DOCSLIB.ORG

Uva-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Uva-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Search engine freedom: on the implications of the right to freedom of expression for the legal governance of Web search engines van Hoboken, J.V.J. Publication date 2012 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): van Hoboken, J. V. J. (2012). Search engine freedom: on the implications of the right to freedom of expression for the legal governance of Web search engines. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:02 Oct 2021 References ‘2600’ 1985: 2600, ‘Seized!, August 1985, http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/2600/seized.txt. 28th International Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners' Conference 2006: 28th International Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners' Conference, ‘Resolution on Privacy Protection and Search Engines’, London, United Kingdom, 2 and 3 November 2006. Abbate 2000: Janet Abbate, Inventing the Internet, Cambridge/London: The MIT Press, 2000. Aikens 1996: G. Scott Aikens, ‘The democratization of Systems of Public Opinion Formation,’ International Symposium on Technology and Society, Technical Expertise and Public Decisions, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. American Library Association 1996: American Library Association, ‘Library Bill of Rights’, Adopted June 18, 1948, amended February 2, 1961, and January 23, 1980, inclusion of "age" reaffirmed January 23, 1996, by the ALA Council. Anderson 1975: David A. Anderson, ‘Libel and Press Self-Censorship’, 53 Texas Law Review 422, 1975. Anderson 2008: Nate Anderson, ‘Google relents, adds privacy link to Spartan homepage’, Ars Technica, 7 July 2008, http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/07/google-relents-adds-privacy-link-to-spartan-homepage.ars. Angelopoulos 2009: Christina Angelopoulos, ‘Filtering the Internet for Copyrighted Content in Europe’, IRIS-plus (Supplement to IRIS - Legal Observations of the European Audiovisual Observatory), 2009-4. Anklesaria et al. 1993: F. Anklesaria et al., ‘The Internet Gopher Protocol (a distributed document search and retrieval protocol)’, IETF, Request for Comments (RFC) 1436, March 1993, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1436. Ardia 2010: David S. Ardia, ‘Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act’, 43 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 373, 2010. Arnbak et al 1990: J.C. Arnbak, J.J. van Cuilenburg, E.J. Dommering, et al. , Verbinding en Onvlechting in de Communicatie, Een studie naar toekomstig overheidsbeleid voor de openbare elektronische informatievoorziening, Amsterdam: Otto Cramwinckel, 1990. Arnold 2010: Stephen E. Arnold, ‘Could Google Become the Semantic Web?’, Semantic Universe, 2010 Arnold et al 2011: Michael Arnold, Eric Darmon & Thierry Penard, ‘To Sponsor or Not to Sponsor: Sponsored SearchAuctions with Organic Links and Firm Dependent Click-Through Rates’, 1 June 2011, ftp://193.196.11.222/pub/zew- docs/veranstaltungen/ICT2011/Papers/Darmon.pdf Article 29 Working Party 2007: Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, ‘Opinion 4/2007 on the concept of personal data’, WP 148, 20 June 2007. Article 29 Working Party 2008: Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 1/2008 on data protection issues related to search engines, WP 148, Brussels, 4 April 2008. Asheim 1953: Lester Asheim, ‘Not Censorship but Selection’, Wilson Library Bulletin, September 1953. AT Internet 2011: AT Internet, ‘Baromètre des moteurs - Mars 2011’, 2011, http://www.atinternet.com/. Aula & Rodden (Google) 2009: Anne Aula & Kerry Rodden, ‘Eye-tracking studies: more than meets the eye’, The Official Google Blog, 6 February 2009, http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/eye-tracking-studies-more-than-meets.html; Auletta 2009: Ken Auletta, Googled: The End of the World As We Know It, New York: The Penguin Press, 2009. Baeza-Yates & Ribeiro-Neto 2011: Ricardo Baeza-Yates & Berthier Ribeiro-Neto, Modern Information Retrieval, The concepts and technology behind search, Second Edition, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2011. Baker 1989: C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Free Speech, New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Baker 1994: C. Edwin Baker, ‘Turner Broadcasting, Content-Based Regulation of Persons and Presses’, 1994 Supreme Court Review 57, 1994. Baker 2002: C. Edwin Baker, Media, Markets, and Democracy, Cambridge (U.K.): Cambridge University Press, 2002. Baker 2009a: C. Edwin Baker, ‘The Future of News Part One’, 21 January 