Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Irish Judge Orders 'The Internet' To Delete Video

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the when-idiots-and-networks-collide dept.

The Courts 243

New submitter edanto writes "A young Irish man wrongly accused of jumping from a taxi without paying the fare has secured a judgement from an Irish court ordering the video removed from the entire Internet. Experts from Google, Youtube, Facebook, and others must tell the court in two weeks if this is technically possible. The thing is, the video is accurate, it is only a comment that wrongly identified Eoin McKeogh as the fare-jumper in the video that is inaccurate. It's not clear if the judge has made any orders about the comment."

cancel ×

243 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Overstepping your jurisdiction much? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742105)

Stupid judge, you can't order that, you ignorant ninny...

By the powers vested in me, by myself, I hereby order you (the ninny) to stop breathing now and forever. You may be using oxygen I'll need later in my life.
It's only wasted on you.

Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? (5, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43742321)

Google and them do a lot of business through Ireland, it might not be so easy for them to just ignore an order from an Irish judge.

Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? (2)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about a year ago | (#43742551)

I doubt Google is concerned about any political fallout in Ireland, even after than stop laughing at this request. Ireland has a crappy enough job market as it is, without punishing the companies who are there for something like this. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? (4, Funny)

OakDragon (885217) | about a year ago | (#43742743)

... Ireland has a crappy enough job market as it is, without punishing the companies who are there for something like this...

Clearly - people can't even afford to pay their taxi fares.

Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? (-1)

Blue Stone (582566) | about a year ago | (#43742667)

Google threatening to relocate its business to a friendlier European state is probably enough to make Irish politicians crap themselves and change the law to suit Google.

Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43742709)

Google threatening to relocate its business to a friendlier European state is probably enough to make Irish politicians crap themselves and change the law to suit Google.

Except Google uses Ireland as a tax haven, so first they'd need to find another jurisdiction in which it would be beneficial for them. And I'm not sure they'll easily find one.

Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43742733)

Meh, this affair doesn't hold a candle to the billions they save and make through Ireland, it wouldn't make financial sense. And even if they did I'm fairly sure the order would hold throughout the entire EU, at least if it went to the European courts, and it most assuredly would.

Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? (2)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about a year ago | (#43742741)

It's not about Google ignoring the order. Google could diligently remove all copies of the video from their servers. They can't remove it from mine, or yours. For that, the judge would have to order me and you to remove it, and not being under his jurisdiction, I expect I could ignore him with impunity (as long as I don't travel to .ie ever).

Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742329)

Now if that judge was located in the US, then he could have had it deleted from the entire Internet.

Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43742337)

Stupid judge, you can't order that, you ignorant ninny...

Well, actually given that he's Irish and all the tax dodging companies seem to like residing in Ireland (don't you know, google doesn't actually do any business in England!), he actually has a measure of power over a considerable number of large companies.

Well, that'll serve them right.

Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742459)

Well, actually given that he's Irish and all the tax dodging companies seem to like residing in Ireland (don't you know, google doesn't actually do any business in England!)

To be fair, there's not much business for them to do in England anyway because all the tax-dodging companies for them to do business with are in Ireland too.

Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742423)

A US judge was able to tell an international company what they could charge for FRAND rates...why can't an Irish judge tell everyone else what to do, too?

Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about a year ago | (#43742445)

Any company that does business in europe would have to try and find a way to comply though.

And the thing is, if most instances of 'the video' are actually links to a small number of hosted copies of the video on say google and facebook servers then it may not actually be that hard to hunt down on the big companies servers.

One of the things Megaupload did was it ran some sort of a hash on uploaded files, and if they already had the file they just created a new symbolic link to the same file. I would not be surprised if google and facebook have similar technology. Sure you can re-encode it or modify the file and have a different hash, so there will be several versions of the same basic file. But it's not going to do google or facebook or yahoo any harm to try and figure out if they actually can be rid of it.

Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? (0)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#43742613)

Morbo says: THE INTERNET DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

  Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
  Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742689)

Stupid judge, you can't order that, you ignorant ninny...

