Woman wins 12-year legal battle against Google
>"In dismissing the innocent dissemination defense, which required that the publisher be a subordinate distributor who did not know or ought not to have known that the matter was defamatory, the Court stated that the defamatory nature of the content was self-evident from an examination of it."
(extracted from <a href="https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/duffy-v-google-inc/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/duffy-v...</a>)<p>I am no fan of Google, but this seems bizarre to me, since it seems to imply that some human has to read every web page linked by Google. Even to suggest that Google must respond to every complaint of content on third party websites just cannot possibly scale.<p>On the other, there is a party that is responsible for the defamatory content, namely whatever web app had collected and posted the comments. The claimant should have pursued them, not Google.