2009, Balkinization, http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/01/future-of-news-part-one-problem.html. 357 Baker 2009b: C. Edwin Baker, ‘The Future of News Part Two’, 22 January 2009, Balkinization, http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/01/future-of-news-part-two-solutions.html. Baker (Google) 2010: Steven Baker, ‘Helping computers understand language’, The Official Google Blog, 19 January 2010, http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/helping-computers-understand-language.html. Baldwin & Cave 1999: Robert Baldwin & Martin Cave, Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy and Practice, Oxford University Press, 1999. Balkin 1990: Jack M. Balkin, ‘Some Realism about Pluralism. Legal Realist Approaches to the First Amendment’, 1990 Duke L.aw Journal 375, 1990. Balkin 2004: Jack M. Balkin, ‘Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society’, 79 New York University Law Review 1, 2004. Bambauer forthcoming 2011: Derek E. Bambauer, ‘Orwell's Armchair’, University of Chicago Law Review, Forthcoming 2011. Barbaro & Zeller 2006: Michael Barbaro & Tom Zeller jr., ‘A Face Is Exposed for AOL Searcher No. 4417749’, The New York Times, 9 August 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html. Barendt 2005: Eric Barendt, Freedom of Speech, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2005. Barlow 1996: John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, Davos, Switzerland, February 8, 1996. Barron 1993: Jarome A. Barron, ‘The Telco, The Common Carrier Model and the First Amendment – The “Dial-A-Porn” Precedent, 19 Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal 371, 1993 Barron 1996: Jerome A. Barron, ‘Access to the Press. A New First Amendment Right’, 80 Harvard Law Review 1641, 1967. Bar-Ilan 2007: Judit Bar-Ilan, ‘Position Paper: Access to Query Logs – An Academic Researcher’s Point of View’, WWW 2007, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.104.1866&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Bartz 2011: Diane Bartz, ‘FTC, Justice Dept mull Google antitrust probe’, Reuters, 5 April 2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/05/us-google-ftc-idUSTRE7340L520110405. Bass 1969: Abraham A. Bass, ‘Redefining the 'gatekeeper' concept: a U.N. Radio case study’, 46 Journalism Quarterly 59, 1969. Battelle 2006: John Battelle, The Search. How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture, New York: Portfolio, 2006. Battelle 2010: John Battelle, The Database of Intentions is Much Larger Than I Thought’, John Battelle’s Search Blog, 5 March 2010, http://battellemedia.com/archives/2010/03/the_database_of_intentions_is_far_larger_than_i_thought.php. BBC 2010: BBC, ‘Nobel: China Blocks Foreign Websites Ahead of Ceremony’, 9 December 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11962520. Benjamin et al 2006: Stuart M. Benjamin et al., Telecommunications Law and Policy, Durham (NC): Carolina Academic Press, 2006. Benkler 2000: Yochai Benkler, ‘From Consumers to Users: Shifting the Deeper Structures of Regulation Toward Sustainable Common and User Access’, 52 Federal Communications Law Journal 561, 2000. Benkler 2001: Yochai Benkler ‘Siren Songs and Amish Children: Autonomy, Information, and Law’, 76 New York University Law Review 23, 2001. Benkler 2006: Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks - How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006. Benkler 2011: Yochai Benkler, ‘A Free Irresponsible Press: Wikileaks and the Battle over the Soul of the Networked Fourth Estate’, Harvard Civil Rights - Civil Liberties Law Review, Spring 2011. Berlin 2002: Isaiah Berlin, ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, in: I. Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty, London: Oxford University Press, 2002. Berlin Group 2006: Berlin Group, ‘Common Position on Data Protection and search engines on the Internet’, Hong Kong, 15 April 1998, updated Washington D.C ., 6-7 April 2006. Berman & Weizner 1995: Jerry Berman & Daniel J. Weitzner, ‘Abundance and User Control: Renewing the Democratic Heart of the First Amendment in the Age of Interactive Media’, 104 Yale Law Journal 1619, 1995. 358 Bermejo 2007: Fernando Bermejo, The Internet Audience, Constitution and Measurement, New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Berners-Lee & Cailliau 1990:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amazon's Antitrust Paradox
