Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Are Search Engine Results Protected Speech?
Search-engine results have become the lodestar of the Web for most users. Essentially any sort of knowledge, entertainment or other information is accessible via search-engine results. Whether the user constructs a narrowly-tailored query designed to exclude inapplicable results, or a broad search designed as an introduction to a given topic, the algorithmic apparatus fueling search engines will usually produce pertinent information. As a matter of fact, this article on search results was in part fueled by using results acquired from a search engine.
The seemingly ubiquitous presence of search-engine results within the milieu of Internet browsing has begun to implicate legal questions, including constitutional ones. With respect to search-engine results, whether they constitute protected speech under the First Amendment has become the foremost area of debate, both within courts and the legal academia. This question implicates axiomatic questions about the Free Speech Clause. Can “bits” of information generated by an algorithm ' an algorithm reflective of the subjective judgments of its designers ' constitute speech warranting the highest level of First Amendment protection? Is a search engine and the results it produces a “publisher” or “speaker” of content, and thus entitled to this protection, or is a search engine a mere “conduit” or “facilitator” of the speech of others, a role inapplicable to heightened free speech protections?
This article discusses these questions as well as the relevant cases on point, including a recent decision in the Southern District of New York holding that a search engine had the right to exclude certain types of content from its search results, two other decisions holding that search-engine results are protected speech, and the thought-provoking debate among legal academics on the topic.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?