Is the DoJ going to bust the search engines

[Tommy]

they are exempt

v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.

[Maj. Stress]

Originally Posted by Tommy

they are exempt

v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.

Search engines have the same option we have when it comes to providing images. Either show them and produce documentaion or not show them. I don't think they should get a free ride on this one.

[Vink]

Originally Posted by Tommy

they are exempt

v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.

I don't see how google can say they can't manage sexually explicit content. They do it all day long with
"SafeSearch Filtering"
"Google's SafeSearch blocks web pages containing explicit sexual content from appearing in search results."

In google images type in "jizz face" see the results you get with safe searching on then type it in with off. It looks like they're managing sexual explicit content to me.

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by Tommy

they are exempt

v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.

I would argue that this doesn't apply, since they do in fact manage the content of their search results which is where the hardcore images appear. If they want to claim that they don't, they can publish their algo