+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/23/2018 03:13 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  5.008 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
05/05/2006 02:40 PM ID: 54203 Permalink   

Google Sued Over Child Porn


A lawmaker from New York yesterday filed a suit against Google Inc., accusing the company of profiting from illegal child pornography. Politician Jeffrey Toback says Google has paid links to child porn web sites.

The suit was filed in the Supreme Court in Mineola, and Toback states within it that “This case is about a multi-billion dollar company that promotes and profits from child pornography.” Google denied the claims.

In a statement, the company said: “When we find or are made aware of any child pornography, we remove it from our products, including our search engine. We also report it to the appropriate law enforcement officials…”

    WebReporter: NuttyPrat Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  And any chance  
this is a suit for many many millions, which if won will fo some reason go to him, or he will take a 40% cut from it. No this lawyer has only the good intentions of people using goodle at heart. Bull shit. Google doesnt show links to any site containing child porn UNLESS YOU SEARCH FOR IT. Maybe this lawyer should stop trying to search for it so much if his that effected? Or maybe he should dontate every cent he has to the foundations trying to rid the net of it, no instead he just wants to milk it for his own gain. Farking scum lawyers are. EX-RIAA lawyer any bet.
  by: ssxxxssssss   05/05/2006 02:59 PM     
  Everyone Just trying to make a quick buck!  
Lawyers themselves should be sued when they try on these cases.
  by: gauravihm   05/05/2006 05:23 PM     
If any of you bothered to read the story, maybe you wouldn't look like such dumbasses.

"The lawsuit does not seek specific monetary damages, but wants Google to prohibit "advertising relating to Web sites that display, market or otherwise provide illegal access to pornography.""
  by: vant   05/05/2006 05:36 PM     
You're an idiot.

Some ppl DO search for child porn on the internet... who'da thunk it? Yes, it's twisted but nonetheless... What are you suggesting that should be done about them or than measures already in place?

Hmmm... Here's a thought... maybe enact a law that would make promoting and profiting from child porn illegal... oh... wait... it's already been done.

No matter if a lawyer did profit from a lawsuit such as this... it would be a worthwhile cause and we should thank lawyers such as Mr. Toback for doing a good deed for society.
  by: ironic   05/05/2006 06:41 PM     
just like file sharing another one will pop up, you cant get rid of everything, google is doing the best they can
  by: groomsy     05/05/2006 07:19 PM     
Goole isnt the one putting ht links up. Spiders searh webpages for particular words in the meta tags of web pages. The information from the sipders is given to the major search engines like google, yahoo, msn and such.

Goolge just as the information on hwere to look. Theres a differane between a natural look up and a sponcerd look up. People pay money to have a spot in sponsered search, but The normal search is just whats reported form whats out on the web.

This will be shot down because the evidence will be turned back agaisnt the lawyer. But if this does go through, Im going to sue the makers of hte internet and everyone who uses it because.... anyone can look for child porn!

1 out of every 3 child porn sites are a trap by the FBI anyway to track IP addresses. ;)
  by: hunt3r   05/05/2006 10:04 PM     
If they actually contained child porn the FBI would be be committing a crime. ACtually they would be anyway as it is entrapment. If there wasnt actually any illegal content on the sites then the visitors have commited no crimes.
  by: Eidron   05/05/2006 11:32 PM     
  no way  
google, yahoo, altavista do not list child porn. I just went searching for it on a proxy and whent through 50 pages, it was all adault sites that matched the search terms
  by: KoKaNe   05/06/2006 01:12 AM     
  I for one  
Don't think anythings wrong with it. Its not any more unethical then normal porn. Just because the US has some illgoten misconception of age of consent in order to control the population doesn't mean the rest of the world has to adheir. The internet is global. Governments have no right to police it. It should also keep its nose out of social behavior.
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     05/06/2006 06:28 AM     
The FBI/police need to focus even more of their resources on busting people actually trying to find kids in chat rooms to meet them in person. Kudos to Dateline's segment the other night showing men being confronted after being caught red-handed trying to hook up with kids off the net. I'm not nearly as worried about people viewing illegal porn, I'm worried about kids actually being abducted, molested, killed, etc. These are where the predators are. Filling prisons with people distributing/acquiring child porn is a start, but let's go after the people who are spending their time trying to do real-life harm to kids.

