Pedantic fail^2

64K = -209.15 degrees Celsius = -344.47 degrees Fahrenheit

This because the much loved /. editor doesn't allow the degree symbol nor the & deg; html entity which I have to write with an extra space.

Jusy like phones, right?

I'm on the ground floor...

The judge is a human being, the law is subject to interpretation, and a trial is a time-boxed event. Those three things make your argument in court quite important. If you come forward with a very good argument and no rebuttal is done on the other side, it naturally skews the results, especially in a tech-related subject where the judge is most likely a bit lost. It's just how life is.

You can have a lawyer for free. Granted, it's maybe not the best one because (s)he is overworked, but it's a heck of a lot better than defending yourself.

You are so smarter than I am, I think I will spend my next month reading all your /. posts from the first to the very last. I expect my IQ to grow significantly.

I refer to your trolling because you answered my "There was a point to go to court with this" with "So by French law, making it a title makes it a presentation as a fact?".

These two statements may be equivalent in your view, but they are not in mine.

Additionally, not all judges are tech savvy and I can see why seeing this as the second result of a Google search with the name of the restaurant may push a judge to settle this matter in a court of law. This does not set the law, it merely indicates that a judge was convinced by ONE party to investigate further.

Maybe where you live there are no stupid trials when technology comes into play. If so, please tell me where it is, I am interested. We don't live in a perfect world and France most assuredly do not lead the pack on that front. Again, I am interested in the name of your country where no mistakes are made and every trial is exactly 100% what every parties thought it would be at the beginning.

Trolling much, eh?

As I said, she most likely lost because she was not represented. The fact that this went to trial is not all that surprising though, which was my point.

It is to be questioned, actually. We have defamation laws in France (and there are some flavor of them about all over the place) and when you make a review you should always either sustain your claim and present it as fact (to avoid defamation) or present it as your own opinion (in there you have free speech). The limit is often blurry, but you cannot call the president (or anyone for that matter) a thief unless you have proof. You can however say that you think he is a thief. Of course, there is context that helps quite a bunch here.

In this case, the title of the article was presented as a fact (The place to avoid at Cap-Ferret: Il Giardino) and in the search results page it was completely out of context.

So all in all, I think there was at least reasonable doubt and the trial doesn't surprise me all that much. The claim of the restaurant was even very limited: removing its name from the title.

Now, if you want to live in a place with "real" free speech, good luck with that. But whenever someone Google-Bomb you with accusation of pedophilia, well, good luck.

French here. The lady owner of the blog did not choose to lawyer up and went there to defend herself. The restaurant just wanted her to change the title of the blog post which was along the line of "The place to avoid at Cap-Ferret: Il Giardino" (where Cap-Ferret is the name of the town the restaurant is in). They just wanted the name of the restaurant removed from the title because it was 2nd place on Google and was starting to be detrimental to their business. She removed the blog post entirely on her own. It appears she doesn't intend to counter sue.

It pretty much looks like something that would not have happened if the defendant was properly represented.

What's your plan?
A) Make the justice scale
    A1) DMCA-style
    A2) All your money will get into it and them some
B) Stop the websites.

Websites scale, the justice system not so much.

As always, the analogy is flawed.
If the court ordered someone to break into your house and delete the attachment you saved locally, your analogy would hold. As it is, what GS is asking would be analogous to the court ordering the post office to remove the letter from your PO Box. Seems much more reasonable to me.

People are controlling your mind all the time. Every time you see an ad, someone is trying to control your mind to try to convince you buy something. Every time you read an article in a paper, someone controls your mind to try to get their point across. Every time you argue with someone she is trying to control your mind by getting her point across. Etc.

Get off your high horse, use your brain.

That's another part of it, yes.