Insider Chatter by Donna Bogatin

A non-lawyer who represents himself in a court of law has a fool for a client, the saying goes. What about non-lawyer bloggers who claim to “understand Internet law”?

In the latest tirade against an individual or organization who dares to take a stand against Google’s “unconventional” way of doing business, Nathan Weinberg, “Inside Google,” headlines by name-calling the Google accsuer “another idiot,” who doesn’t “understand Internet law.”

Presumably, then, Weinberg, himself, is an expert in “Internet law.” Surprising, given that so-called “Internet law” continues to challenge the top legal minds in courts and law shcools around the world. Court cases and ultimate decisions are, in fact, serving to SHAPE the law of the Web.

Weinberg’s legal credentials? Apparently NONE! His Blogger “profile” is of little use and there is no bio available at his blog. According to his “profile,” Weinberg is: 251 years old, male, Aries, year of the Rat, communications or media or journalist, NYC AND he has been wishing for someone to buy him “Radeon 9600 SE 128MB DDR Video Adapter,” since 2004!

Weinberg on the legal matter at hand, a lawsuit against Google in the United Kingdom, instigated by Brian Retkin: “I don’t know if Mr. Retkin is a scammer, but he is a moron.”

According to the UK Independent, Retkin has brought defamation proceedings against Google because the search engine directed users to Web pages contianing “deeply offensive and commercially damaging” material about his businesses. 

Weinberg weighs in with his legal opinion: “International law is clear that service providers are not repsonsible for the actions of their users in these sort of regards.” Actual lawyers are not so certain, though.

Weinberg is nevertheless firm: “Google has no responsibility for the entire Internet.” He even provides a prognosis for a dispostion of the case: “Retkin is in for a rude awakening when the court tells him tro go to hell.” Not a very judicial way to chaaracterize things!

What do lawyers actually say about the issue?

Lilian Edwards, Lecturer in Private Law, University of Edinburgh on “Defamation and the Internet: name Calling in Cyberspace” noted two “early” US cases “failed to settle in detail the issue of whether ISPs should have the benefit of an innocent dissemination defence; Cubby v CompuServe and Stratton Oakmont Inc. v Prodigy Services.”

John Dean, former counsel to both the President of the United States and the Judiciary Committee of the US House of Representatives, characterizes “defamation immunity on the Internet” as “an evolving body of law” that has been stretched beyond its limits.

Google itself is well aware that it does not operate under a truly blanket “safe harbor.” CEO Eric Schmidt in his legally mandated report to shareholders on the real legal risks the Google business model faces:

The laws relating to the liability of providers of online services are currently unsetteled both within the U.S. and abroad. Claims have been threatened and filed under both U.S. and foreign law for defamation, libel, invasion of privacy and other data protection claims, tort, unlawful activity, copyright or trademark infringement, or other theories basd on the nature and content of the material searched and the ads posted by our users, our products and services, or contrent generated by our users.

Compliance with these laws is complex and may impose significant additional costs on us.

CEO Schmidt is not an “idiot,” for exposing Google’s legal vulnerabilities, and neither is the U.K citizen using legal remedies available to him in a Google-centric world.

READ my exclusive interview with prosecutors of class action lawsuit against Google: YouTube Copyright Infringement Claims ‘tip of the iceberg’

ALSO: Google Health: Lambast Doctors, Sell Medical Ads

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN