Google Italy Execs Convicted Over YouTube Bullying Video 391
FTWinston writes "Three Italian Google executives have been convicted of privacy violations in Italy over the contents of a YouTube video showing a boy with Downs syndrome being bullied — despite the fact that the video was removed as soon as it was brought to their attention, and that Google assisted the authorities in locating those who posted it. Prosecutors argued that Google should have sought the consent of all parties involved with the video before allowing it to go online. Quite how they were meant to achieve this is another matter."
Google has responded by saying this is a Serious threat to the web.
Another useless set of judges (Score:2)
And now we have even more judges whose lives aren't worth the resources they consume.
Re: (Score:2)
And don't understand the concept of liberated speech. "Prosecutors argued that Google should have sought the consent of all parties involved with the video before allowing it to go online." - If you first ask PERMISSION to speak (or post videos), then you are Serf not a free person.
Re:Another useless set of judges (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe your parents could make some sort of claim since they technically created you, but if I take a picture of you hanging out somewhere (or getting beat up somewhere) and my photo becomes the next taking of Iwo Jima or sailor kissing nurse, I am free to sell prints of your likeness to art galleries and license it to news organizations and college dorm poster manufacturers for years to come.
Re:Another useless set of judges (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, I could take picture of myself driving a car up the front of the Empire State building and sell those images. What I could not do is claim that the car company or Empire States building was endorsing me or my product.
Not the judges per se (Score:4, Interesting)
This is political.
I would wager that this is Berlusconi's way of trying to control the web, you have to keep in mind this is a man who has a stranglehold on Italian media, and has used that to get into, and stay in power over the years. The web has been a headache for him, because it's an avenue from which people are getting news and which he does not control.
The judges may well be incompetent, or corrupt, but really they're just pawns in a bigger battle.
It's really hard to see how it can be anything else, I do not believe judges would reach the conclusion they did based on the fact that Google had done everything possible in their power, and based on the fact the people at Google in question who were targetted, are in some cases completely irrelevant and unattached to anything to do with the case.
It's likely that these people were chosen because they were high enough to make a point, but not the top dogs who really would have been able to unleash hell and fight back.
This is certainly one way in which Berlusconi could try and control the web such that it adheres to his viewpoint as much of the Italian media that he controls does, by ensuring that content providers are criminally responsible for anything put up that the government disagrees with. It's not a big deal for the Google execs, because they will likely never travel to Italy and so the case wont effect them- but picture this, you run a site in Italy critical of the Italian PM, you post photos of him carrying out an illegal deal, and, well, now you know where it will land you at least- jail. Anyone not from Italy doing the same, faces jail if they ever decide to travel to Italy after being convicted of the same.
It's almost as if Berlusconi has been taking lessons from the likes of Chavez and Ahmadinejad recently.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This was my conclusion, too, as soon as I read the headline after hearing this story on NPR last week:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123761651 [npr.org]
From that report:
One patron, Christian Lingreen, says his native Denmark has 100 percent Wi-Fi coverage — Italy maybe just 1 percent. "I love Italy," he says, "but I have to say [information technology], that is not their cup of tea."
Nearby sits Riikka Vanio of Finland, who is a mother of two children. "In the school, it's impossible to pass information to other parents through Internet, because none of them have Internet connection at home or not even e-mail address," she says. "So it's not part of their culture yet."
Nevertheless, Italy's right-wing government is going far beyond its European partners with the decree that would require Web sites with video content to request authorization and would mandate the vetting of copyrighted videos before they're uploaded.
Great big targets (Score:4, Interesting)
So Italy has basically painted a great big target on every single operator of social media.
Apparently if an Italian moderator or admin ticks me off I can simply upload some offending bit of data and call the cops...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Small correction:
He doesn't like ANYONE publishing ANY KIND of video. TV station owner, competition, wink wink nudge nudge
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly Italians want what we all want: Automated Protect the Handicapped and the Children video services! This is really not that hard. Just have someone write a perl script that automatically detects any potentially offensive video before the video is posted. End of problem. Case closed. In carta diem di tutto! Done and done.
It's just a simple matter of software at this point.
