Representatives of Google appearing before the Leveson inquiry today offered feedback to Lord Justice Leveson on any relevant proposals he may be considering for future regulation of the press
This article was migrated from an old version of our website in 2025. As a result, it might have some low-quality images or non-functioning links - if there's any issues you'd like to see fixed, get in touch with us at info@journalism.co.uk.
Representatives of Google today called for any new system recommended for the future regulation of the press to ensure a distinction remains between the publisher of content and the hosting platform online.
Giving evidence to the Leveson inquiry today, Google's head of corporate communications in the UK David-John Collins and legal director Daphne Keller were asked whether Google would, within a regulatory system, respond to complaints in relation to content posted on the Google-owned Blogger.com platform.
Collins said there is already "a very clear set of regulations which apply to technology intermediaries".
"It's important to make the distinction between someone who provides a hosting platform for other people to create and post content and a publisher on Blogger.com or other products ... Whatever system you advise, it is important to retain that distinction."
He added that there is a "very essential balance online", adding: "We have our responsibilities that we fulfil, a person that produces or uploads that content has their responsibilities."
In their joint evidence to the inquiry the pair were also asked about complaints of allegedly-defamatory content.
Keller said "what is better as a policy matter" is for individuals to send Google copies of court orders made against third parties, such as publishers.
These will say "look Google, a judge has looked at the facts of this case ... and the judge said this is defamatory", she added.
"Our clear policy is to honour those court orders and process removals ... this takes us out of looking at he-said-she-said evidence".
When prompted by Lord Leveson, she added that this does require knowledge of each offending URL.
"We do get people coming and asking for that and as you can imagine we're not in a very good position to look at URLs."
She later told the inquiry that in the Max Mosley privacy case Google has so far "removed hundreds of URLs" relating to his legal action. Last year in his own evidence to the inquiry the former motorsports boss said he has litigation, in relation to material he is trying to get removed, ongoing in "22 or 23 countries".
He also told the inquiry that dissemination of the story online is "even more extensive" than in print and called on search engines such as Google to stop producing such material in search results.
In relation to dealing with defamation allegations Collins said it is "much better for users if judgment is made by a court or legal process that has weighed all the evidence ... been robust and fair.
"The result is not just handed to a search engine but the webmaster and other entry points to the web. Google is not the internet, and it is also not the only entry point to the internet. There are multiple entry points ... whatever robust system you recommend will have to cover all entry points."
He added that Google would be "very happy to submit written evidence in time" and respond to relevant proposals with feedback.