By the powers vested in me, by myself, I hereby order you (the ninny) to stop breathing now and forever. You may be using oxygen I'll need later in my life.
It's only wasted on you.

I think you'll find you have no legal grounds to make such an order, and more to the point, that life is more sacrosanct in the practice of justice than a given internet video.

But good show with the hyperbole, I'm sure you showed that judge, why he won't know what to do.

Quick! (5, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#43742111)

If you've got a Microsoft Surface, download the video from YouTube - pronto!

Re:Quick! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742179)

If you've got a Microsoft Surface, download the video from YouTube - pronto!

only one man is our last hope then

Re:Quick! (4, Funny)

RoboRay (735839) | about a year ago | (#43742411)

(sound of crickets)

Sigh.. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742121)

fuckin' people man...

Cue the Streisand effect in ..... (3, Insightful)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | about a year ago | (#43742123)

3...2...1...

Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43742219)

But why? It's not like it's some celebrity using the judicial system as a bully. And there's not really any amusing or interesting content to the video. Is it just cause we don't like judicial orders here?

Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... (3, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | about a year ago | (#43742367)

But why? It's not like it's some celebrity using the judicial system as a bully. And there's not really any amusing or interesting content to the video. Is it just cause we don't like judicial orders here?

True, but there's no denying that that video will be viewed a few more times than it would have been before the poor lad went to court to bitch about it. What he should have done is fire back on Facebook, Twitter, and various other social media. You know where all the people who care about useless shit like this will see it and know he's innocent.

Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742409)

Jesus, man, do you really want to give a judge from any random country authority over what videos can be posted on YouTube?

Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742563)

Jesus, man, do you really want to give a judge from any random country authority over what videos can be posted on YouTube?

Hell no. We'd much rather leave that to the minimum-wage zit jockey hired by Google who does that job on a daily basis.

(sorry, had to give you a dose of reality there...)

Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... (1)

Anon, Not Coward D (2797805) | about a year ago | (#43742271)

I can see many parodies coming... f.i. action movies with explosions escenes. The man in the video will be remembered forever

Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... (5, Informative)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43742299)

Also a testament to the stupidity of mob justice. Before it emerged that this guy had been wrongly identified, you had people posting his home address on busily trafficked sites, his phone number, metaphorically throwing nooses over lamp posts, the works. Afterwards, the same people were still trying to pin something on him somehow because he had the temerity to make them look like trigger happy vigilante clowns without a clue, which is what they are.

I don't blame him for trying to strike back through the legal system but since the video doesn't in fact identify him I'm not sure why he wants it pulled down. Renamed maybe might be a better option.

Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742473)

Sounds like they should go after these vigilantes instead. That's one area where I'd fully support "making strong examples of." Internet vigilantism has only started to make an impact but will get tragically big real quick, it needs to get nipped in the bud asap.

Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... (1)

Rhacman (1528815) | about a year ago | (#43742651)

Actually, I think it is brilliant to try to get the video pulled down. The fact that the ruling is absurd only brings more attention to the fact that he was wrongly accused.

Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... (5, Insightful)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about a year ago | (#43742395)

Except he is innocent. So the Streisand effect is a good thing for him if it gets the word out that it wasn't him in the video.

I... um. Ok. (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43742129)

Judges can order this sort of thing. It's effectiveness will come down to whether anyone cares enough to re-upload it multiple times in multiple places. The judge is in the wrong for misunderstanding the source of the slander, but I'm not sure what that means for "my rights online"

Re:I... um. Ok. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742183)

Reuploaded it multiple times in multiple places.

Re:I... um. Ok. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43742205)

And your motive in doing so was what? I'm not sure what principle you're taking a stand on, but I guess as long as you think you're doing the right thing?

Re:I... um. Ok. (4, Insightful)

almitydave (2452422) | about a year ago | (#43742297)

Taking a stand against ridiculous court orders. Civil disobedience to promote awareness and justice. Defiance of an illegitimate order from a lawful authority.

Basically, to point out the futility of what is frankly an idiotic order. The experts ought to tell the judge that once it's on the internet, it's there for all time.