What?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
So one person in their customer base posts an objectionable video, they are informed about that video and remove it immediately, they assist the local police in finding who posted the video, and you think their behavior is deserving of criminal charges?
Man, I hope for your sake you never run a phone company in Italy. Imagine being held criminally liable every time one of your customers calls in a bomb threat to someone. Or the post office. Imagine the postmaster general being arrested and tried for murder each time a bomb is successfully mailed in the country.
What do you expect? Someone at Google has to watch and individually approve each and every video ever posted? How is that respecting the rights of the individual? Not only is it impractically expensive, it would be violating the right to free speech that many countries allow.
If Italy has their togas in a twist over people posting videos to public sites, the Italian government should pay for banks of censors and filter videos themselves.
Giving individuals rights means that sometimes some individuals (like the assholes who posted the video referenced above) will abuse those rights. At which point you find those individuals and punish them.
Re:What?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you expect? Someone at Google has to watch and individually approve each and every video ever posted?
Apparently that would not be enough. "Prosecutors argued that Google should have sought the consent of all parties involved with the video before allowing it to go online." So, Someone at Google has to watch every video, personally identify every person involved in the video, and get their consent, and then approve it.
Re:What?!? (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps that is exactly what is required - is is at least reasonable to debate the point rather than dismiss it outright.
Google offers a platform for publishing material. It is far different than a "common carrier" like the telephone company offering a communications system through which material is transmitted and received between individuals, or even an ISP (where multiple pairings are involved). It is, in fact, much more like a newspaper, with the difference that as it is currently run, no editor reviews the material appearing on the front page.
I can imagine a scenario under which material pertaining to me could be obtained illegally and published. If a newspaper were to publish it, I would certainly want to hold the editor of the newspaper responsible. In fact, the courts do find the editors of publications such as the National Inquirer (in the US, other publications elsewhere) responsible for publishing illegally obtained material regarding public figures such as movie stars.
Why is it so far-fetched to imagine holding the operators of an Internet-based publishing platform to a similar standard? Be careful in your responses, as I am not necessarily advocating holding them responsible; I am interested in understanding the reasoning under which it is considered ridiculous to do so.
Reasonable responses, anyone?
Re:What?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
In your analogy, the account holder is the newspaper editor. Google is the delivery company that picks it up and trucks it off.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Lets say you own a building downtown which as a large blank wall that faces the main street. Now lets say you had a mural painted on it like a city heritage or your company logo or anything to make it nicer. What it is is not important but what is important is that you have something there that you intend for people to look at. Now one night I co
Re: (Score:2)
Reasonable responses, anyone?
You must be new here.
Deep Freeze (Score:2)
Good effort to be reasonable, but this is almost judicial panic. I expect junk from prosecutors, but not judges.
This is the same as requiring them to cross reference every single version of every single web document ever made with every single person who happens to "be in it", and that's not even getting into the people who were photoshopped in it!
It's just so wrong it's despair worthy.
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite simple - enrichment of society as a whole. If we held these companies accountable to such a huge degree, society would suffer the loss of tools which currently enrich us all, since it would be economically unfeasible. At the very least it would severely limit the content that could be shared to the point that it would be useless.
Imagine you're a fledgling movie maker trying to get your work recognised via Youtube, can you seriously be expected to get the written permission of everyone at, say,
Re: (Score:2)
If Google is required to get the consent of all involved parties before posting a video, where's the line? Do message boards need to get signed consent from all parties before making a user's posting live? If I post "anegg is wrong in his arguments", does Slashdot need to get your consent before making the posting live or risk being sued?
And think about it from the user's standpoint. Even assuming that websites could somehow track down users and ask for their consent, people would start getting consent l
Re: (Score:2)
Google videos are user submitted.
cf. letters to the editor and unsolicited articles.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can think immediately of the counter-argument: "If you can't do it properly, please don't do it until you can."
We're sorry, but you cannot post this until it has been properly vetted by the Italian government. Your reply will now be redacted until the proper authorities can verify your post does not violate anyone else's rights or privacy.
.
.
.
