main

N.Y. Politician Drops 'Porn' Lawsuit Against Google

Hurmoth   on 23 June 2006 - 18:09 · 28 comments & 14665 views

Advertisement (Why?)
A Long Island politician has dropped a federal lawsuit that had claimedthe search engine company Google Inc. profits from child pornography. Jeffrey Toback, a member of the Nassau County Legislature fromOceanside, filed suit in May claiming Google had "paid links" to Websites containing child pornography.

Toback said he dropped the lawsuit because "Google has offered to sitdown and discuss the issues." Google spokesman Steve Langdon said the MountainView, Calif.-based company was "pleased that the suit has been dismissedand believe it was completely without merit."

A formal notice ending the suit was filed Wednesday.

Toback, who has sponsored local legislation raising the age that teenagerscan legally buy cigarettes to 19 and limiting teens' access to tanning salons,said last month that he filed the lawsuit because oversight of Google wasbeyond the purview of county legislators.

View: Full Article @ FOXNews.com




Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 28 additional comments
(4 replies) #1 chisss on 23 Jun 2006 - 18:14
i wonder how that legislator found that out....
#1.1 Dead-Pixels on 23 Jun 2006 - 18:23
i was thinking that as well
#1.2 DarkRyu on 23 Jun 2006 - 20:58
As a legislator you act as a 'hub' for Law Enforcement and Citizens alike. That's how he found out. He wasn't actually looking for child porn for personal use.
#1.3 Julius Caro on 23 Jun 2006 - 21:32
Yeah, lol. Beeing google a monster that basically adds every thing to its database, you can expect some really bad things to be there. I'm sure they filter a lot of stuff too. It's hard for google considering they have to face different laws in different countries. In Spain for example, the anti terrorist law specifies that pro-terrorist websites (and linking to them) is totally illegal. I can't remember if that was only for ETA websites or for any terrorist website. But they talked about forcing google to filter those websites in spain.

Anyway, anybody who claims that google has links to child porn websites is because they have looked for them.
#1.4 Jugalator on 24 Jun 2006 - 00:43
"i wonder how that legislator found that out...."

By looking for child porn probably, in order to see if Google did something wrong.

Personally, this is one of those tough cases, regardless which search company does it.

It's hard to track down all these cases, in particular when they link to sites that may not be about child porn at first glance.
#2 TheGriffin on 23 Jun 2006 - 18:20
Probably was searching for porn on Google images and when he went to the full site it asked for $$$, he was ****ed and you know he thought he should do something about it
#3 Shadrack on 23 Jun 2006 - 18:24
Thank you Jeffrey Toback! You're super awesome!
#4 ahhell on 23 Jun 2006 - 18:25
The court system should sue him for wasting everyone's time.
(1 reply) #5 hotrod1 on 23 Jun 2006 - 18:38
Unfortunely it might seem like a waste of time but the only way big companies will listen now is if they are sued but do you think google would know if someone signed up for Adwords and listed a child porn site, there is just so many sites in Adwords that it would be impossible to track the content of every single website.
#5.1 Hurmoth on 23 Jun 2006 - 18:40
Absolutely correct!!! I'm glad someone is using their brain today
(5 replies) #6 yert* on 23 Jun 2006 - 19:09
raised leage age to buy cigarretes to 19? Tanning salons? Wtf. We are adults at 18, stop restricting us assholes.
#6.1 jwjw1 on 23 Jun 2006 - 20:40
thats got to be the biggest joke...you can join the Military and possibly be killed in a conflict...vote for your local moron politician....but you can't buy a mixed drink til the age of 21...and now they want to restrict you from buying cigerettes......
#6.2 Jugalator on 24 Jun 2006 - 00:45
And get a tan? lol

I agree; it's simple -- no special age-related laws past 18. There are those of course, but I think all of them should go.
#6.3 foxconn287 on 24 Jun 2006 - 03:42
how about we just ban ciggys
#6.4 StarSabers on 24 Jun 2006 - 14:08
18 != Adult if you == immature. Period.

