×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Four Google Officials Facing Charges In Italy For Errant Video

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the looks-like-digging-for-deep-pockets-to-me dept.

The Courts 153

mikesd81 writes to tell us that four Google employees may be facing charges of defamation and failure to control personal data simply because they didn't remove a video of a boy with Down's Syndrome being harassed and eventually hit over the head with a box of tissue, from Google Video. The video was posted in September of 2006 and was removed by Google within a day of receiving the initial complaints, but apparently that isn't fast enough. "Google maintains charges against the employees are unwarranted, Pancini said. Europe's E-commerce Directive exempts service providers from prescreening content before it is publicly posted, he said. Also, the video was technically uploaded to a Google server in the US, not in Italy, Pancini said. 'It was a terrible video,' Pancini said, adding that Google is concerned about the case's impact on censorship on the Internet. The defendants include David C. Drummond, a Google senior vice president, corporate development and chief legal officer. Pancini said Drummond did paperwork to create Google Italy, but has never lived in the country."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

153 comments

Long Italian tradition of standing up for the weak (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681419)

Sometimes Youtube is like some sort of arena where the weak are abused for the mere amusement of the masses. And of course, Italians would never put up with such a vile spectacle!

Re:Long Italian tradition of standing up for the w (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25681895)

Too soon.

Re:Long Italian tradition of standing up for the w (0)

Ifni (545998) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682069)

Now that's funny - why'd you go and post as AC?

Re:Long Italian tradition of standing up for the w (4, Funny)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682241)

Now that's funny - why'd you go and post as AC?

Sorry i was in a hurry and i wasn't logged in...

Just kidding, i didn't post that. Hah. Or did i? Really i just wanted to ensure that if someone stepped up to the plate after this, it would be sufficiently confusing that one could never know if they were really the OP! Hah! Oh god, i need a life...
-Taylor

So...does anyone have a mirror? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25682651)

I^H A friend of mine has DS, and I just need to confirm the habits of that fellow suffering through his ordeal. Is he more prone to Jock Itch too? Fark? Nintendo'd DS?

Re:Long Italian tradition of standing up for the w (1, Funny)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682263)

(treading carefully not to invoke Godwin's Law)

Maybe they are trying to distance themselves from past mistakes and be better as the Germans have done.

Re:Long Italian tradition of standing up for the w (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25682709)

you mentioned it and lost.

Re:Long Italian tradition of standing up for the w (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25684847)

I think you missed the GP joke:

"too soon" wasn't for Jews, it was for Christians. See Ancient Rome, Nero, Lions, Feeding to the...

Re:Long Italian tradition of standing up for the w (2, Insightful)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681949)

I agree with you, and think that certain regulation should be implemented that mimics certain countries laws. That would be the person who shot the video, no the person who is hosting the server that let someone post the video. I am not sure(as I never read the articles) but if the person is guilty of not screening, then I don't think there should be punishment, but if there is a way to track the person who filmed the video and posted it...they are the ones who should get charged.

Re:Long Italian tradition of standing up for the w (3, Interesting)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682287)

I agree with you, and think that certain regulation should be implemented that mimics certain countries laws. That would be the person who shot the video, no the person who is hosting the server that let someone post the video. I am not sure(as I never read the articles) but if the person is guilty of not screening, then I don't think there should be punishment, but if there is a way to track the person who filmed the video and posted it...they are the ones who should get charged.

Charged with what? Putting a distasteful video on the internet? Do you know what kind of precedent that would set? Not that the current situation (suing google) is any better...
-Taylor

Re:Long Italian tradition of standing up for the w (2, Insightful)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682331)

Or for assaulting a kid with Down syndrome...

Re:Long Italian tradition of standing up for the w (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 5 years ago | (#25683171)

Or for assaulting a kid with Down syndrome...

Yeah, sorry, i misread the article. I was thinking it was more of a playful thing that was just distasteful, not a harassment/assault thing.
-Taylor

Re:Long Italian tradition of standing up for the w (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25683335)

With a box of tissues? Whatever, this is stupid.

Re:Long Italian tradition of standing up for the w (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#25684011)

Assault only requires an unlawful attack, it need not cause any harm, nor even be physical in nature.