Did anyone catch Nancy Grace testifying before congress about this? How stupid does this get? Is making a stand against child porn necessary?? Who isn't against it?
  by: caution2     05/06/2006 08:02 AM     
  Just a Thought  
Perhaps the whole grounds for the lawsuit began when the attorney was caught by his significant other while searching for illegal pornography. i personally have never encountered any form of illegal publication from google unless it was on purpose... next time lock the door dude.
  by: cptfarlow   05/06/2006 11:55 PM     
I don't think he can really do this. If the court is smart, they'll throw the case out due to lack of standing. Unless he can prove that google's listing of child pornography has cause him some undue stress or something. Now, an executive agency of the federal govt could file a suit.
  by: groovedaddy   05/07/2006 09:55 AM     
  @ Eidron  
I'm pretty sure they can, I've seen several sites shut down and people arrested by the fbi luring the lurers.
  by: anony-chan   05/07/2006 03:53 PM     
  Lawyer are just idiots....  
As an exampleI type in the words "CHILD PORN"
in the search field and only got pages
for warning people that child pornography is illegal.
The actual pornograhy has been filtered by google itself therefore it is impossible unless you key in the actual website.
Somebody told him a website to look in.
Even Myspace has been censcored!
  by: cavador   05/08/2006 08:58 AM     
TETSURU UZUKI... boning little kids is morally bereft in ANY culture or region. It's just sick man.. I understand some cultures allow their children to marry and copulate around the ages of 12, however these are traditions handed down from a time when the humans average life expectancy was very low.. so marrying @ 12 meant you could have a relatively long prosperous marraige... The other part is that most of those cultures marry the 12 year old girl off to a male of the same age or close to it. The pedophiles interested in porn are generally old sick f****.... like uzuki.
  by: Burnfactor77   05/08/2006 03:01 PM     
Entrapment yes, but these guys still fall for it. Dateline has some specials showing some guy going to a "girls" house for sex, only to be confronted by a guy asking quesitons. And followed by the police. Few of these guys were caught bringing booze and cigs. Some were caught with adult toys as gifts to these "girls".

Yea its entrapment cuz hte lil "girl" the guy is tlakin to is some person telling them to come ot this house. And peopel still fall for it... just sad.
  by: hunt3r   05/08/2006 08:14 PM     
  Age Of Consent  
Is universally 12. Any countries with a higher age of consent do so to constrict population growth. In fact, the only reason age of consent exists in the US is to control the number of teenage pregnancies. Since most teenage girls who want children go for older, more financially stable men. The age of 12 is even given to those of christian and muslim faiths as the age of which one can be held responsible for thier own actions. I find it funny you think its immoral to uphold the teaches of two of the widest spread faiths on the planet. Even the up and coming mormons know that the proper age of consent is 12. They only don't practice it because the government enforcers age of consent laws for population control. If you check the FBI's most wanted list they have a damn religous leader on the most wanted list for practicing such things as allowing teenagers to get married. The government should have no right to tread on the social fabric of others for any reason. Weither it be satanists having sex with goats, girls marrying at 12, or even a family who has incest orgies every tuesday. NONE OF ANYONES BUSINESS WHAT THEY DO. The end. I might just add I disapprove of pornogrophy. I however see peoples right to produce and view it. I also see NO DIFFERENCE between a 13 year old and an 80 year old performing in a sexual act. Also regarding marrying of similar age. Do some research this is certainly not the case. Even some U.S. Presidents would be considered pedophiles by today's standards.

Since your all brainwashed by american society just stick this into your brain.

Age of Consent = Population Control, Not Ethics or Morality.
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     05/09/2006 09:23 PM     
  Once again  
Just a simple way for lawyers to make a simple buck and run the big bosses into the ground..
I also wonder if they have proof that they (google) did all of the things listed.
  by: hershey_45654   05/14/2006 08:23 AM     
  Don't insult our intelligence  
They may not be seeking monetary gain, Start Quote:
"The lawsuit does not seek specific monetary damages, but wants Google to prohibit advertising relating to Web sites that display, market or otherwise provide illegal access to pornography."
End Quote:
They may not seek it but they sure do expect it, you can believe that. No lawyer does anything for free. NO LAWYER!
  by: NeonCity   05/14/2006 09:55 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: