litigation, into taking down or blocking third-party content.”

“Congress sought to ensure that all Internet service providers -- large and small -- would have the benefit of a legal “safe zone” to encourage the development and widespread deployment of low-cost speech-facilitating technologies and services,” they say.

Wingate has scheduled a hearing for Feb. 13.

 

 

Next story loading loading..