Italian Prosecutor Still Wants To Put Google Execs In Jail Because Of A Video Uploaded By Some Kids
from the secondary-liability-mess dept
Back in 2008 we were amazed that prosecutors in Italy were seeking to put four Google execs in jail, claiming that they were liable for a video that was uploaded to Google video, showing some kids mocking another child who is autistic. Google even took down the video after being notified of it -- and the video itself was evidence used to go after the kids for their actions. And yet, for reasons that still make no sense, prosecutors deemed that four Google execs should be found criminally liable for the fact that some kids uploaded that video. The execs in question did not taunt the child. They did not make the video. They did not upload the video. They were unaware of the video's existence. It is solely because they work at Google, and Google was a tool used by these kids to incriminate themselves, that prosecutors went after them.Making matters even more ridiculous, three of the four execs were then found guilty and given "suspended" 6 month jail sentences (meaning they didn't actually have to go to jail). A reading of the ruling by an Italian legal expert noted that the judge appeared to confuse different parts of the law to come to that conclusion. Part of the issue was that because some users "complained" in the Google Video comments, prosecutors claim that Google should have known and taken down the video (because, they apparently think that people at Google read every single comment).
Google appealed, of course, and Italian prosecutors are still arguing that the execs belong in jail for reasons that still escape me. At best, all this is doing is telling tech execs to not do business in Italy, because the country apparently has completely wacky secondary liability laws that mean you might be criminally liable (i.e., face jailtime) if anyone uses your service to do something mean to another person. The easiest way to avoid that kind of liability: don't do business in Italy at all.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: italy, secondary liability, videos
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Italian Liability
...for failing to predict seismic events.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Italian Liability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ALWAYS excusing Google.
Mike doesn't mention the time frame. I think this a good case to draw the line for corporations having SOME responsibility to police content. Mike's position is that Google execs have NO responsibility. His consistent position is that corporations and executives get only benefits without responsibilities. My bet is that the execs took Mike's legalistic position of NO responsibility and that enraged reasonable people, when those execs should have said "sorry, horrible oversight, won't happen again".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
It's likely another case of ugly Americans ignorant of local differences, and not caring. Note Mike's similar application of American law practice and his rare outraged tone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
You'd feel right at home there, ootb!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
I demand that you state your opinion, show me your videos and photos or I will be offended.
Need more input...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
Then you could delete his comments based on the following ordinance [#2012-3] that they just passed. ;)
[found via popehat ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
The problem is you're arguing negligence which is a civil matter. How can executives be CRIMINALLY responsible for what a corporation does?
I don't disagree that there should be a slightly better notification system, but if you allow users to just flag videos, you're going to get into levels where users can basically implement DMCA takedowns and censor content with just a click.... and that violates the concept of a free and open internet.
Note that freedom means we allow people to do bad things- you can't be free and unable to do wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
Mike clearly mentioned the time frame. VIDEO REMAINED ONLINE FOR TWO MONTHS.
"I think this a good case to draw the line for corporations having SOME responsibility to police content."
Please. You are on here day in and day out bitching constantly how they should police content. This case however is NOT a good one for what you want, policing content.
Simply put, free speech is free speech. Even if some of it is speech you don't agree with. I have an autistic niece. I would be disheartened and pissed if someone posted a video online making fun of her. But being a person who thinks rationally and uses that thing between their ears (brain) I would know that the people to hold responsible for the video are THOSE WHO MADE THE VIDEO AND UPLOADED IT. Not the execs of a company whose product/service was used to upload and put the video online for people to see.
"Mike's position is that Google execs have NO responsibility."
That's not Mike's position, that's anyone with an ounce of of a brain's reasoning. And definitely the position of anyone who can realize that there needs to be a level of personal responsibility in this day and age, as opposed to blaming others (Google) for the actions of people they have no control over (websites/users/etc).
"His consistent position is that corporations and executives get only benefits without responsibilities."
No, that is not his consistent position. That is YOUR opinion of what you THINK his position his, but sadly reality would like to have a word with you and your distortion of it.
"My bet is that the execs took Mike's legalistic position of NO responsibility and that enraged reasonable people, when those execs should have said "sorry, horrible oversight, won't happen again"."
