Jian Zhang v. Baidu.Com Inc.
10 F. Supp. 3d 433 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment protects a search engine's editorial judgments in selecting, organizing, and displaying information in its search results. Consequently, a search engine operator cannot be held civilly liable for its decisions about what political content to include or exclude, as this constitutes protected speech.
Facts:
- A group of New York residents (Plaintiffs) created and published articles, videos, and other media on the Internet to promote the democracy movement in China.
- Baidu, Inc. operates a large, Chinese-language internet search engine.
- Plaintiffs' pro-democracy publications did not appear in Baidu's search results when queried from within the United States.
- The same publications were readily accessible through other search engines like Google and Bing.
- Plaintiffs alleged that Baidu deliberately censored and blocked their content and other politically sensitive topics, such as the Tiananmen Square Incident, from its search results.
- Plaintiffs claimed Baidu engaged in this censorship at the behest of the People's Republic of China.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of New York residents (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against Baidu, Inc. and the People's Republic of China in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The People's Republic of China was never served with the complaint and was subsequently dismissed from the case.
- Baidu, Inc. filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does holding a search engine civilly liable for its editorial decision to exclude certain political speech from its search results violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Furman
Yes. Holding a search engine liable for its decision to exclude certain political content violates the First Amendment. A search engine's results are not a neutral compilation of data but are the product of editorial judgments—similar to those of a newspaper editor or parade organizer—about what information to present and how to rank it. Citing precedents like Miami Herald v. Tornillo and Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston, the court reasoned that the First Amendment protects a speaker's autonomy to choose the content of their message, including what to exclude. Plaintiffs' lawsuit is inherently content-based, as it seeks to punish Baidu for disfavoring certain political ideas. Allowing such a suit would empower the government, through the courts, to compel a private speaker to alter its message, which contravenes the core principles of the First Amendment.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision establishing that search engine results constitute constitutionally protected speech. By extending the concept of 'editorial judgment' from traditional media to algorithmic outputs, the court provided a strong First Amendment shield for internet search providers against liability for content curation. This precedent makes it exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to bring claims of bias, censorship, or discrimination based on a search engine's results, framing such choices as expressive acts rather than the functions of a neutral public utility. The decision significantly shapes the legal framework governing online platforms, reinforcing their autonomy in controlling the presentation of information.
Unlock the full brief for Jian Zhang v. Baidu.Com Inc.