Do search engines have the same First Amendment rights as the media?

[weegillis]

That is the first line of this article on GMSV:

Google-backed report claims First Amendment rights for search

[jxw]

Stating "that “algorithms are written by people” and therefore can not be truly objective" is similar to stating that news articles are written by people and can not be truly objective. A problem develops if Google in its search engine directs people to its own products or to sites using Google products or paying for placement. If a newspaper, in a front page article, hawks its own TV station or only cites those paying the newspaper, a similar problem develops. Google's search results currently designate which results are ads. If that were to change, or if Google is putting sites that purchase other Google products or merely pay a fee, at the top of the results without telling us, that may not be a first amendment right. There is no first amendment right to be deceptive. There is a difference between the many discussions in the past on WPW about whether Google results are relevant -- our subjective opinions about what should appear at the top of results versus Google's algorithm written by people -- and whether Google's results are actually manipulated. If manipulative search results were to become the general view of Google, that could be the downfall of Google.

[deepsand]

There is no first amendment right to be deceptive.

Setting aside the fact that our First Amendment applies only to actions by governmental agencies with respect to speech of a public nature, the veracity of speech is immaterial to whatever protection it might enjoy.

I.e., "free speech" means speech without regards to its truth value.

---------- Post added at 09:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 PM ----------

That is the first line of this article on GMSV:

Google-backed report claims First Amendment rights for search

Said link persists in yielding but a blank screen; ditto for http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv. And, blogs.siliconvalley.com repeatedly times out.

[weegillis]

I'm not getting on, either. Must be down.

[deepsand]

Is that the only available source?

[weegillis]

Well, I wonder how long it will take Mercury News to realize the GMSV is off the air?

Same story, different article found here:

http://allthingsd.com/20120510/googl..._editors_picks

[deepsand]

Same story, different article found here:

http://allthingsd.com/20120510/googl..._editors_picks

Having read that, it is obvious that said lawyer is deliberately blowing smoke, as I am certain that he knows that the First Amendment does not confer an automatic exemption from being held accountable for the consequences of ones speech, and that it is a long standing and well established legal principle here that the freedom to speak is tempered by the harm that it causes.

Such argument will not suffice to defend against charges of antitrust behavior and/or deceptive practices.

[weegillis]

I cannot see how Google can put themselves in the same group as the press. They neither look for/report news or the truth. They have zero editorial accountability, and with the recent evidence that's emerging, some of it in their own announcements, they are only too obviously putting their own interests ahead of their 'readers' in choosing to favor SERPs that benefit them most.

[deepsand]

Setting aside the fact that being part of the press does not grant one immunity from charges of antitrust behavior and/or deceptive practices, for Google to claim that it is rightfully exercising editorial control is to give up the claim that it is a common carrier, and thereby accept legal responsibility for all that it publishes.