    LINA M. KHAN Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox abstract. Amazon is the titan of twenty-first century commerce. In addition to being a re- tailer, it is now a marketing platform, a delivery and logistics network, a payment service, a credit lender, an auction house, a major book publisher, a producer of television and films, a fashion designer, a hardware manufacturer, and a leading host of cloud server space. Although Amazon has clocked staggering growth, it generates meager profits, choosing to price below-cost and ex- pand widely instead. Through this strategy, the company has positioned itself at the center of e- commerce and now serves as essential infrastructure for a host of other businesses that depend upon it. Elements of the firm’s structure and conduct pose anticompetitive concerns—yet it has escaped antitrust scrutiny. This Note argues that the current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competi- tion to “consumer welfare,” defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the ar- chitecture of market power in the modern economy. We cannot cognize the potential harms to competition posed by Amazon’s dominance if we measure competition primarily through price and output. Specifically, current doctrine underappreciates the risk of predatory pricing and how integration across distinct business lines may prove anticompetitive. These concerns are height- ened in the context of online platforms for two reasons. First, the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over profits, a strategy that investors have re- warded. Under these conditions, predatory pricing becomes highly rational—even as existing doctrine treats it as irrational and therefore implausible.
    [Show full text]
  • Monopolizing Free Speech
    Fordham Law Review Volume 88 Issue 4 Article 3 2020 Monopolizing Free Speech Gregory Day University of Georgia Terry College of Business Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Gregory Day, Monopolizing Free Speech, 88 Fordham L. Rev. 1315 (2020). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol88/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MONOPOLIZING FREE SPEECH Gregory Day* The First Amendment prevents the government from suppressing speech, though individuals can ban, chill, or abridge free expression without offending the Constitution. Hardly an unintended consequence, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously likened free speech to a marketplace where the responsibility of rejecting dangerous, repugnant, or worthless speech lies with the people. This supposedly maximizes social welfare on the theory that the market promotes good ideas and condemns bad ones better than the state can. Nevertheless, there is a concern that large technology corporations exercise unreasonable power in the marketplace of ideas. Because “big tech’s” ability to abridge speech lacks constitutional obstacles, many litigants, politicians, and commentators have recently begun to claim that the act of suppressing speech is anticompetitive and thus should offend the antitrust laws. Their theory, however, seems contrary to antitrust law.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East
    U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East The Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy January 2013 Acknowledgments The co-chairs of the Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy thank the following for their assistance with various aspects of the Project roundtables and report: David Barnett, Beth Singer Design LLC, Toby Dershowitz, Erin Elfrink, Laura Grossman, Jamie Kamlet, Chen Kane, Elizabeth Kittrie, Galia Nurko, Lolan O’Rourke, Debbie Rubin, Jonathan Schanzer, Abram Shanedling, Andrea Stricker, and Christina Walrond. For inquiries, contact [email protected] © Copyright 2013, The Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East The Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy Co-Chairs: David Albright, Mark Dubowitz, Orde Kittrie, Leonard Spector, Michael Yaffe January 2013 • Washington, D.C. U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East The Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy Co-Chairs: David Albright, Mark Dubowitz, Orde Kittrie, Leonard Spector, Michael Yaffe January 2013 • Washington, D.C. ABOUT THE CO-CHAIRS David Albright, a physicist, is Founder and President of the non-profit Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington, D.C. He has written numerous assessments on secret nuclear weapons programs throughout the world. Mr. Albright has testified many times on nuclear issues before the U.S. Congress and advised many gov- ernments. He cooperated actively with the IAEA Action Team on Iraq in the 1990s. The media frequently cite Albright, and he has appeared often on television and radio. He is an American Physical Society (APS) Fellow.