Considering that spitting on someone is considered assault and battery (battery being the part involving physical contact) in most of the US (not sure about Italy, but I would imagine the law is roughly analogous on this topic), I would imagine that a box of tissues at least qualifies as assault.

Re:Long Italian tradition of standing up for the w (2, Interesting)

Alinabi (464689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682609)

Do you know what kind of precedent that would set?

None, as the Italian law system is not based in common law and therefore does not have the notion of precedent

Re:Long Italian tradition of standing up for the w (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 5 years ago | (#25683007)

Do you know what kind of precedent that would set?

None, as the Italian law system is not based in common law and therefore does not have the notion of precedent

Ah, well then, interesting.
-Taylor

Re:Long Italian tradition of standing up for the w (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25683147)

Do you know what kind of precedent that would set?

A precedent that abuse is not acceptable?

May I be the first to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25684947)

This whole thing is simply retarded.

Re:Long Italian tradition of standing up for the w (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25683361)

I haven't seen the video, but good grief, are those americans stepping up their game against asians again. Those poor guys, lord knows what kind of psychological trauma they're put through over there.

no boarders (4, Insightful)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681439)

Seems that the internet having no boarders is being used by courts to extend their reach (e.g. Kentucky). This certainly does look like a good road to be traveling down.

Re:no boarders (0, Offtopic)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681777)

Borders.

Boarders are guests at a Bed and Breakfast. Borders are the invisible imaginary lines people draw on maps.

Re:no boarders (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681839)

You mean that razor wire is imaginary? It looks so real!

Re:no boarders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25683433)

Razor wire that runs selectively across a few sections of ground hardly constitutes a border:

http://www.csmonitor.com/slideshows/2008/border-map/

Why do you think there was such a ruckus about creating an actual wall when immigration was the hot political issue a few years ago.

Re:no boarders (1, Funny)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681943)

Glad to know that it provided you enjoyment. (See my sig)

Re:no boarders (0, Offtopic)

Seakip18 (1106315) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682551)

Off topic? C'mon! He's responding to a post within the context! He's not talking about how proper coding methods are vital or other things that have no bearing with this discussion thread.

Re:no boarders (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682689)

You know you've always wanted an internet where IP law is handled by the Americans, politically controversial material by the Germans, porn by the Iranians, and dissidents by the Chinese.

No, wait, never mind. That's hell I'm talking about.

Italy, eh? (4, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681449)

That's a bit machiavellian of them.

Re:Italy, eh? (1)

consequentemente (898944) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682427)

In the sense of Machiavelli's "The Prince", perhaps; in the sense of Machiavelli's "Discourses on Livy", not so much. The dude gets a pretty bad wrap over the former, which is largely contradicted by the latter.

Re:Italy, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25682573)

A "bad wrap"?? What is that, like a condom with a hole in it?

Re:Italy, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25683951)

Yeah, just like what your father was wearing when you were conceived.

No jurisdiction (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25681489)

File under: Shit nobody cares about

Re:No jurisdiction (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25681805)

Tag this: ohforfuckssake

Re:No jurisdiction (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25681953)

You mean: tag this, "canttouchthis"

corporations (4, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681515)

How on earth are they suing individuals? Google is a corporation and must be treated as such under the law.

Re:corporations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25681661)

How on earth are they suing individuals? Google is an American corporation and must be treated as such by the American government under American law.

Fixed that for ya.

Re:corporations (4, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681707)

The problem is under which country's laws are they protected, under which are they not protected and which country actually has jurisdiction.

Re:corporations (4, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681879)

Yeah but good luck extraditing american citizens for a non-case. An american judge would throw out the case in an instant, and an american judge would deny extradition just as fast.

Re:corporations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25682407)

Only problem is if the ones who are charged ever take an international flight. Even if Italy isn't their destination country, there could be an emergency layover and they would be immediately arrested. At least that's how it works in the US.

Re:corporations (1)

Ravon Rodriguez (1074038) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682525)

true, but, if convicted, good luck ever traveling to Italy without getting yourself arrested.