Re:I... um. Ok. (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43742391)

I wish that were the case, I went looking for a blog I used to enjoy last week and it was nowhere to be found. It went tits up in 2011 it seems and even the usual archives haven't got more than a few pages of it.

Re:I... um. Ok. (1)

AJH16 (940784) | about a year ago | (#43742619)

Just because you can't find it doesn't mean someone, somewhere doesn't have a copy posted.

Re:I... um. Ok. (1)

almitydave (2452422) | about a year ago | (#43742647)

Well, that's true - but I wasn't talking about literally everything. But viral videos, or other popular content tends to stick around. The internet has this potential: if people want it, it will be available. Hence the utter failure of DRM and copy protection. So stuff can be removed, or just drop off, but no one can guarantee permanent removal of anything.

Re:I... um. Ok. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742631)

an order that is both idiotic and futile is not necessarily illegitimate and an injustice. It's just dumb. if you've been libeled and the judge orders the libel removed it's not injustice if it's impossible to actually remove the libel. it's just not possible (and in this case it's not). I'm not sure how many other ways I can put this. It's not justice making sure slander cannot be removed upon order. The guy didn't do it. So you're saying it's a corruption of justice if we can't see a video and comments that finger him as the perpetrator? That's justice to you? It isn't to me, but you've got your own style, I guess.

Re:I... um. Ok. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742313)

And your motive in doing so was what? I'm not sure what principle you're taking a stand on, but I guess as long as you think you're doing the right thing?

The principle of fuck you I won't do what you tell me.

Re:I... um. Ok. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742357)

They don't seem to have a faint idea about the stupidity behind that 'order'. Mr Streisand is gonna teach them a lesson, rendering them a bit more knowlegable, which is an overall net gain, is my point.

Re:I... um. Ok. (2)

pla (258480) | about a year ago | (#43742305)

O'm not sure what that means for "my rights online"

It means that we have yet another shining example of the last bastion of justice in a 1st-world legal system demonstrating their complete incompetence when it comes to making decisions about the most powerful tool ever devised by humans.

Not only does it show an outright scary lack of understanding of how the internet works (in the organizational sense), but it also proves him as so out of touch with the reality of the modern world that he doesn't even recognize the sort of memes we pretty much take for granted - In this case, the "Streisand effect".


/ I've got my copy, and you have no jurisdiction over me, Mr. Peart. Your move.

Good luck with that... (3, Insightful)

jwthompson2 (749521) | about a year ago | (#43742133)

At least the court has asked it it's even technically feasible; good luck with that.

Eoin McKeugh just became immortal. . . . (3, Funny)

Salgak1 (20136) | about a year ago | (#43742137)

. . . . .by GUARANTEEING that the video in question will be mirrored, and parodied, etc.

Somebody obviously knows NOTHING about how the 'net works.. . This is, after all. . . . serious business. [knowyourmeme.com] .

Re:Eoin McKeugh just became immortal. . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742255)

The video is stored on servers - owned by someone - to state the obvious and they have control over what is stored on them - period.

The movie industry is constantly getting their stuff taken down, why should this be any different?

If this were me, and I saw the video pop up back again on YouTube, I'd file a DMCA takedown notice and then sue them.

Profit!

If this plays his cards right, he'll never have to work again.

Re:Eoin McKeugh just became immortal. . . . (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year ago | (#43742419)

1. The movie industry is constantly getting their stuff taken down, but at a rate that is slower than it gets put back up. That's clearly working very well for them.

2. It's not likely they would file a DMCA notice this is an Irish citizen and an Irish judge in an Irish court, and the DMCA is a US law. Also, it's a copyright law, and this isn't a copyright action. The judge could attempt a restraining order, but those need to be targeted; and good luck with that on the Internet where jurisdiction can change faster than most people change their socks.

Re:Eoin McKeugh just became immortal. . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742471)

Does Ireland have a DMCA law?

Imprecise. (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#43742139)

Which one of the Internets does he mean?

Re:Imprecise. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742375)

Must be the one with all those tubes.

learning time.. (1, Insightful)

zome (546331) | about a year ago | (#43742143)

in two weeks, they will learn two things: 1) how internet works, 2) what streisand effect is.

