Comments on: Will Google Use “Editorial Discretion” to Exclude Books from Book Search?

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:06:51 +0000

I hope the class will consider whether Google will assert that it has a First Amendment right to complete editorial discretion over the book search contents. James Grimmelmann, and Oren Bracha and I, have written pieces that briefly discuss the 1A status of search engines as speakers.

By: Michael Zimmer

Michael Zimmer — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:06:17 +0000

Thanks again, Alexander. I know Google takes this seriously, and appreciate you taking the time to comment here.

I’d love to chat more about the background of including this provision (was it Google’s idea, or the libraries’, etc?) Perhaps another time.

By: Alexander Macgillivray

Alexander Macgillivray — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:03:46 +0000

Some quick answers.
(a): that’ll be up to them but it is pretty easy to make stuff accessible on the internet.
(b): we have absolutely no plans to do it for ANY reason. NONE.
(c): we assume that the Registry will publicly disclose it but we have also committed to doing so.
There’s been plenty of attention on these issues at Google. As you point out we take removing information very seriously. For example, up until very recently, we were the only search engine that posted removals to Chilling Effects. I can’t stress enough that though we didn’t want to give up our first amendment right not to speak through the settlement, we have ABSOLUTELY NO PLANS to remove any books for editorial reasons. None. Section 3.7(e) is a safeguard in case we do but it should not be read as evidence that we will.
-Alex

By: Michael Zimmer

Michael Zimmer — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:28:17 +0000

Hello Alexander, thanks for taking the time to provide this response. While I understand your reasoning and trust the good-faith explanation, the raw text of section 3.7(e) doesn’t necessarily lend itself to this positive of a reading.

I agree that the section is clear that when Google excludes a book for editorial reasons, that the Registry will be informed. But there are a number of issues outstanding:

(a) Will the Registry/libraries have the resources to make the book as accessible as Google? The entire purpose of the Book Search project is to leverage Google’s power and reach to make books widely and easily available. If Google passes on a book, there’s no guarantee that the Registry will have the ability to make it as available on its own. There will be significant decrease in access if a book is not in Google’s service.

(b) The section is silent on “why” Google would make such an editorial decision to exclude. If (a) is true, and that a book excluded will have significantly diminished visibility and accessibility, then we need to be concerned about why such a book is excluded in the first place. Due to violent content? Due to religious considerations? Is the content taboo? How is such a decision being made, by whom, and for what reason?

(c) Further, the section does not require any public disclosure, either by Google or the Registry, of books that are excluded. Given concerns (a) and (b), I am of the opinion that exclusions must be done in the light of day.

I do trust you when you say that Google has no plans to actually remove any books due to editorial reasons, but the lack of attention to these issues causes pause.

By: Alexander Macgillivray

Alexander Macgillivray — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:07:25 +0000

Michael, the short answer to your question about what books Google plans to remove for editorial reasons is: none.
To be very clear, Google does not plan to omit any books from the service, just as we have not omitted any books from our scanning based on their content or copyright status. The settlement is about United States access and we are strongly supported by good United States law protecting speech. Section 3.7(e) is about not having to take our word for it. It makes clear that our actions will be communicated to the Book Rights Registry and that they, along with the libraries, will be able to provide access to any editorially excluded books. Neither we, the plaintiffs or the libraries believe that Section 3.7(e) will ever be trigger but it is there as a failsafe.