Re:corporations (4, Insightful)

nanoflower (1077145) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682683)

Gee... Never having to travel to Italy but allowed to travel the rest of the world.. Hmm. I think I can live with that... Besides, Italy wouldn't even try to extradite these guys since I doubt the punishment if found guilty is that harsh. What's strange is that they aren't spending their time finding the people who actually did harrass the kid. It's doubtful that the child even knows about Youtube or what it means for the video to be up there so it's not like putting the video up is causing him harm. Doing the actual harrassment is the real harm and is what should be punished.

Re:corporations (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25683319)

Pity, Italy's pretty cool. Of course, the average American never leaves the state they were born in let alone the country. It must be nice to live in an area so fucking awesome that you never want to leave it.

Re:corporations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25683479)

And good luck traveling to Italy afterwards.
Even just the EU might be risky.

Wait, we were talking about Americans?
Nevermind! Go on...

Re:corporations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25681857)

I'm guessing their suing the directors of the Google Italy company, although I might be wrong.

Re:corporations (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682245)

How on earth are they suing individuals? Google is a corporation and must be treated as such under the law.

Judicial processing of violations of criminal law are (usually?) targeted at individuals. For example, you can't just murder someone and then claim that as an employee of a corporation you have some kind of legal immunity. Obviously it all depends on the law and judicial authority in question.

Re:corporations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25683599)

You cant put a corporation in jail.

A lot of people thing that the only way to make corps behave (criminally) is to make the people making the criminal decisions leading to criminal actions personally accountable for them.

The corporate veil was only intended to protect investors from being sued for the financial losses of the corporation (to support the greater good of society). It is not a blanked get-out-of-jail-free card.

Re:corporations (5, Insightful)

pmontra (738736) | more than 5 years ago | (#25683603)

As an Italian living in Italy I remember that the boys that were responsible for the harassment were prosecuted in 2006, at the time of the facts.

Google has been accused of abuses related to the failure of preventing defamation and to having made a profit out of that video thanks to the ads on the page (this is an abuse because our privacy laws). Those are criminal charges that can result in both a fine and jail time. Under Italian law individuals have criminal responsibility and not companies. That's why the state is suing managers of Google and not the company.

My take on this issue is that's impractical to scan and review every single video, picture or comment posted to the internet (Google Video, YouTube, Flickr, even Slashdot). It's just a matter of volume. Laws that were created with the press or the TV in mind should be rewritten to take in account that fact unless we want to shutdown the Internet in Italy.

I'm sure that in every country there are forces that want to tighten the control on the Internet and the freedom of speech of individuals, but I'm also sure that in most countries the majority of the citizens don't support them. Criminal responsibility is individual and only posters should be sued when controls on content are impractical. The service provider should be exempted from any accusations of complicity.

Seriously? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25681531)

What's wrong with smacking around a retard for kicks? Bunch of faggots.

Itally Not Prudent (5, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681597)

If this proceeds, Google should simply shut down its operations in Italy and move to a neighboring country where its employees won't be targeted by tyrants.

I'm assuming Italy doesn't want that reputation.

Re:Itally Not Prudent (2)

areusche (1297613) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681741)

I'm not an expert on international law, but if the employees aren't in Italy then why should they worry? I doubt a US court would allow an extradition for a crime as meaningless like this.

Also is there a mirror of this video? I want to see it since some employees could be getting into some trouble because of it!

Re:Itally Not Prudent (3, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682185)

You don't want a warrant for your arrest in any country. Even if it is something stupid which you can't be extradited for. It means you can never visit and you can never get a flight which goes through their airport or even anywhere near the country (for fear of being diverted to the country for some reason).

Re:Itally Not Prudent (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 5 years ago | (#25683023)

well, because they'd be at risk throughout Europe if a European arrest warrant was issued for them. And it seems that local governments don't have the right to tell issuing countries to get bent when they recieve a warrant for a petty or out-of-jurisdiction 'offence'.

Re:Itally Not Prudent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25682033)

Absolutely. While they're at it, they can close their whole Europe business, too. I wouldn't miss Google.