Like this can happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742155)

Ha-ha!

With no power comes no responsiblity (4, Informative)

Anita Coney (648748) | about a year ago | (#43742167)

By the power invested by my lion tamer hat, I order unicorns to stop farting rainbows.

Re:With no power comes no responsiblity (2)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#43742355)

If you stop rainbows from farting, where will Skittles come from?

Re:With no power comes no responsiblity (1)

xevioso (598654) | about a year ago | (#43742597)

Rainbows don't fart. Unicorns fart rainbows. Read the post again, please.

Re:With no power comes no responsiblity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742703)

It says "I order unicorns to stop farting rainbows". The farting rainbows must be stopped! By Unicorns! That's Anita's order!

Re:With no power comes no responsiblity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742363)

Way to destroy the Irish economy!!! If the unicorns stop farting rainbows how can the leprechauns hide their gold at the end of one?

Re:With no power comes no responsiblity (1)

internerdj (1319281) | about a year ago | (#43742403)

Dude. He is trying to save the Irish economy. With no rainbows to hide those pots of gold, the Irish government can finally get their share from those dirty tax-dodging leprechauns.

Re:With no power comes no responsiblity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742609)

By the power invested by my lion tamer hat, I order unicorns to stop farting rainbows.

While I find your comment humorous, it pales in comparison to the fact that it was scored "Informative", which I find fucking hilarious, as if someone learned something about farting unicorns.

News for Nerds indeed...

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742181)

This guy obviously never heard of the striesand effect. This is going viral and will be everywhere.

Ha ha.. Lucky for us (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43742185)

The "Internet" is too big to jail... But since there really is only one ISP, it might not be so difficult..

The Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742199)

"The Internet" laughs at this judgement.

clueless judge (1)

Dorianny (1847922) | about a year ago | (#43742227)

There should really be a authority that can remove clueless, bonehead judges from the "entire internet".

Re:clueless judge (5, Funny)

Shimbo (100005) | about a year ago | (#43742525)

There should be an authority that can prevent Slashdot from being trolled by a summary that seems to have no basis in the original story. We could call this hypothetical super-being an editor.

A different perspective (5, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#43742231)

Sure, the obvious spin the summary evokes is that the judge is one of those numbskull government bureaucrats, who thinks the Internet has a central authority that can respond to such requests. Let's all laugh at the silly judge and reinforce our anti-government hivemind.

On the other hand, the judge likely ordered that the video be taken down, knowing perfectly well that it's impossible to be removed completely. However, those big companies make up the majority of the video's audience, so if they take down the video (and its associated accusation of Mr. McKeogh), the effect is to substantially reduce the harm to Mr. McKeogh's reputation... which is exactly the goal. Since the ruling is in Ireland, where those companies keep their double-Irish tax avoidance entities, the companies will of course want to stay in the good grace of the Irish courts.

Re:A different perspective (4, Informative)

almitydave (2452422) | about a year ago | (#43742383)

Except that even if it's completely removed once, it will resurface widely and immediately. If reducing the harm to Mr. McKeogh's reputation is the priority, they should leave all known copies up, but add a note that the person is NOT Mr. McKeogh, possibly with a link to this case.

I'm sure the judge is not a numbskull, but the whole problem is not the video, but the misinformation accompanying the video.

Re:A different perspective (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43742457)

I'm sure the judge is not a numbskull, but the whole problem is not the video, but the misinformation accompanying the video.

If the judge knew that the misinformation was the problem, and he ordered the video taken down, then he is either a numbskull or evil, in that he is abusing his power to attempt to unnecessarily suppress information that does not belong to him. There's no third way.

Re:A different perspective (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#43742649)

...Or he's perfectly correct. [c2.com]

Since the defendants in the suit (the big companies hosting the video and comments) are operating in his court's jurisdiction, he has the legal right to order them to remove the lies and obviously-false information linking McKeogh to the crime he didn't commit. Since those lies and false accusations are causing unjust harm to McKeogh, the judge has the moral right to order them removed, as well.

