In Google's Omnipotence, Internet defamation on November 4, 2013 at 1:57 pm
NOTE: I am not an attorney, so do not act or refrain from acting on anything herein without first consulting an attorney. However, I do know right from wrong, and I know that Google’s refusal to remove defamatory search results in order to sell more AdWords is very, very wrong.

Respectfully submitted,
Michael Roberts
Internet Victim’s Advocate, Forensic Analyst and Litigation Support Consultant
Licensed Private Investigator # 3589109
Journalist # A 10450 LAPC

Suppress Defamatory Search Results– Simply enter the search phrases that display unfavorable results in Google Search and choose your country:


New Legal Theory on Google’s Liability for Defamation:

Google claims it is immune to defamation liability in the USA due to Section 230C of the Communications Decency Act. I humbly submit that there is an Achilles Heel within that law for Google, and it is all about the definition of the word “INFORMATION”, as it is used in the 230C law.

Below is my respectful suggestions for any USA residents who are being defamed by Google. Non-USA residents can also sample the text and use it to demolish any defenses Google may have for “innocent dissemination”, which they often use in Common Law countries, such as Australia & The UK.

This is an open source work, feel free to use it as you see fit, you do not need to give me any credit, although a back link would be appreciated. Respectful and constructive suggestions and criticisms are welcomed.

If you are a lawyer, I would assume you can improve on this unartful attempt on my part to bridle this silicon valley Giant. I would appreciate it if you sent me your improvements so this post can improve in quality over time.

Important Legal Disclaimer:

  1. Google, Inc. (“Google”) is an Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), and is a California corporation that does business internationally, including (insert your jurisdiction).
  2. “DON’T BE EVIL” was or is Google’s unofficial corporate motto.
  3. Google has demonstrated clear market share domination of for searches conducted on the Internet in the United States and beyond.
  4. A Google Rich Snippet construct  (“Google Snippet Construct”) is displayed along with nine (9)[1] additional and diverse Google Snippet Constructs on any given Google Search Results Page (“GSRP”)
  5.  A Google Snippet Construct is a small extract from information provided by another information content provider.
  6.  Furthermore, a Google Snippet Construct is published by Google on a GSRP; usually as two lines of text.
  7. A Google Snippet Construct is extracted either (a) arbitrarily and/or (b) algorithmically extracted, out of the fuller context, from information provided by another information content provider.
  8. A Google Snippet Construct is reconstituted on a GSRP at Google’s sole discretion and control.
  9. A single Google Snippet Construct as presented in a GSRP with the nine (9) other aforementioned Google Snippet Constructs is a new context because of the absence of all balance of the original ‘information’, and because of the introduction of the nine (9) other Google Snippet Constructs.
  10. Google Snippet Construct constitutes new information because the reconstruction process is attributed entirely to Google which “is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of [this new] information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service”.[2]
  11. Google’s presumed immunity to liability for defamation pursuant to part (C) of §230 of the U.S Communications Decency Act (“§230”) does not apply because §230(c)(1)’s contextual reference to “information” as literally defined by the Miriam Webster dictionary is: “Something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture), which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct.”[3]
  12. The legislative intent of §230(c) is to ensure that an ISP is not held liable on account of—:”any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
  13. The United States Congress’ clear intent for §230(c) is evidenced by the reference to the “Good Samaritan” character from Jesus Christ’s parable[4]of the same name in the section heading for §230(c) as follows:”Protection for ‘Good Samaritan’ blocking and screening of offensive material”
  14. The use of the quote punctuation for “Good Samaritan” in the heading for §230(c) was by the U.S Congress, the quote leaves no doubt as the Congresses intent because the biblical “Good Samaritan” did not turn his back on the victim of assault; furthermore, the character used his own financial resources to restore the victim.
  15. Google’s cookie-cutter template response, which denies good faith requests by injured parties for removal of obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected material, is clearly in diametric opposition to the intent of the Congress’ intent for the immunity provisions.
  16. Based on fact and belief, Google has received tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of requests from parties lightly, moderately and severely injured by the false, malicious and defamatory Google Snippet Constructs created or developed in whole or in part by Google and then provided through the Internet or [any] other interactive computer service[s]”.
  17. Numerous suicides have been attributed in whole or in part to Google’s creation of Snippet Constructs.
  18. Google has publicly indicated that Snippet Constructs have deficiencies:“Google tries to present users with the most useful and informative search results. The more information a search result snippet can provide, the easier it is for users to decide whether that page is relevant to their search.[5]
  19. Google’s humiliation algorithm is imperfect in that it cannot intuit moral intent through mathematical analysis, ergo,  by elevating inaccurate humiliating search results, Google is causing injury to the subjects of the inaccurate allegations in clear breach of established duty of care responsibilities.
  20. Google’s Search Engine Algorithm “ALGO” is secret and proprietary.
  21. Google does not publish the technical details of its ALGO for public, peer, academic or professional scrutiny, review or inspection.
  22. Based on fact and belief Google has made provisions in its ALGO which cause otherwise low Google Search Result Rankings (“GSRR”) for content containing demeaning or derogatory words or phrases which are found in close proximity to proper nouns such as an individual’s name or an organization’s name, trademark or brand (hereinafter referred to as “Humility Algorithm”).
  23. Snippet Constructs from Humility Algorithm search results have a tendency to display the demeaning or derogatory Humility Algorithm Keyword “Humility Modifiers” over snippets that contain less inflammatory keywords.
  24. Google benefits financially through advertising revenue as a result of the humiliation algorithm, at the expense of its defamation victims, because the elevation of defamatory results repulses Google users from the person or business they originally sought, and diverts them, in many instances, to the victim’s competitors by way of AdWords displayed next to the search results.

