your current location is：Home > TechnologyHomeTechnology

　　according to reports, local time on Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Australia overturned the Google website to provide a link to a controversial newspaper article alleged defamation ruling.

　　A seven-judge panel of Australia's High Court voted 5-2 to overturn an earlier ruling that the Alphabet unit acted as a "library" after publishing the controversial article. function in the article. The court said the site was not playing an active role.

　　The new ruling brings new confusion to a question Australia has pondered for years: Where lies the responsibility for online libel? Should big platforms like Google and Meta-owned Facebook be held responsible, the country's years-long defamation laws The review has yet to make a final recommendation.

　　According to the published verdict, the case stemmed from a 2004 article in which a criminal defense attorney crossed professional boundaries and became a "close friend" to a criminal. The lawyer, George Defteros, found a link to the story when he Googled his name in 2016 and deleted it after 150 people viewed it, the judgment said.

　　Defteros filed suit in a state court, which later found Google was a publisher and ordered it to pay the lawyer A$40,000 ($28,056). Google appealed the decision.

　　"The article was not written by any employee or agent of Appellant," the two jury judges wrote in Wednesday's ruling. The appellant in this case is Google.

　　"The article was written by a journalist, not affiliated with the appellant, and published by an independent newspaper over which the appellant has no control or influence."

　　They argue that Google "does not own or control the Internet."

　　A Google spokesman had no immediate comment.

　　In a statement, Defteros said the process was "long, expensive and stressful," but felt he was right because the court held that the article was defamatory despite Google not being responsible.

　　Last year, the High Court ruled that a newspaper publisher was responsible for a defamatory comment left under an article it posted on Facebook.

　　The judges said the difference between last year's Facebook case and Wednesday's case was that the media company "invited and encouraged comments" last year, while Google "did not provide a forum or venue in which to communicate, nor did it encourage writing comments in response."