Re:A different perspective (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#43742569)

How well would that work, though? By now, the comments on the videos apparently have McKeogh's home address, phone number, and other personal details. A small note of sanity won't stop the self-righteous asshats of the Internet from making this man's life hell. Even through this discussion, there's already many commentors promising to perpetuate the man's suffering, just out of spite for being told that not to libel others.

The problem is the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Someone's personal life has been severely harmed by the information these companies continue to publish. When they're asked to stop publishing such lies, the schmucks crawl out to protest this affront to their ability to screw up others' lives, and they promise to just screw up the man's life even worse than before.

This is not civilization. This is unbridled sadism masquerading as vigilantism.

By commenting I can delete videos? Cool! (4, Informative)

Aristos Mazer (181252) | about a year ago | (#43742239)

So, if there's some video I don't like on the Internet, I just go there and add a comment saying that it is this Irish dude doing whatever it is that is in the video? I can think of lots of embarrassing videos that various celebrities would like to see go away. Just add "Hey! That's Eoin McKeogh!" to the video and then sue in Ireland.

This is just one of many problems I see with this ruling. It just was the most interesting one.

Re:By commenting I can delete videos? Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742281)

The Court of Ireland orders the above comment be removed.

Re:By commenting I can delete videos? Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742441)

No doubt the Ian McKeogh would understand the video can't be removed. Perhaps his intent in seeking this ruling is to show that it undeniably can't be removed and is damaging to that he can sue for huge sums for libel/slander.

WHERE'S THE VID?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742275)

So... where's the damned video of not-Eoin not-McKeogh?

I mean, I can't be arsed to go scour youtube for it myself...

Re:WHERE'S THE VID?! (1)

bobthesungeek76036 (2697689) | about a year ago | (#43742519)

The DailyMail has a still shot from the video: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090070/Eoin-McKeogh-falsely-branded-thief-worlds-biggest-websites.html [dailymail.co.uk] Quick YouTube search didn't come up with anything for me. Maybe "The Internet" already did it's job....

It's a complicated thing, but (4, Funny)

fisted (2295862) | about a year ago | (#43742287)

technically it's not that difficult. There are engineers who know which screws to remove, where the hooks and claws sit, etc, in order to disassemble the Internet and pull out that video. It's a matter of cost, mainly, and while it is a daunting task already to dismantle the machine, it's even more difficult to properly put it back together in the end.
I wouldn't be the one to risk that, tbh. What if you, say, forget a gear, or mismatch the pressure release valve?

Re:It's a complicated thing, but (1)

Amouth (879122) | about a year ago | (#43742401)

It's simple just screw up the global BGP tables and no one will be able to access it. no where did is see where the order required zero impact to anything else.

Re:It's a complicated thing, but (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year ago | (#43742497)

Better solution: Disconnect the internet connections of anyone involved in the case, *including* the judge. As far as they'll be able to tell, the video was removed.

Re:It's a complicated thing, but (2)

Solandri (704621) | about a year ago | (#43742671)

No, no, no. You know the joke about asking a mathematician to corral a dozen sheep inside a hula hoop? The mathematician thinks about it for a minute, then steps inside the hula hoop and declares that his side is the outside. That's what we need to do here. Just cut off the guy's Internet access forever. Then he won't know that this is going on, and everything will be just fine.

Re:It's a complicated thing, but (1)

jittles (1613415) | about a year ago | (#43742729)

What if you, say, forget a gear, or mismatch the pressure release valve?

I'm pretty sure there is content on the internet that is specifically geared towards pressure release valves that go both ways...

Lets share it! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742289)

I suggest we handle this the slashdot way. One person upload a copy, I will make a torrent. Lets see some judge remove a video "entirely from the internet".

Yeah sure.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742293)

"Yes your holyness, we stuffed a big sock in our pipe"

-- The Internet

And The Answer Is: (4, Funny)

ewhac (5844) | about a year ago | (#43742311)

Experts from Google, Youtube, Facebook, and others must tell the court in two weeks if this is technically possible.

No.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions: Simpleton Edition.