In fact it would be likely, in your example, that of this discussion would likely be happening because Taco would still swamped under posts that say 'Why isn't this
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do think this is a shameful situation, but it's really not YouTube's fault any more than it's Slashdot's fault that people post up ASCII pictures of Goatse, or it would be Google's fault for finding pages full of racial hate or porn or whatever when you search using ambiguous words, etc. These are high traffic public sites and simply would not function with any need for pre-approval.
Sure, people might upload something to a webpage that you don't want to be there. But they could just as easily email it, IM
Re: (Score:2)
If they really need to identify and get the consent of every party does that mean that Italian TV stations aren't allowed to display video of public gatherings such as football games or peopl
Re: (Score:2)
What do you expect? Someone at Google has to watch and individually approve each and every video ever posted? How is that respecting the rights of the individual? Not only is it impractically expensive, it would be violating the right to free speech that many countries allow.
While I largely agree with you, I've seen this same statement a few times in this thread now and I have to say, I'm not sure the right to free speech is the same as the right to use a particular technology to enable that free speech (especially when other means are available - maybe the point could be stretched to say someone who has no other way of expressing their opinion would be covered). By that logic ANY website that doesn't allow me to post whatever I damn well like on their pages would be suppressin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All internet content distributors have a legal duty to make sure they have the rights to the content they distribute, before doing so.
No. Internet content originators do. So if you posted a video to Google that turns out to be a copyright violation, you (as the person who posted the video) are open to a lawsuit.
Google will remove the video upon the copyright holder's request, but they didn't create the video. Their liability ends with good-faith efforts to comply with takedown notices, and compliance with court orders to help you track down the offender when you file suit.
And yes, I do expect that someone at Google should watch every video, and file the accompanying paperwork; talent release forms, rights releases for music, photographic releases from the dp etc... Thats how it works with every other form of mass media.
The content originator or their employer is usually held liable.
Mistake (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mistake (Score:5, Informative)
Don't the Italians have an appeals process?
In the worst case, Google could go to the European Court of Justice since the European E-Commerce directive "says that "technical intermediaries" – web content hosts – are not liable for bad content but the creators or video posters are."
See this Euractiv article [66.102.9.132] for more.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't the Italians have an appeals process?
In the worst case, Google could go to the European Court of Justice since the European E-Commerce directive "says that "technical intermediaries" – web content hosts – are not liable for bad content but the creators or video posters are."
See this Euractiv article [66.102.9.132] for more.
Of course they will win at the end. This case just makes you wonder if there is a system in place to remove incompetent judges.
Re:Mistake (Score:4, Interesting)
This may be what happened here, the lower court judges expecting their decision to be overturned but still wanting to make a statement. They don't care that it clogs up the system and eats up lawyer time on both sides, it's all about showing everyone that they're boss. To them, Google is rich and can afford it, so they don't care.
Of course, I don't wholly discount the idea of Berlusconi agents applying pressure and greasing palms to chill the atmosphere either. I merely think it's the less likely excuse, yet still very plausible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they control the front-page, but does it matter if the front page looks pretty to compared to for example an FTP site where you just would get the file listing?
The e-commerse directive, articles 14 and 15 are very clear on the situation, some argue that they where written with ISPs
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Look, I think the decision is as stupid as everybody else does. But unless you are an expert on Italian law, don't go yammering about how an Italian judge doesn't know how to apply the law of a country you probably don't even live in.
Enforcing stupid laws does not make him a bad judge, nor does it make his decision a mistake. If you have evidence to the contrary other than "well I don't like this very much and therefore it must be wrong!" then by all means, point it out and let's have a look.
Re: (Score:2)
"Enforcing stupid laws does not make him a bad judge," uh, yes it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
No, GP is right. The reason we have stupid laws is because we have stupid and/or corrupt politicians. The judge in this case isn't necessarily either stupid or corrupt - quite often an astute judge who recognises a stupid law will set up a trial case (preferably by finding against someone big enough to take care of themselves like Google) which they know will almost certainly go to appeal. Once it goes to appeal, any precedent set is more binding on the lower courts. This is one of the most powerful ways in which the judiciary can use the legal system to highlight unjust laws, and I have respect for those judges who do because they take an incredible amount of flak from the man in the street who just sees a stupid decision.