Re:Itally Not Prudent (2, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682059)

If this proceeds, Google should simply shut down its operations in Italy and move to a neighboring country where its employees won't be targeted by tyrants.
.

and where, pray tell, in the EU is Google going to find a more tolerant reception when it comes to stories like this?

Re:Itally Not Prudent (3, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682153)

I don't think there is anywhere they could move that would have a LESS tolerant reception, so it doesn't really matter if they move. It can only stay about the same or get better.

This was a hate crime (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25681603)

Unless the tardo had a runny nose.

WOP Dego Bastards (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25681617)

Fuck you, Italy, with your dego mustaches and greasy hair.

This is the last straw!!

I've always suspected Italians were just flamboyant Jews.

Prosecutors in Italy are stupid... (5, Interesting)

fabrica64 (791212) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681621)

You may not know it but many prosecutors here in Italy are well known for being quite stupid and just trying to appear on newspapers. Laws in Italy are sometimes so complicated that they can justify any kind of "crime"

Re:Prosecutors in Italy are stupid... (5, Funny)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681723)

Well, thank god that never happens in the USA!

Re:Prosecutors in Italy are stupid... (0, Flamebait)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681851)

Well, thank god that never happens in the USA!

Well Obama is promising for the US to be more like Europe...

Re:Prosecutors in Italy are stupid... (1)

Loibisch (964797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681887)

Ah, that probably means they're just going to be your average run-of-the-mill amount of "ignorant". Ignore Italy, they're special...

Re:Prosecutors in Italy are stupid... (1)

arevos (659374) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682811)

Never has the world had more need for a B-Ark [wikipedia.org].

Just so you know, I've already reserved a place for all the British MPs that think a surveillance state is a good idea.

Re:Prosecutors in Italy are stupid... (1)

rtechie (244489) | more than 5 years ago | (#25683017)

Please mod the parent up.

These kind of dumb warrants against foreigners by prosecutors/judges in Italy are very common. There are warrants in Italy against President George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, for example.

In case you never saw a mafioso... (4, Interesting)

orzetto (545509) | more than 5 years ago | (#25683105)

That was a comment that reeks Mafia all the way. Sure, some prosecutors are silly like there are silly people everywhere, but this kind of generalisation is typical of corrupt politicians who accuse prosecutors going after them of being politically motivated, as appearing in the press were the main aspiration of prosecutors (in case you did not know: we do not elect prosecutors nor judges here, so being known among the populace is no career advantage). There is much more money and career to be made by keeping quiet and pandering to illegal interests, as Corrado Carnevale [wikipedia.org] exemplifies.

As for the specific case, I'd like to point out that in the Italian system felonies, once reported, must always be investigated and prosecuted, no matter the opinion of the prosecutor; it is a way of reducing arbitrary decisions and IMHO it is overall a Good Thing. As the article says, the decision to hold trial has not been made yet, and the chance that the prosecutor will ask for an archiving is not as small as you Americans may think; since all reported felonies must be investigated, dropping one is not a mark of incompetence on someone's career.

If I remember correctly, in this specific instance it was former justice minister Clemente Mastella [wikipedia.org], leader of a corruption-ridden micro-party and currently in political disgrace (the two things are unfortunately unrelated...) that was most vocal in calling for a ban on Youtube and Google video when the video surfaced, of course never suggesting that the people who uploaded the video and performed the assault should be investigated themselves.

In fact, I have no idea about what happened to the perpetrators. Surely I did not read nor hear anything on Italian media. It seems that all the fuss was about the thing being recorded and broadcast, instead of the crime itself.

WTF (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25681631)

Food tv shows Malto Mario all teh time. I don't see them gettin sued

Related US Law (3, Insightful)

ApharmdB (572578) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681641)

For anyone who has managed a web forum (or yahoo group or whatever) and been sued for defamation/libel over material posted by a 3rd party - Is Section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act the relevant US law to be used in one's defense?

It seems to be appropriate, but does anyone have personal experience?

Link to the Video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25681651)

So where is a link to the video?

Re:Link to the Video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25683941)

The Streisand Effect is a myth.

Prove me wrong for this video, Slashdot.

At least they know their priorities (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25681659)

Predictably, it doesn't state anywhere that Italian prosecutors are going after the boys who harassed and attacked a handicapped child.

