A search site on the internet, like Google, only focuses and organizes the content offered by other pages under the folder selected by the user without any interference on the information available on the network. Nor is there any value judgment regarding the results of the search, since Google only shows the sites where the desired content can be found. Thus, it is infeasible to determine that the site is required to remove certain content that keeps the search system.
This was the understanding of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Rio Grande do Sul to the judge request for preliminary injunction in an action for damages brought by a woman against Google. She alleged that her computer was hacked by a third party who released videos and photos that have sex with her partner, and asked for preliminary injunction having been removed from the search site links to the videos. The application was dismissed at first instance, with the sentence based on the judge Lisete Lokschin Brod, the 2nd Civil Court of Pelotas.
Google appealed, claiming that its search system only organizes the existing content on the internet, making it impossible to edit or delete the content in question, as this is hosted on third page, without connection with the company. The lawyers also said that creating filters in the search system could reach other content available in a lawful manner, before informing the author of the racing action aiming the page address you want to block, so that the location of these links is possible.
Draftsman of the case, Judge Miguel Angelo da Silva cited the Google Search, search engine company, just organizes and focuses the results without value judgment or interference on the information available on the internet. It played similar decision of the Superior Court that, when analyzing the Special Appeal 1316921, pointed to the fact search engines identify only "web pages where certain data or information, even if illegal, are being freely aired. Thus, although their search engines facilitate access and the consequent dissemination of pages whose content is potentially illegal, the fact is that these pages are public and make up the world wide web and therefore appear in the result of the search sites ".
The Supreme Court held, in this case, the providers can not be forced to eliminate in search results for a particular term or phrase, "regardless of the indication of the URL of the page where it is inserted." Regarding the request for identification of the responsible dissemination of images, Michelangelo da Silva pointed out that Google does not have the technical capability to identify users' personal data, only the IP number, which is the information that must be passed to the woman. His position was accompanied by Judge Tasso Caubi Soares Delabary and the federal judge Iris Helena Medeiros Nogueira.