I think you've misunderstood - Google, I am sure, is aware that it probably links to illegal content. But it has no way of knowing what is illegal or not - so it would not meet those conditions. It's a completely different situation to the case in question.
You don't think Google execs know for sure that Google links to copyright infringements. There's zero chance of that IMO. Criminal law only requires "beyond reasonably doubt", civil law (torts liked copyright infringement) only needs a "balance of probabilities".
Those people have the same way of knowing what's unlawful or illegal or tortuous as the rest of us; actually they're more likely to be able determine it IMO.
Google link to iTunes, iTunes provides a means (CD ripping, yes, for real) to circumvent UK copyright law ... go on tell me Google's lawyers don't know this essential basic of UK copyright nor that you can find iTunes (designed for copyright infringement!) on Google.co.uk.
It's not like any of this is being done to serve the public interest, it's solely focused on narrow commercial interests.
They can moderate sites before adding them to a search index. In newspapers usually there is an editor who checks articles before print, why not make google do the same? So there will be no illegal and immoral content and the users will feel safer. Google is very rich and therefore can afford moderation, they just don't want to respect european law.