Schwab

Ask Al Gore (0)

bobthesungeek76036 (2697689) | about a year ago | (#43742341)

He invented the "internet" yes? He should know how to delete it...

A big opportunity (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43742369)

As that judge seem to be stranded in 1990 or so, we can use him to send messages to the past and avoid a lot of catastrophes.

Just thinking here... (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about a year ago | (#43742373)

Suppose the judge ordered the OWNER of the video to remove it from the internet. Now that poor chump would have to run around sending takedown notices for those violating his copyright. See see see? Now he's not outside his jurisdiction and can plausibly get it removed from the major portions of the net by offloading the pain onto the video owner.

In a related case, (1)

Snufu (1049644) | about a year ago | (#43742385)

the same judge ordered water to stop being wet.

Confucius says... (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year ago | (#43742417)

Irish judge thinking he can censor whole Internet spend too much time in Irish pub.

first! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742421)

wha???

Hmmm ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43742431)

Methinks the judge may have little understanding of both how the internet works, and what his jurisdiction actually is.

If a judge in Ireland believes he somehow has the authority (let alone the technical ability) to order this, he's grossly mis-informed.

He can make rulings on what happens in Ireland, but for the rest of the world ... well, Iran can make all of the demands they want about taking stuff off the internet too, but nobody will care either.

This basically demonstrates he doesn't understand either the internet, or the application of law as it pertains to the rest of the world.

Re:Hmmm ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742719)

Methinks the judge may have little understanding of both how the internet works, and what his jurisdiction actually is.

I think you should read more than the subject before commenting and claiming someone else is ignorant. The judge in question ordered Google who has have office in Dublin to take the video down.

blonde? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742437)

hehehe an Irish judge eh? It must be a blonde woman judge to think the video can be removed from the whole Internet! haha, so funny! I'm Irish too! Nothing against them at all.

OOPS, I just RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742467)

Okay, now that I RTFA, I know it was a male judge. Hmmm unbelievable that he would think he could pull this off...

Streisand streisand! (1)

Silpher (1379267) | about a year ago | (#43742447)

You dear man, just made yourself immortal on the Internet.

Or perhaps the Judge has a sense of humor (1)

thinktech (1278026) | about a year ago | (#43742469)

I'm going to make the much more enjoyable assumption that the judge heard this guys request...rolled his eyes... and with an ironic look of imperialism slammed his gavel to the desk and declared that THIS VIDEO MUST BE DELETED FROM ALL THE INTERNETS! ... I'm also going to assume that he was forced to demand order in the court from all the clapping and that he had to summon medics because 2 teenage girls swooned.

suitable punishment (1)

ei4anb (625481) | about a year ago | (#43742477)

The judge knows that it's impossible to remove all copies from the Internet but he has ordered Google etc to work on the problem and demonstrate that they have spent some effort in trying as punishment for not being helpful earlier when the plaintiff asked them to clear his name.

Solution (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742495)

1. Create a link to the youtube video on the Desktop.
2. Bring a laptop before the judge.
3. Move the link to the recycle bin.
4. Claim that the video has been deleted from the Internet.

Inother news (1)

dmomo (256005) | about a year ago | (#43742501)

People of Earth, who by their access to the Internet are arguably connected to the internet are served with a court order to forget this information.

A good way to defend his own name (2)

edanto (1990742) | about a year ago | (#43742581)

I think that the judge is perfectly conscious of the impossibility of removing all copies of the video from the internet, but the young man made the request knowing that it would get all this attention, and help him to clear his name.

When this incident happened, it was a huge new story (in Ireland at least) and a fair few people that I know were unaware that his name was cleared, when the dust settled. This, to me, seems like an effective use of a modified Striesand effect.

Irish Judge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742595)

Hmm, I wonder how much potato moonshine he had before making that decision...

Delete all Rick Astle videos too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742639)

Even Paris Hilton can vouch for the impossibility of this request.

Yeah sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43742643)

Tell that to the IRC guys .. go ahead, delete the video

Is the judge a descendent of ... (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year ago | (#43742673)

... King Canute?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>