Texas Appeals Court Vacates Order Commanding Google To Hunt Down Third Party Content And Destroy It
from the violating-both-due-process-and-the-realm-of-possibility dept
Back in April, a Texas district court judge (well, a “visiting judge”) ordered Google to do the following:
The gag order, signed by visiting San Antonio Judge Richard Price in February 2013, forces Google and other search engines to wipe out all record of the allegations from the Internet. It also compels the search engine to find third parties who posted the information to get it back and destroy it.
This was to be done on behalf of Calvin C. Jackson, an attorney who was accused of forging signatures on court records. It’s unknown whether the judge actually read what he was signing or if he did, whether he recognized how completely ridiculous the request was. Google may index the web and hold a commanding lead in the search engine market, but it certainly doesn’t have the ability to demand third parties turn over and/or destroy content.
That the whole thing took place under seal and out of the public eye made it even more ridiculous. The court order demanding the impossible was also placed under seal, presumably to protect Jackson from being further linked to the allegations he was trying to bury. We can all see how well that worked out.
Now, a Texas appeals court has released Google from having to do things it’s not capable of. The court decision isn’t predicated on Google’s inability to carry out Jackson’s demands. Instead, it hinges on the fact that Google should never have been part of the whole debacle.
The order identified Google as an entity to whom the order must be sent. The order further required all identified recipients to expunge or destroy all records relating to the action other than certain, specifically identified records….
Constitutional due process requires a party to be served with process and to receive notice of an action to which it is an interested party. A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void…
It is clear from the record that Google was never named as a party to the suit, was never served with process, never waived or accepted process, and never made an appearance in the suit before the expunction order was entered. Nothing in the record establishes that Google stands in privity to the commission or to Jackson. Accordingly, we hold that Google was not a party to the suit and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter orders against Google.
As Eugene Volokh notes, this seems obvious enough. But it wasn’t obvious to the lower court which ordered Google to go door-to-door around the internet with a paper shredder in tow.
Beyond the normal First Amendment ramifications, there’s also the fact that Jackson was effectively asking the court (and Google by extension) to destroy public records. The allegations against Jackson weren’t simply blog posts or newspaper articles. These allegations were part of a lawsuit brought against the attorney (the same lawsuit that didn’t include Google). Public records can be expunged, but that’s limited to what the court itself directly controls. Anything already posted to the internet is out of its reach. Calvin Jackson’s quest for an allegation-free existence is futile, and every additional legal effort seems to place it just that much further out of reach.
Filed Under: calvin c. jackson, calvin jackson, richard price, right to be forgotten, texas, third parties
Companies: google
Comments on “Texas Appeals Court Vacates Order Commanding Google To Hunt Down Third Party Content And Destroy It”
Perhaps he should sue Barbara Streisand next.
Re: Re:
That bitch has a nasty effect! I say go for it!
"visiting judge"
Well, I suppose if the judge is visiting from the EU, they may think it’s possible for Google to make things disappear.
Obvious question: is it at least known that the judge signed the order, as opposed to Calvin C. Jackson forging a judge’s signature on the order? If he is already allegedly forging signatures on court records, …
Can someone take a trip to the EU
There is a court here that needs to be explained that they did something like that with their mind boggling implementation of the right to be forgotten.
Re: Can someone take a trip to the EU
At least the EU court ordered Google to do the possible, not link to identified URLs. That is infinitely more doable that going round the world and ordering that the pages linked to by the URLs are removed from the web.
Re: Re: Can someone take a trip to the EU
Just wait until the Streisand Effect search engine appears. It compares all Google EU results to Google US results and highlights the differences removed by the forgotten in the EU.
Re: Can someone take a trip to the EU
Leave it to the EU to complicate things. Remember their cookie directive?
One point for Sanity
It’s a pity the ruling didn’t incorporate the fact that Google is not the internet. But, still, a victory.
On an unrelated note…
[knock] “Land Shark! I mean, Google!”
Re: One point for Sanity
They cannot just “rule” that Google isn’t the internet. That would be like ruling that the Earth is not round or that James Clapper is not a liar.
Rulings cannot change reality.
Re: Re: One point for Sanity
In what reality do you live in where Google controls the entire Internet?
Re: Re: Re: One point for Sanity
Google controls the entire Internet
That’s not what I said. I said Google IS the Internet. Get it straight – one in the same – live with it.
When did everyone’s sarcasm meter break?
Re: Re: Re:2 One point for Sanity
Meters are working fine. Perhaps your sacasm generator is broke.
Re: Re: Re:2 One point for Sanity
Perhaps because you used the word “isn’t” in your pist, which has the opposite meaning from the word “is” that you now claim you used?
Michael wrote:
I was thinking (wishfully) more along the lines of a “BTW, idiots…” about facts included along with the ruling on law.
Doesn’t Calvin C. Jackson realize that he has now enabled the Streisand Effect which will prompts everyone with access to the internet to start posting the ‘allegations’ on as many websites as they possibly can?
LOLS
STREISAND EFFECT IS A GO!
Due Process
Hmmm…where else might this be appropriate?
Re: Due Process
” A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void? “
That depends upon how much process you are “due”, which depends nowadays on how deep your pockets are. Google has deep pockets. Myself, not so much.
Re: Due Process
waterboarding is a process, isn’t it?
Re: Re: Due Process
“waterboarding is a process, isn’t it?”
Ah, now I understand the new “government lawyer approved” meaning of “due process”.
John
“Calvin Jackson’s quest for an allegation-free existence is futile, and every additional legal effort seems to place it just that much further out of reach.”
Unless he lives in Europe! Home of Nazi’s, Book burnings, Inquisitions and… Google Gags!
Re: John
“Unless he lives in Europe! Home of Nazi’s, Book burnings, Inquisitions and… “
Those are things I would imagine plenty of Europeans want forgotten. Expect them to soon start demanding that Google delete links to sites mentioning those things. It’s their right now!
Re: Re: John
AC, that wouldn’t work because the request for a link to be removed must be a link in reference of a specific person. NAZI links regarding the Holocaust cannot be removed, to do so would encourage many to believe that the Holocaust didn;t actually happen.
Re: Re: Re: John
“NAZI links regarding the Holocaust cannot be removed, to do so would encourage many to believe that the Holocaust didn;t actually happen.”
I see. So to make a something that Google cannot remove, all you have to do mention NAZI and Holocaust in and it will be bulletproof. Interesting theory you have there. Got anything to back it up?
Is it me or are lower court judges generally provincial and/or ignorant about the law and/or flagrantly corrupt with no fear of consequences?
To comply with the order Google would have had to violate the CFAA too — wouldn’t being ordered to commit hundreds if not thousands of felonies void the order?