That's not to say, of course, that the judge in this case wasn't just stupid and/or corrupt (there's definitely a non-zero chance of that), GP is just advocating that we perhaps, you know, get all the facts before decrying him. Generally the wording of the judge's decision will show his intent, if he speaks a lot about being bound by the letter of the law then he's doing this to get the law discussed and perhaps reconsidered. If he mainly talks about the culpability of the defendents then he's likely dumb or getting a brown envelope bonus in this month's salary.
Precedent does not matter (Score:5, Informative)
No, GP is right. The reason we have stupid laws is because we have stupid and/or corrupt politicians. The judge in this case isn't necessarily either stupid or corrupt - quite often an astute judge who recognises a stupid law will set up a trial case (preferably by finding against someone big enough to take care of themselves like Google) which they know will almost certainly go to appeal. Once it goes to appeal, any precedent set is more binding on the lower courts...
...Except that italy's judiciary (as the judiciary of most of the world, except the former british empire) does not operate under common law, but civil law. Under civil law, precedents do not matter, only the law (as written by the legislative branch) and its interpretation matter.
So basically... (Score:2)
So by extension this means that if someone pushes a kilo of cocaine through my letterbox and I report it to the police, I'm guilty of possession of a controlled substance?
The judge is a fucking retard.
Re:So basically... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. It also means the postmaster general is liable for trafficking in illegal drugs, assuming the person who pushed the kilo of cocaine through your letterbox affixed postage to it first.
Bread and circuses (Score:3, Interesting)
This is ridiculous.
If Youtube is illegal in Italy, maybe Google should just start blocking people from Italy from accessing the site. Maybe then people will care, when the people's bread and circuses are threatened.
Re: (Score:2)
This was about youtube, not Berlusconis TV stations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bread and circuses (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, at the very least, disable all uploading ability on YouTube or posting ability on Blogger or any other user-contributed Google sites from Italian users, citing this case and the unwillingness of Google to accept any more user submissions from Italian users until the case is resolved. I think that would be totally fair and completely within Google's rights.
Google could do that, but That's precisely what Berlusconi wants in the first place: complete control over all media in Italy. It would send more of a message to stop accepting advertisements by Italians, so Google can claim no Italian revenue and pay no Italian taxes.
American values in conflict here (Score:2, Insightful)
We are beginning to see a confrontation between American long held beliefs in free speech and what other nations consider to be free speech.
We are seeing this happen with internet censorship in Australia, Europe, and Asia.
It is quite possible that in the near future the internet will look very different on a per country basis.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, it was more of a conflict between free speech and the privacy of others, since they were conflicted of violating the Italian privacy code (which is pretty stringent). For the record, your right to free speech stops somewhere before you post my personal information on the 'net.
Easy solution (Score:5, Funny)
Automatically notify the Italian government of every single public video uploaded to Youtube, and offer them a 5 minute delay before it becomes viewable inside Italy in which time they can reject it.
They'll be begging for it to stop after half an hour.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy and Google don't go together (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Privacy and Google don't go together (Score:5, Insightful)
Google aren't the ones who posted the video -- they are just the conduit. If Italian authorities wish to take action against those who post videos without permission then let them pursue those who actually choose to post them instead of those who provide the platform.
Re: (Score:2)
The real solution would be to deny Italian submissions completely and/or block Italian viewers. It is too much of a burden to identify and ask for permission, or even detect videos not containing any people.
Wow. (Score:3, Funny)
Just wow.
This is so far over the top...based on the couple of different sources I have seen this story so far, Google immediately complied when asked to take the video down, assisted the authorities in finding the culprits, and fully cooperated....and the EXECUTIVES, who amount to pencil pushers with decision making powers, get convicted? Seriously, what the hell...that makes no sense.
They must have used the Chewbacca defense [wikipedia.org] against them or something...
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)
Giving Privacy Laws A Bad Name (Score:5, Insightful)
The UK's former Information Commissioner Richard Thomas said the case gave privacy laws a "bad name".