And that legal position is the correct one as far as the law is concerned. Reasonable people would see that Google can't be held responsible for the actions of people who use its services. However, that DID NOT enrage reasonable people. It merely enrages morons (or should I say ankle biters) like you. What DID enrage people, reasonable ones at that, was a video of teens making fun of an autistic person. And what's worse, and which you fail to comment on, is how THOSE teens essentially got a slap on the wrist for something they did. Yet you want Google execs imprisoned for failing to review the comments on the video? Do you not fail to see the hypocrisy there. "Kids who did it, effectively no punishment? That's cool, just being kids and all. Google's involved?! THROW THE BOOK AT THEM!" That's how you sound.
As for "won't happen again", more stupidity on your part. So what you want is for Google, or better said its execs, to personally review the comments on all videos submitted to Youtube for anything that someone might be offended by and feign mock outrage (like you are doing) over. There are 60 hours of video uploaded to Youtube per minute. The majority of which garner comments from the inane to the outrageous to the inflammatory.
But hey, let's make sure we put those Google execs to work monitoring all of it. Because heaven forbid we hold the ones doing the uploading and commenting responsible for their actions. /s
I don't like you blue. Mostly because you're an idiot. But also because you're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
And since Google is a business that must make a profit, they'd pass their costs on the the customers. Are you willing to pay over a thousand dollars per search?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
Isn't that your signature?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
The US Government believes only it's laws apply to the Internet, see Rojadirecta and SurfTheChannel lawsuits. Why would a US company who sees what it's Government does not then assume that as it has no liability in the US it doesn't have liability in another country? There is no such thing as Youtube.IT, only Youtube.COM.
Italian law doesn't cover .COMs in the eyes of the US Government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
Perhaps because that time frame is meaningless. It's form when comments were made on the page complaining about the video. Google doesn't read the comments, so how would they know? Now, if it were three months from when an actual complaint was to Google, perhaps there'd be some case for corporate liability -- but I still have a hard time seeing how these executives should be held personally responsible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
> having SOME responsibility to police content.
You mean just in Italy? Because if you're suggesting that corporations have a general world-wide, legal, government-imposed duty to block what people say and do on YouTube, to basically censor speech that might hurt someone's feelings, then that's gonna run smack up hard against the 1st Amendment in the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Camera Company Execs, too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do banks and other entities have an obligation to prevent wrongdoing in the financial ecosystem and everyone in the internet ecosystem claims they have little or no responsibility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. The context is different.
Why do some people insist that regulation of commerce is on the same plane as regulation of speech, and writings�and video?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Odd, that. I don't hear any sizable number of people claiming this. Where are you hearing it?
What I do hear people claim is that internet companies have a responsibility to to everything they can while balancing their actions with the rights of innocent others, not to mention technical limitations.
By and large, they do pretty well, in my opinion, and when they err it's almost always on the side of hurting innocent others to placate major corporations and governments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> to prevent wrongdoing in the financial ecosystem
> and everyone in the internet ecosystem claims they
> have little or no responsibility?
Because at least in the U.S., free speech gets the highest level of protection and is considered more important than the patterns by which money flows through the banking system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, via Popehat (who heard it from SPLC), we learn that Vernon County, Wisconsin has now criminalized �being mean on the internet�
So it isn't just Italy, and Italians. The Badgers are up for it too�all out to outlaw badgering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This principle doesn't fly in many EU nations due to their insistence on trying to bring morals into legal matters, but I am hopeful that at some point reason will be seen and people will start to understand that laws and ethics do not go hand in hand and that people simply do not have a right to not be offended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thankfully we have 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence, which ought to put a quick end to nonsense like that Wisconsin statute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey if Google execs can be held liable for this then my situation should be MUCH more reasonable, since the farmers and chefs KNEW they were getting rich overfeeding my friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google comment reader
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google comment reader
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder what Italians and Germans would make of a single page that pointed out the stupidity of their nations legal system or industries when they went to any Google page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Answer
When he complains: "Well, we told you we were going to publish and gave you the opportunity to prevent this, so it's your fault."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about all the other criminals that contributed to this awful crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We took the radical step of HAVING CONFERENCES WITH THE TEACHERS AND PARENTS.
Excessive, I know. But sometimes you just gotta pull out the big guns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't stop the music...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]