RSSGoogle execs face jail time in Italy over a user's video
By Jacqueline Emigh | Published February 3, 2009, 11:41 AM
Four Google execs face trial today in Milan, Italy, on criminal charges of defamation and privacy around a cellphone video, in a case that raises questions around the applicability of country-specific laws to user-submitted content.
In the video, a 17-year-old boy with Down syndrome gets taunted by a group of high school students in Turin, who then proceed to hit him with a box of tissues. Although the executives weren't directly involved in handling the three-minute clip posted to Google Video, all four face possible jail time.
The video was posted to Google Video on Sept. 8, 2006, by one of the youths who disparaged the disabled teen.
The case is drawing global attention because it is unusual, if not unprecedented, for Internet company executives to be held criminally responsible -- and to face possible jail time -- for the actions of their companies. The charges in Italy against the four executives carry maximum jail time of 36 months.
The charges also bring up the issue of whether Internet companies should screen user-submitted content before publishing it. Under US copyright law, online services are generally protected from liability as long as they respond quickly to complaints.
Similarly, under European Union law, Internet service providers are not required to monitor third-party content on their sites, However, they are required to remove content considered objectionable if they get a complaint about it, according to Tracey Bentley, director of publications for the Internet Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), a group that's been looking into the charges against the four execs.
Google removed the offending content on November 7, 2006, within 24 hours of receiving two separate complaints: one from a user, and one from the Italian Interior Ministry.
However, Milan public prosecutor Francesco Cajani is charging Google as an Internet content provider, not as an Internet service provider.
Under Italian penal code, Internet content providers are indeed held responsible for third-party content published to their sites. "This is essentially the same law regulating newspaper and television publishers," Bentley wrote in an IAPP newsletter.
According to an article in today's New York Times, the four executives charged in Italy include David Drummond, Google's senior VP and chief legal officer; George Reyes, Google's former CFO; Peter Fleischer, Google's global counsel; and a still unidentified executive who formerly worked at Google Video in London.
As Bentley tells it, Fleischer was on his way to a speaking engagement at the University of Milan on January 23 of this year when he was suddenly detained by law enforcement officials, who ultimately allowed him to deliver his talk before taking him to a deposition by the public prosecutor.
I will make one point- While this case does involve a tech company (Google), the issues swirling around this case have more to do with culture, Italian Law, and sociology than technology. Maybe this is the type of article that is better suited to a "news" organization than a "tech" site. Just my humble opinion and I know that others may and will probably disagree and that's fine.
Everyone have a nice day:)
Score: 0
|of course there will be disagreements as assuredly as diversed cultures clash.
however, technology/science and culture/philosophy will always intertwine, like dna.
if for example, google wants to operate in iran, then it will "have" to function with the limitation imposed by that culture.
if mcdonalds want to have a resturant in the muslim world then the mcrib sandwich can never be on the menu.
such similarities are applicable to other companinies and in other cultures.
Score: 0
|i think it is a fair argument and the executives are ultimately accountable for permitting illegal content to be saved onto their property which then is engineered to distribute that content world wide.
you always here executives, here in America, whine and claim i take full accountability. but they never do and rarely are they held accountable for anything. they don't get fired or fined. at best if there is a public outcry, like with enron, then perhaps there will be a trial and perhaps there might be a conviction.
in Italy, the execs should be held liable for not screening every content uploaded before disseminating it all over the world. such activities are done here in America when people have their photos processed.
each photo is reviewed and if any are illegal, the photos are turned over to the authority. the same scrutiny occurs with child porn, et al.
i applaud the Italian government and hope they send a strong message to the world.
it is hoped that a video of the exec's in the Italian prisons being whipped with rubber hoses, are uploaded for us to see, unless google suddenly chooses that this content is in appropriate for us to view.
Score: 0
|Ever uploaded any videos to YouTube? Would you be willing to wait a few hours (or days or weeks) till someone approved or denied your video? Are you aware of the amount of video that is uploaded each day?
Score: -1
|unfortunately, waiting is something everyone has to do in one way or another.
for example just because a car's speedometer limit is 180 miles per hour and just because it is on an empty highway on a holiday, doesn't justify the actions to break the law or risking ones life or endangering others.
the law in italy are clear and the google exec's were not endowed to re write the law for the sake of convenience or costs.