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy Online Nick Allard Brooklyn Law School, [email protected]
    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 1998 Privacy Online Nick Allard Brooklyn Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Computer Law Commons, and the Privacy Law Commons Recommended Citation 20 Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 511 (1998) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. Privacy On-Line: Washington Reportt by NICHOLAS W. ALLARD* I. Policy Context ........................................................................... 514 II. Privacy On-Line: Overview of the Problem .......................... 518 III. Status Report on Federal Privacy Initiatives: Search for Solutions .................................................................. 527 A . Sum m ary .............................................................................. 527 B. Administration Policy Statements ................ 527 C. FTC Approval of Self-Regulation.................................... 529 D. Developments Abroad ...................................................... 531 E. Proposed Federal Legislation ........................................... 532 1. Encryption Legislation ................................................. 533 2. Privacy Legislation ........................ 536 IV . C onclusion ................................................................................. 538 t An earlier version
    [Show full text]
  • Monopolizing Free Speech
    MONOPOLIZING FREE SPEECH Gregory Day* The First Amendment prevents the government from suppressing speech, though individuals can ban, chill, or abridge free expression without offending the Constitution. Hardly an unintended consequence, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously likened free speech to a marketplace where the responsibility of rejecting dangerous, repugnant, or worthless speech lies with the people. This supposedly maximizes social welfare on the theory that the market promotes good ideas and condemns bad ones better than the state can. Nevertheless, there is a concern that large technology corporations exercise unreasonable power in the marketplace of ideas. Because “big tech’s” ability to abridge speech lacks constitutional obstacles, many litigants, politicians, and commentators have recently begun to claim that the act of suppressing speech is anticompetitive and thus should offend the antitrust laws. Their theory, however, seems contrary to antitrust law. Since antitrust is intended to promote consumer welfare in commercial markets, antitrust liability is typically reserved for firms that have harmed consumers economically. This generally requires showing higher prices or restricted output. As such, the courts have largely declared that speech entails noncommercial activity antitrust has no authority to govern, despite the emergence of rhetoric and lawsuits seeking to do just that. This Article argues that, contrary to precedent, antitrust law can and should promote commercial speech. The economy has evolved such that firms and consumers depend on information, ideas, and speech even when traded at zero prices—known as the “information economy.” In turn, technology firms encounter incentives to suppress types of commercial speech and, when wielding market power, the ability to do so.
    [Show full text]
  • Upcoming Issues in the Court Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2000 Section 8: Looking Ahead: Upcoming Issues in the Court Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 8: Looking Ahead: Upcoming Issues in the Court" (2000). Supreme Court Preview. 87. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/87 Copyright c 2000 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview LOOKING AHEAD: UPCOMING ISSUES IN THE COURT In This Section: * THE MICROSOFT CASE, Meredith Lugo .................................... 413 In Micrsosoft Case, Tipping Scales Both Ways; Weght of Issues Arguesfor, Against High Court Review James V. Grimaldi ........................................................ 414 U.S. vs. Microsoft: The Overview; U.S. Judge Says Microsoft ViolatedAntitrustLaws with PredatoUBehavior Joel B rinkley ......................................................................................... 4 16 M'soft Tying Test May FallShort K aren D onovan .................................................................................... 422 The Microsoft Breakup Ruling On Appeal, Firm may be Able to Avoid Breakup David G. Savage and Davan Maharaj ......................................... 425 * THE NAPSTER CASE: Free Musicfor Consumers or Illegal Copyrght Infringement? Meredith Lugo ..........................................................
    [Show full text]