Baidu secured a victory on Thursday when the Chinese Internet company won a dismissal of a lawsuit filed against them by pro-democracy activists over alleged censorship of political speeches. Eight New York writers and video producers claimed that Baidu illegally suppressed specific speech to prevent users in the US, at the mainland's request, from viewing information that calls for democracy in China, Reuters said.
The plaintiffs argued that Baidu's censorship effectively blocked people access to their work. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking $16 million in damages for the Chinese search company's alleged civil and equal protection rights violations.
US District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan concluded on Thursday that the results generated from Baidu constituted protected free speech, and that the search engine's editorial judgement on its search engine is equal to that of a newspaper editor who chooses which stories to be published.
"The First Amendment protects Baidu's right to advocate for systems of government other than democracy (in China or elsewhere) just as surely as it protects plaintiffs' rights to advocate for democracy. To allow plaintiffs' suit to proceed, let alone to hold Baidu liable for its editorial judgments, would contravene the principle upon which our political system and cultural life rest: that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence," Furman wrote.
Lawyer Stephen Preziosi, who represented the plaintiffs in the case, said that his clients will file for an appeal. Preziosi had also criticize the ruling and that the comparison used by Furman was analogous to a town square, where anyone could do and say as he pleases.
In a interview, Reuters quoted Preziosi, who said, "The court has laid out a perfect paradox: that it will allow the suppression of free speech, in the name of free speech."
It was not the first time that the case was dismissed, Reuters said. In March last year, Furman dismissed the case on procedural grounds, but allowed the lawsuit to continue later.