Re:At least they know their priorities (4, Informative)

brainnolo (688900) | more than 5 years ago | (#25684119)

The boys who harred and attacked the child were already prosecuted in 2006.

Anyone else getting sick and tired of "advocacy?" (0, Flamebait)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681663)

I swear, it needs to become harder for people to form not-for-profit corporations and become "advocates" and activists. Too often such groups are good for nothing other than raising a stink over nothing, suing others, acting in petty, partisan ways, etc.

Are they vital to democracy? No. In fact, one of the things that such groups often make increasingly clear today is that they are enemies of liberty. It's one thing to protect everyone's right to speak their opinion (freedom of speech and freedom of the press). It's quite another for the law to make it easy to form tax-free organizations that exist entirely for the typically asinine purposes that most non-profits serve.

These people need to get lives and a real job doing something of value in the economy instead.

Re:Anyone else getting sick and tired of "advocacy (4, Funny)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681921)

I swear, it needs to become harder for people to form not-for-profit corporations and become "advocates" and activists. Too often such groups are good for nothing other than raising a stink over nothing, suing others, acting in petty, partisan ways, etc.

Why don't you found a 501(c)(3) corporation to work for the banning of such groups?

Why go after Google? (3, Interesting)

Clandestine_Blaze (1019274) | more than 5 years ago | (#25681917)

So let me get this straight, four kids were bullying a child with Down's Syndrome and a video of it was posted on Google Video. Rather than speaking with the parents of the children about bullying someone, especially someone with Down's Syndrome, prosecutors in Italy decide to go after Google? I don't think the teens involved should be going to jail and certainly Italian taxpayer time and money should not be directed completely on this. But I don't see how or why they are trying to go after Google, especially since they complied with the removal request within a day.

Also, for those of you wondering who Pancini is and didn't read the article, he is introduced in the article as Marco Pancini, Google's European public policy counsel. The summary does not mention who the hell he is.

Re:Why go after Google? (2, Insightful)

tompkins (1392469) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682395)

Mod parent up. Why all of the misguided outrage for a delay in removing an offensive video? The priority here is obviously to go after the deep pockets rather than any concern for the kids involved. Just think of the children!

Re:Why go after Google? (4, Informative)

orzetto (545509) | more than 5 years ago | (#25683205)

[...] prosecutors in Italy decide to go after Google?

Prosecutors do not decide what to prosecute in Italy. Felonies, when reported, must always be investigated. In this case, it was the ministry of Interior that sent in a complaint, and prosecutors are only doing their job. Should they decide to start a trial instead of archiving the case, then there will be a reason to insult them.

What happened to all the love??? (0, Offtopic)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682017)

The election was Tuesday and it's all gone by Friday? SHEESH!!!!

Re:What happened to all the love??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25682047)

Chill out, there, Joe-the-offtopic-poster.

--
Joe The AC

Drummond has never lived in the country... (2, Interesting)

chrb (1083577) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682105)

Pancini said Drummond did paperwork to create Google Italy, but has never lived in the country

What, you mean you can be sentenced to several years in jail in a nation that you're never even visited? [govtech.com] Imagine the shock.

I wonder if we'll ever see an American extradited to Europe, Australia, or even China for breaking intellectual property laws. The US is currently lobbying for criminal law to be used to enforce patents in the EU - it would be amusing to see the response if Europe actually started requesting the extradition of Americans who are suspected of violating EU patents!

In other news, treaties that are only enforced by one side suck.

Re:Drummond has never lived in the country... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25682649)

You know, I expected to find something in that story that I could use to refute the validity of your claim. Perhaps that the law he had violated was particularly severe, or something we could all agree on. But nope, that was a pretty good example of things we will have to deal with increasingly in this world. It is like being at the border of one country and saying something loud enough that someone in a neighboring country overhears (which is illegal to say in that country) and being arrested for it in your country (where it may or may not even be illegal) and then forced to answer for it in a foreign land (and then ending up in that land's jail system). This is a slippery slope if I ever saw one. What foreign laws are we going to have our people subjected to while in this country? To me the answer must be "none". And in that case how is it reasonable to expect the reverse. If someone here does something that is illegal here in another land (for example, hiring someone to kill someone else) then they should be charged and prosecuted here, since we can't trust a foreign court system. And while they may not trust ours, it is our citizen we are talking about. I feel every government should take this same stance. Else, what good is a government?