To which I entirely agree. Privacy laws have been used here in the UK (e.g., when the News Of The World posted a video showing Max Mosley in private acts), but the point is that firstly these are civil cases not criminal ones, and secondly, it requires intent, and does not make someone liable for merely "allowing" it, or running a server where users post content.
Even for something that clearly is and should be illegal, this ruling would be worrying - it's making server owners personally and criminally liable, rather than seeing them as common carriers.
But as mad as this is, in some sense this should be no different to say, if China decided to convict a Google exec for linking to pro-democracy pages, for example. Stupid, yes, but Google can and should ignore it. Those convicted do not live in Italy, so I don't see how they would have to comply if they don't visit (of course if they get extradited, then that will be mad). Google doesn't even have to pull out of Italy - they can surely just carry on, and it's up to Italy to try to block them.
The worrying thing though is that this is not some far off country, but a member of the EU.
Riiight (Score:5, Insightful)
Prosecutors argued that Google should have sought the consent of all parties involved with the video before allowing it to go online.
And should I get permission from the cop that I catch tasering someone for no reason before I post that video as well? That statement is ripe for abuse.
Misleading news (Score:5, Informative)
According to the prosecutors the video remained online for two months even though web users had already asked for it to be taken down.
It is also worth mentioning that Google execs will not serve jail time because in Italy sentences of less than three years are commuted for people without criminal records.
Interesting Reply (Score:2)
In Italy (Score:5, Interesting)
For the record, both times a car driver behaved like an arse and I told them they were 1) "un coglione" which is best translated as knobhead/dickhead/idiot and 2) "stronza" (bitch.) Both times the defamation threat came instantaneously. Knowing it would cost me US$ 100 tops, I actually enjoyed the frigging beggars -their motives were mostly financial IMHO- winding themselves up.
I suppose I actually deserved a bit of verbal thrashing and intimidation in those cases. But imagine much worthier goals being seriously hampered by this. You very quickly defame someone in Italy on the base that they actually deserve it.
We Italians sort of cherish elaborated, concocted, ridiculous laws. It makes us feel "save" in a way that if push comes to shove we will find some way to delay or attack the adversary.
Yes, I'm Italian and quite ambivalent about it. Don't think, however, that I would trade in my nationality that lightly. It's certainly not the best nationality to have but I haven't came across a better one so far. I trust most feel the same about their own nationality.
Don't look at google (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Don't look at google (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you sure Italy has case law?
What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The president Silvio Berlusconi and his family own 45% of all media in the country (http://ketupa.net/berlusconi.htm). He regularly uses his political position to personally enrich himself and his family.
Google came into the country and threatened his source of income by offering a media platform not controlled by the Berlusconi's. This has nothing to do with the autistic boy in the video, but everything to do with the retarded president.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aye -- I think this has very little to do with an actual crime, and everything to do with Berlusconi not wanting videos of himself being smashed in the face with miniatures ending up online.
They either want Google to pull out or give the Italian PM the control he wants.
Small correction... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just sayin', as a translator.
Down Syndrome != Autism (Score:3, Informative)
My parent said:
This has nothing to do with the autistic boy in the video
The summary said:
a YouTube video showing a boy with Downs syndrome
And the internets at http://autism.suite101.com/article.cfm/autism_and_down_syndrome [suite101.com] said:
One set of co-morbid conditions that are experiencing an upsurge in research is the existence of an autism spectrum disorder in an individual who also has Down syndrome
If autism and Down syndrome can coexist, it seems reasonable they can also not coexist, and that they therefore are different things.
Please don't confuse the two.
Corruption at it's best (Score:2)
Man, I love Italy. Easily my favorite European country to visit, but idiotic things like this make me never want to visit again.
IMO, any prosecutors involved in even attempting to bring such a case to court should have been immediately removed from their position. The fact that the judge allowed the case AND ruled in favor, he should have been immediately removed from his position and barred from any and all legal and / or political practices within Italy.
Re: (Score:2)
apparently you don't even have to visit there to be convicted of their laws. They're apparently able to find you guilty of allowing other people to post to the internet.
any grammar nazis notice what i just did ??? you cant complain all the time if you dont give credit!