[1] Customarily ten results are displayed per page.

[2] As defined by §230(f)(3)

[3] Definition# 2.C(2) @ at the time of drafting.

Contact Michael Roberts

Michael Roberts Google+

  1. All below is against Google Terms and Conditions – however, they have not prosecuted the Google bully.

    Cyber harasser Black Hat SEO blasting, back-linking and anchor-tagging non-pornography families names 1000’s of times to pornography pictures and video’s of others. Some are key words of childabuse with illegal drugs used in the linking. Spent 24/7 for 4+ years contacting hosting company abuse depts around the world to remove name from content and us Google Removal Tools to delete from searches. (5) file boxes of documentation all printed out and scanned on flash drive in exhibits. Lost everything. Now PTSD. So bad, placed on ‘Safe At Home’ program through victim witness. Cc: Google security and legal with each attack over 4,000 times in (4) years. It’s always under 1000’s of different video’s with the F* world. Only other person with name was grandmother on east coast. Sometimes they used full and rare name. This only started after I won a Small Claims harassment case for $400.00. I found the person’s father was a Black Hat SEO blasting expert and taught his daughter who’s 50 years old now. Tried 3 TRO’s. Judges would not uphold permanent restraining orders as linking and blasting around world in other countries.

    I found from contacting hosting company abuse depts that I am not the only one. Families names are being blasted, anchor-tagged, linked en masses AND when there is NO pornography person with name.

    A Professor with rare name has been blasted, linked and abused for 6 years in SEO Deformation abuse. She’s been at her computer 20-60 hours a week (a 2nd job) cleaning it up.

    Hardest part is finding the hiding web site owners.

    We need help. I have not had a life out of Google SEO deformation abuse for (4) years. Since been unemployed and lost everything, I vowed to clear it up to save myself and family name from disgrace till my death. I’m exhausted.

    Now, I am making this very public with Sergey Brin Founder of Google’s name. Everyday, I publish my story with Sergey Brin’s name. If it’s OK for my name to be associated on Google with video’s and information no one with my name is associated – it’s LEGAL to associate Sergey Brin Founder of Google’s name withe the abuse I’ve endured due to Sergey Brin Google abuse.

    Everyday, posting my story. As I was contacting hosting company abuse departments finding 1000’s dealing with this.

    There is a court website who’s owner is opening up 100’s of other court websites with trashing peoples names on each of his court websites. I found he’s out of prison. So, you think all these court websites are popping up trashing your name with different website owners. However, they are ALL owned by ONE man out of prison and his brother.

  2. Google lets advertisers use the name of my business. My business name is 26 years old (before Google) They benefit fincancially for allowing on line business use the name of my company. I have complained to Google only to be tole my name is generic. My name is trademarked in Calif. as I have used it for so long. Calif. recongnizes these law. This act causes great harm to my reputation and pocket book. New law in Calif state that you cannot use the fictitious name of a local business. Does that help, no. I cannot afford a lawyer but if I could I would sue Google and Bing for hurting my business and misleading consumers. It is a wonderful feeling when I get a call from a mad consumer that thought they ordered from me because of the name confusion. Only to find out they got bad flowers or no flowers at all and they ordered from these online crooks hurting small businesses. This is so unfair to me and the public. But it is all about the all mighty dollar that Google and Bing need to survive. Well, some other peoople need to survice also, legally I might add.

Leave a Reply