Re:Drummond has never lived in the country... (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 5 years ago | (#25684687)

Ahh, and the rest of the world wonders why the US doesn't join the World Court. Small fucking wonder. This kind of persecutory monkey business is exactly the problem.

diddums (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25682311)

In other news US accuses non-US citizen in non-US country of vague crime then unilaterally "extradites" accused to concentration camp in non-US country then releases suspect after 5 years with no charge.

Think about the children! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25682477)

Actually, I just want to see the video. Anyone have a link?

Yet another example of misplaced anger... (2, Insightful)

eepok (545733) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682929)

Why sue Youtube?

There are the harassers and the video posters who are more directly linked with any harm.

Oh, right. The money.

Why Not Just Ignore Italy? (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#25682939)

Why doesn't Google simply tell Italy to shove it? What are they going to do about it? Google is an American not an Italian company.

QQ more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25683053)

After watching some of Pasolini's flicks, I don't think they have much room to talk.

Creating a precedent to serve our fascist regime (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25683169)

I'm italian. For those of you who didn't know, here's a highly condensed list of relevant events in our recent history.

1 - Fascism is back.

Every democracy challenged regime must control the information sources, youtube included, therefore they're working on it in a subtle way.
While that video surely shouldn't have been posted online and those bastards deserve a new ass treatment in some dark jail, I'm pretty sure our government is trying to force things to the point Google will give the government a tool to delete unwanted post, which - as history taught us - will soon include stuff that any truly democratic government would allow to be posted.

This is Rather Ridiculous, but is Silver-Lined (0, Flamebait)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#25683179)

It's a rather outrageous case, and we all know it. Still, there's a certain satisfaction in seeing Google execs suffer for any reason. I imagine I'd feel the same way if W went to Singapore, gave his secret service buddy a stick of gum that was later spit onto the sidewalk, and got caned.

Freedom, Net Neutrality and no Censorship (1, Insightful)

lamapper (1343009) | more than 5 years ago | (#25683965)

Wouldn't it be nice to finally have saved up enough money to go on a trip abroad, land in the airport, you go through airport security, they check your visa, type your name into their computer and UP pops a wants and warrants for you to be arrested. Yes you worked at that company that posted that video. Or you posted a comment that many in our government found offensive. Or you offended the-supreme-being-we-believe-in with your remarks in that slashdot post therefore we are going to take you out back and shoot you. Yes it would suck.

Censorship [wikipedia.org], separation of powers [wikipedia.org], I would suggest that this video issue touches on those and others and we need Net Neutrality [wikipedia.org] to prevent the bigotry [wikipedia.org] of others from impacting any of us.

The impact on censorship is huge. No provider should ever be held liable for anyone's content. The fact that they are going after the company, in this case Google, and not the individuals that posted the content is bad enough in my opinion. If I were on a jury (of course in another country would you even have that option) I would want it thrown out based on censorship alone. You want to censor, go ahead and censor yourself if you want, but do NOT dare to decide for me or anyone else.

Bringing down the offending video should have been sufficient, but in this case appears not to have been. It should have been.

A good reason not to allow any court in any other country, NOT to have an impact in the country in which you live. We need to be held accountable to our laws alone, and many are bad enough without putting another countries garbage before our own.

Should this case or any case like it impact anyones freedom in the USA (or any other country); we all have additional problems. This must not be allowed to happen in the United States. (And no amount of fear should be acceptable to reduce an individuals rights [wikipedia.org] as has been done here in the US by our own government in the last few years...sad but true for us.)

Another good reason for the separation of powers [wikipedia.org] for any government. Two that come quickly to mind are legislative vs judicial and church vs state.