And here I was thinking... (Score:2)
Reading the first couple of sentences of the summary "finally, common sense! Executives have been convicted over violating the poster's privacy by leading police to him!"
one RTFS and RTFA later, and... for fuck's sake.
Once again I am sure.... (Score:2)
Italian legal system (Score:2)
Shame on Italy. Not that I'm in love with Google, but you guys are fucking stupid with your legal system.
Keep in mind... (Score:4, Interesting)
... That Berlusconi, beside being the president of that country, is too the manager of almost every TV stations in Italy (Mediaset).
I live in Switzerland, and I cannot find it again, but I read some weeks ago that a law was to be enforced to regulate the viewing of on demand video.
The article was relating the big amount of money that where being put into a on-demand video platform for mediaset at the same time, and how youtube was the first competitor to put aside.
http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=450891 [totaltele.com]
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Berlusconi-s-Government-Plans-to-Severely-Restrict-Online-Video-in-Italy-132350.shtml [softpedia.com]
Given the fact that Berlusconi says all the time that "The bad journalists are attacking me without reasons all the time" http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/15/f-berlusconi-saga.html [www.cbc.ca], and how he consider that the fist in face he received some times ago was "organized and planed via facebook" http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=alDDK9lGqxtY [bloomberg.com] I am not that surprised of that move.
After all, he passed a law giving him immunity in every lawsuit for corruption that where opened against him when he came back to the government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/18/silvio-berlusconi-immunity-prosecution [guardian.co.uk]
Tried accessing YouTube from the Rome... (Score:5, Funny)
Error 1942 - Fascist exception overflow. Please disable Axis powers and reload the page.
My heroes (Score:3, Informative)
This is par for the course for Italy (Score:4, Informative)
You must be aware too that Italy probably has the strongest voice in all of the EU against the death penalty. So like many countries that don't have it, they tend to be pretty soft on true criminal behavior. They are not like the UK where you actually can get locked up for life. Remember a few years ago when some guys tried and failed to do more terrorist bombings in London? At least one of the culprits fled to Italy and demanded to be tried there. He knew that he'd get maybe 10 years at most and be set free if he faced what passes for Italian justice.
How much is Italy's business worth to Google? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's unlikely most countries would adopt the same restrictions China has, but obviously when Europe starts impacting the internet, pants are rightfully bricked. (Not that the U.S. lawmakers haven't had their fair share of calls for net filtering and ISP responsibility in the name of children, privacy, and copyright.)
Just to imagine what the landscape could look like a few years from now, following is *paraphrased* from Google's hearing before congress in 2006. [blogspot.com]
Some governments impose restrictions that make our mission difficult to achieve, and this is what we have encountered in Italy. In such a situation, we have to add to the balance a third fundamental commitment:
(c) Be responsive to local conditions.
So with that framework in mind, we decided to try a different path, a path rooted in the very pragmatic calculation that we could provide more access to more information to more Italian citizens more reliably by offering a new service – Google.it – that, though subject to Italy's self-censorship requirements, would have some significant advantages. Above all, it would be faster and more reliable, and would provide more and better search results for all but a handful of politically sensitive subjects. We also developed several elements that distinguish our service in Italy, including:
* Disclosure to users -- We will give notification to Italian users whenever search results have been removed.
* Protection of user privacy -- We will not maintain on Italy soil any services, like email, that involve personal or confidential data. This means that we will not, for example, host Gmail or Blogger, our email and blogging tools, in Italy.
* Continued availability of Google.com -- We will not terminate the availability of our unfiltered Italian-language Google.com service.
Re:firsta posta mamma mai! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is Italy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is Italy (Score:5, Funny)
evil powerful men abuse their powers they have (Score:3, Informative)
Berlusconi hasn't stolen nearly the quantity that Bush stole, nor murdered nearly so many innocent people. I'm unsure however that Bush was actually quite so blatantly corrupt as Berlusconi.
For example, I would compare the fact that Bush repealed the estate tax for 4 years with the fact that Berlusconi passed a two month tax amnesty for bringing money back into Italy from Swiss bank accounts.