The majority of 18 year olds are extremely immature, and they don't need to be classified as "adults" until at least past 21. Even then, half are still acting like fools.
#6.5 werejag on 25 Jun 2006 - 21:02
Quote - StarSabers said @ #6.4
18 != Adult if you == immature. Period.

The majority of 18 year olds are extremely immature, and they don't need to be classified as "adults" until at least past 21. Even then, half are still acting like fools.


most people are never adults if immaturity is a bench mark.
#7 jwjw1 on 23 Jun 2006 - 19:18
this moron politician must be getting close to re-election time..and just wanting some 'free' publicity....what google needs to do..is research this moron..and find all his hypocritical life styles.
(2 replies) #8 chisss on 23 Jun 2006 - 19:49
While it is true that it is impossible to track all the sites something should still be done about this matter. But suing a search engine company because the site ilovemypuppydog.com has child porn is just plain stupid... The court should go after them and not google who thought this site was about someone's puppy (this is an example I just invented, not actual facts)
These legislator's assholes should spend more time finding out why Mobil-Exxon made $31Million or Billion profits when supposedly there was no oil and not suing a search engine. I do agree child porn is ver very wrong but right now we need our priorities to get sorted again
#8.1 Jugalator on 24 Jun 2006 - 00:46
Imagine a world where politicians tried to get things better and be constructive.

Then they would've spent time thinking up a solution to this problem rather than formulating a lawsuit that of course won't help in the long run.
#8.2 werejag on 25 Jun 2006 - 21:05
Quote - Jugalator said @ #8.1
Imagine a world where politicians tried to get things better and be constructive.

Then they would've spent time thinking up a solution to this problem rather than formulating a lawsuit that of course won't help in the long run.


that kind of world has never and willl never happen. politicians only want to be re-elected by the public moronic majority.
(1 reply) #9 Magallanes on 23 Jun 2006 - 21:30
Politician and RIAA are not compatible with Internet. Why do they try to change internet even when they known that their attempts are futile?.

#9.1 Croquant on 25 Jun 2006 - 19:46
Becasue they're all control freeks, that's why.
They have no idea what's right for them, but they're more than happy to tell you what to do.
#10 Cyranthus on 23 Jun 2006 - 22:36
Quote -
Toback, who has sponsored local legislation raising the age that teenagers can legally buy cigarettes to 19 and limiting teens' access to tanning salons


that sentence cracks me up... :lol:
(3 replies) #11 SniperX on 24 Jun 2006 - 02:14
OK Times have changed since I was a youngster.... I'm confused over the "and limiting teens' access to tanning salons". What is the danger with tanning salons now?
#11.1 djurbino on 24 Jun 2006 - 03:56


Because those nubile teen girls go in there and get all tanned up and prance around in their g-strings and shake it in his face but won't let him touch ...



Every law is a confession.
#11.2 Blindsleeper on 24 Jun 2006 - 23:26
Quote - djurbino said @ #11.1
Because those nubile teen girls go in there and get all tanned up and prance around in their g-strings and shake it in his face but won't let him touch ...



Every law is a confession.


one of the best quotes ever imo
#11.3 Havin_it on 25 Jun 2006 - 01:03
Because teenagers are considered to have a poorly-balanced sense of priority, when it comes to matters such as "being a lovely crispy brown colour vs. not having skin cancer".

Skin cancer cases are rocketing in central Scotland, especially Glasgow (not a region blessed with fierce amounts of natural sunlight) because people are spending waaay too long in self-serve tanning salons with no real regulation. A bit of public awareness of the extreme risk of this practice would be preferable to legal censure, but in the real world it's a necessity to wield the law to prevent stupidity leading to tragedy.

/Sorry, a serious answer probably wasn't what you were after...
#12 Sheppard on 24 Jun 2006 - 04:55
Or in other words he knew he was fighting a losing battle, so he pulled out to save face. Moron.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)