For legislative vs judicial, it seems simple enough, one group legislates, makes laws the other group bases their decisions on those laws. As I read this, this seems too simple a definition, perhaps someone with more legal expertise than I can add to this and make it better. Specifically, I do not have a problem as many do with the Supreme Court legislating from the Bench, is this not one thing they MUST do? Another thought, if you do not bring a decision up for them to decide than they cannot legislate from the bench can they? As I mention later this falls into the category of watching what you wish for as you just might get it. (Of course you can legislate morality, but SHOULD you? I would suggest that a wise person would NOT ever!)

For church vs state, it seems simple enough. If any of us want freedom of religion [wikipedia.org] to worship and believe that this is a right given to us by our creator, than why allow any law to be made that will allow another group, no matter how well meaning, discriminate against our ability to worship (or not) as we see fit.

Yet many in this country, the good old USA, must really want to live under a theocracy as they consistently attempt to legislate religious activities, behavior, etc, you name it. Or perhaps many misguided Americans want to live under Despotism [wikipedia.org], our founding fathers understood what that meant as well. This is extremely short sighted and our founding fathers, many of which were deeply religious, understood the danger of forcing religion on others and put in place articles, amendments and words founding this country in the hopes that we would avoid that fate. That is what allows Freedom of Religion at its most basic level. From the Declaration of Independence [wikipedia.org]:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

As for the reference to Creator in the above quote from the Declaration of Independence, my theology is my own and I have an unalienable right to pursue mine as you do yours. Yours should not impede mine and my theology should not impede yours. I do not wish to impede your theology, can you say the same to me?

Do the laws, the proposals you vote for and support say otherwise? If you say you support me to pursue my own theology as I do you, mustn't you also condemn any law and any proposition that would impede me? Are you not sinning against your theology to do otherwise?

Would any of us honestly want to live under religious laws? (Those that want to limit the rights of others, especially for religious reasons, are setting a very dangerous precedent that will allow another majority or minority-but-better-connected religious group to force their belief - whether we like it or not - on us to worship in a different way)

Its as if we forget the lessons taught to us by history, either that or some us are just stupid. Or perhaps we just have too much pride [wikipedia.org].

Profess life, but condemn others to die because of lack of access to safe care, a safe environment and safe procedures.

Profess tolerance, but are intolerant of another.

Claim truth, yet lie in the process of getting your way, just look at the wording of many proposals in many states to see how confusing the language is when one minority group wants to confuse the majority to get their way. And it does work doesn't it.

Claim the high ground, but live in the gutter.

If you don't like something fine, turn it off, censor yourself and your family, whatever; but do NOT assume you know what is best for me and mine as that just makes you an A$$. As for me I do not accept your perception - assumption (nor am I going to tolerate any attempts by you to force your views upon me; thus the second part of the assUme saying does not apply to me only you.

The right question is not whether you can, (legislate) it is whether you should? Seems too many have no self control and think they know what is right for others. (Here is a hint: You are wrong!) If you are a politician that has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution [wikipedia.org] in your oath of office, should you not resign immediately? If you do not resign, how ethical and honest are you?

I believe our founding fathers in creating the Constitution [wikipedia.org] and Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org] understood this and that is why it is so difficult to delete, add or change an Amendment. They, as I, were not anti-religious, we just value freedom more.

If you (American) or another (the Italian courts) do anything to restrict my freedom, than I must love freedom more than you do. Perhaps you do not deserve it, why else would you try to limit or take away the freedom of another.

The one obvious caveat is that ones activities MUST not harm another. What other caveats can you think of?

Is it just me or is censorship at the heart of many ills of our society?

Why is that one covets control over another, is that not a sin as well?

Or perhaps it is Envy [wikipedia.org], jealousy or something else that diminishes you, whatever it is, only you can control you!

Google's response (1)

merc (115854) | more than 5 years ago | (#25683969)

Google immediately responded to this by denying ingress TCP packets from all Italian netblocks and redirecting google.it and google.co.it to goatse.cx.

Just kidding, but it would be funny.

Re:Google's response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25684713)

Actually, that doesn't sound like a bad response (the blocking part, not the goatse part). If they might expose themselves to this sort of thing by allowing access from certain jurisdictions, then it seems entirely reasonable to disallow that access in order to protect the company, the employees, and the investors.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...