Bush's temporary repeal of the estate tax seems more like grand standing because rich people must actually die withi
Re:firsta posta mamma mai! (Score:4, Interesting)
My wife and I had planned on visiting Italy in the next few years. After watching the trial, we changed our minds. Italy's legal system has
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My wife and I had planned on visiting Italy in the next few years. After watching the trial, we changed our minds. Italy's legal system has ... "flaws."
You misunderstand. Those "flaws" are in fact "features" designed by the government, to support that government (or the media companies associated with it) whenever it needs them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There were certainly large holes in the prosecution's argument, and their random character assassination tactics were pretty underhanded, but the evidence that she was at least present at the murder is rather strong. [thestranger.com] (Click 'more' to read it all.)
Re:firsta posta mamma mai! (Score:5, Interesting)
And if you still decide to travel there, be sure that your wife wears something else than jeans [bbc.co.uk].
Re:firsta posta mamma mai! (Score:4, Informative)
Obviously innocent? You must have watched a different trial. She and her boyfriend had wildly differing stories about what happened, repeatedly changed their stories and had some other issues explaining what they were doing the night of the murder. Not to mention that it is entirely possible for more than one person to participate in a murder.
Yes, there were some obvious issues in the trial (her dna is found on a knife from their apartment? Shocking!) and there are plenty of well-deserved jokes about the Italian legal system, but to go as far as saying they're obviously innocent.... that's a stretch.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are privileging the hypothesis [lesswrong.com]. Amanda Knox and her Boyfriend are obviously innocent. Rudy Guede is obviously the sole perpetrator.
More lawsuits! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure I know why this happened:Youtube is a serious threat to Berlusconi's stranglehold over all Italian TV stations.Considering how easy it is to set up a Youtube channel, traditional Italian TV is about to be pushed into irrelevance. Call Berlusconi whatever you want, but he isn't stupid. So he sends some favorable prosecutor after Youtube and will try to shut them down.
I don't know if this will lead to anything more than Youtube being pulled from Italy, because the Italian system isn't common l
first time ashamed of italy? wtf lol (Score:5, Interesting)
You must not pay ANY attention to Italian politics. Italy is the joke of Europe. lol
Spain, Portugal, Croatia, etc. are all more efficient and less corrupt. Turkey very likely matches Italy if your counting raw incidences, but Turkish corruption has a more administrative character, so people lose less money to corruption.
I know numerous real Italian-born highly educated young Italians living in Europe, except for a couple girls who choose to live near their parents, all prefer living abroad in France, Germany, or even miserable Britian over living in Italy.
It's a astonishingly bad time for young Italians living in Italy. Berlusconi's government's employment regulations have ensured most will never have the life their parents lived. I'm seriously not kidding, all the smart ones expatriate.
Berlusconi is apparently trying to gain some control over the web with this move, well he controls most non-web based news already.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to quote your quote:
Thankfully they were not found guilty of criminal defamation. Just failure to comply with Italian privacy code.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The fact that all 4 were found not guilty of a more severe sounding offen
Media in general? (Score:2)
I reached the same conclusion as you did, but what does this mean for media in general? Should they be blanking out the faces of every person in the background or asking everyone in the audience of a sports crowd whether it is okay to air the football match, for fear of showing this person on TV?
While I can appreciate privacy laws, there are some realistic bounds.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? Should I draw a Venn diagram?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It looks like the GP typo'ed/brainfarted. The statement should read:
All four were accused of two crimes: failure to comply with the Italian privacy code and criminal defamation. Three of the four were convicted on the first one (failure to comply with the Italian privacy code). None were found guilty on the second (criminal defamation).
Re: (Score:2)
If you want YouTube to be taken offline, just say so. It is less disruptive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The exact same arguments apply to any kind of online publishing forum that allow individuals to post content --- there is nothing "special" about video. Therefore, by the same logic, I suppose you also believe that online forums such as slashdot should be required to vet every single post a user makes before it goes online, in case it contains anything illegal etc. In fact, what you're saying is that there should not be such a thing as a public publishing forum. In fact, you're defending fascism - maybe unw