Score: 0
|Australia is ahead of both Italy & China. We do not habe any bills of legal rights. We pretend to know about International Laws ... yet here in Australia, they can take off the streets, any time, without myself nor anyone knowing nor allowed to say that I have "DISAPEARED".
Australia is catching up to North Korea and the old Argentina. BTW: Australia's last "President" was the puppeteer to the USA's last President: wars on terrorism. invasions into other nations, etc. Per capita, we are also the greatest water-wasters, greatest polluters, greatest refuse-creators, greatest genociders ever on the planet Earth.
As far as legally chasing corporate criminals anywhere, of any kind, come here. Our law enforcement is a (per-capita) criminal's dream run.
Score: -1
|Well, you *we're* a penal colony... ;)
Score: 0
|LOLZ at PC_T...
chuckle out loud moment there
Score: 0
|This case poses a question that has not really been answered yet anywhere (except China/sarcasm) and that question is " Do the owners and execs of sites such as this one or Facebook or many others bear any responsibility to monitor what is posted?" This is a question that does need to be answered as we try and bring some degree of order to the internet. I am not going to sit here and say what the answer is but we need to begin asking the question.
As an aside, this question is also tied to what seems to be a growing attitude that anything goes in Civil discourse in "real society". For example, does SNL cross the line when they make fun of the New York governor, not because of his political beliefs, but because he is blind?
These are questions that we need to begin to ask and discuss; not here on an anonymous site but in the real world.
Everyone have a nice day:)
Score: 1
|That depends. If he's a blind republican then of course SNL has every right to make fun of his handicap. If he's a democrat then its clearly a hate crime.
Score: -1
|Not going to take the bait Psy. :)
You have a nice day:)
Score: 1
|"For example, does SNL cross the line when they make fun of the New York governor, not because of his political beliefs, but because he is blind?"
Sure, the line in *your* mind regarding what is acceptable. In such cases, you either accept the disappointment at the off-color joke, or you stop watching that show.
We have the right to speak our minds in public (and on the internet). We do *not* have the right to take that away from others when it offends our sensibilities. "Not being offended" is not a right, no matter what the "Victim" class tries to tell everyone.
Score: 0
|You pose some ideas that are interesting and worthy of debate. My purpose was to get people thinking. While I was tempted to engage you on some points, I do feel that there is not necessarily a right or wrong answer but there are questions that we need to engage in a Public forum not the anonymous nature of the internet.
At the end of the day, I think this is an ongoing discussion which will change as society changes but the more the general public thinks about these questions, the less likely that government will shove rules down our throats.
Ok, I will add one aside- In a free society, we assume that there are unlimited right but this has and is not the case. Everyone's rights must be balanced with everyone else's rights. In the case of Discourse in public, let me give you one extreme example: If you are in a theater and yell "Fire" and there is no fire then you can be charged. Is this right or wrong. In a free society that recognizes that there is no such thing as unlimited freedom, the answer will always be in a state of flux as the society changes.
Also, notice that I have not given my own view. Interpretations of asking question does not equate with a person believes. The only thing that asking questions on any topic means (In some cases this isn't' true) is that society needs to ask them. My views may or may not be different than yours but this Discourse is better left to a Public Setting than anonymous ones. A lot may disagree and that's fine so post your opinion.
You have a nice day:)
Score: 1
|Yeah..this is clearly a shakedown operation by the Italians (imagine that!). They'll get a huge settlement out of it and Google will go on its merry way.
Score: 0
|Yeah, and the pompous moral windbags who firmly believe their righteousness makes them "right" will be crawling out of the woodwork (see below pompous moral windbag for example).
It's fun to laugh at them, but scary that they seem so prevalent nowadays.
Score: 0
|Much like creepy D.i.c.k Cheney did today?
*Wow, even a person's actual name is considered indecent. Heckuva filter job there, Betanews!
Score: 0
|What the F*** kind of laws do they have in Italy???? Going back to the days of Mussolin, it seems. Batting on a retarded kid is poor judgment and morally wrong, but it's in no way a crime assuming he's not injured or it leads to other events that are crimes. I havent seen the video, so maybe he was hurt, bu if he wasnt, what are they thinking over there?
it doesnt matter if you're morally objected to an event or video, especially one like that described in the article, but there's no way, as described, this should be a crime in any country.
this is completely ridiculous
Score: -1
|That's a fair point too. Was it actually a crime in the first place? Morally wrong, certainly. Illegal? Not so sure.
Score: 0
|You don't know what assault and battery is? Okay....
Score: 0
|Assault and Battery is a crime where personal injury must be proven. The kid was hit with a tissue box. I doubt, unless it was loaded with rocks, it caused any personal injury...
Despicable, sure. Criminal? Doubtful.
Score: 0
|From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault
"Assault is a crime of violence against another person. In some jurisdictions, including Australia and New Zealand, assault refers to an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, while in other jurisdictions, such as the United States, assault may refer only to the threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force.[1][2] On the other hand, in Canada, assault can be simply just touching another without their consent. Simple assaults that do not involve any aggravation such as use of a deadly weapon are distinguished from aggravated assaults in some jurisdictions. Assault is often defined to include not only violence, but any physical contact with another person without their consent. In common law jurisdictions, including England and Wales and the United States, battery is the crime that represents the unlawful physical contact, though this distinction does not exist in all jurisdictions. Exceptions exist to cover unsolicited physical contact which amount to normal social behavior known as de minimis harm."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime)
"Simple battery may include any form of non-consensual harmful or insulting contact, regardless of the injury caused."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(tort)
"Battery is a form of trespass to the person and as such no actual damage (eg. injury) needs to be proved. Only proof of contact (with the appropriate level of intention or negligence) needs to be made. If there is an attempted battery, but no actual contact, that may constitute a tort of assault."
YMMV according to the country you're in.
Score: 1
|actually, I think it would hurt a great deal.
You can try it with a cardboard box of any size to test...and I'm serious on this. Have someone, take the smallest and lightest of examples, ie., an empty cereal box, and whip it at you. I am sure you'll find it quite painful. Test with eyes open or closed, flinched (waiting for it) or unflinching (unsuspecting).
They have to try and "hurt you with it" not just toss it like a paper plate. It'll hurt.
Score: 0
|Good. Now find me some case-law where someone was prosecuted for something as minor as throwing a tissue-box.
Good luck.
While you're on that futile quest, let me explain why you won't find anything: No judge would even hear such a case. It's a waste of taxpayer money and their time. Assault charges are brought only when such assault causes direct physical injury and it is worth the taxpayers money and the judges time. And no, a wee scratch from a cardboard box doesn't count.
Score: 0
|"I am sure you'll find it quite painful"
I worked in a cardboard factory for a time. We made corrugated boxes ranging from 2x2x2 to 48x48x48. A tissue box isn't more than 8x4x3, and it's a lot less sturdier stuff than corrugate.
I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that unless the kid was hit directly in the eye with the corner of the box, no physical damage resulted and little pain, if any was felt.
Score: 1
|Since the victim was disabled, a prosecutor might decide to try it as a hate crime.
Score: 0
|This is done exactly the way it should be done. Google makes profit of those horrible videos. We all know what kind of garbage could be find there. There is fun stuff, there is good stuff, well... there is stuff that should never ever be there. And that's why they should be thrown in slammer. Money penalty won't do. Once you start treating all executives like any other bum on the street who did something wrong we might be on the way to fix this world. Amen. I really wish they end up in jail.
Score: -3
|*laughing*
I hope to God you are being sarcastic.
Don't want to watch "horrible videos"?? Here's a thunk: Don't WATCH them!
Your "horrible" may very well be someone else's "highly amusing". Example: My wife thinks South Park is "horrible". If she was a kook like you who and was under the impression that their views should be everyone elses, she'd probably want to ban it. Thankfully, she knows she can always watch something else *instead*.
No-one is forcing anyone to watch any of this stuff. Suggesting that it be banned because *you* don't like it is beyond arrogant.
Allowing people to post videos is not "wrong". Throwing people in the slammer for not sharing your views *is*.
Score: 1
|Why didn't they go after the loser who posted the video? Are they trying to tell the world that they're clueless? Maybe we should tell Jon Stewart and let him have some fun with this. :)
Score: 0
|Google has a lot more money than whoever posted the video.
Score: 0
|This'll get thrown out of court quicker than FoxFyre can b**** about it.
Then again, it is Italy. We know how crooked they are, don't we.
Score: 0
|Ridiculous. This sounds like something Iran would do.
Remove the Internet from Italy!
Score: 1
|Just like they remove the post from the rest of the world :)
Score: 0
|