Comments on: Why Italy was right to find Google guilty

By: jacky

jacky — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 06:26:31 +0000

Great article. If you create a platform for free speech it gives you responsibilities. You don't deny people their right to free speech by denying them access to your platform.

By: Matthew Pemble

Matthew Pemble — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:06:47 +0000

Chris, I am not aware of any aspect of the EU Directive that requires complaints to be made by the police. Article 14(1)(b):

the provider, upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information.

A complaint by a normal user of the system should be sufficient to trigger the "we must now check if this is bad" response - which it didn't - it is not as if adding some additional functionality to, for example, the 'flag' system would have be hard (although as this was pre-Youtube, I have no real idea what the mechanisms were for Google Video). Yes, law enforcement will have a preferential access route - because they will often be dealing at the most serious end of the spectrum of offensive material, it doesn't mean that the ordinary user should be ignored. And there is clearly (in both the UK SI and in the EU directive, and I assume that the Italian lawyers know the relevant implementation in to Italian law) a legal obligation to do so.

By: On Google, Italy and the Future of Media – GigaOM

On Google, Italy and the Future of Media – GigaOM — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:49:37 +0000

[...] from this consensus view, however: editor and SEO consultant Malcom Coles argued that the ruling was entirely justified, and that Google should accept its responsibilities to monitor content that is uploaded through its [...]

By: Marc Connolly

Marc Connolly — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:42:22 +0000

Excellent article Malcolm! One of the few that isn't a basic reiteration of Google's official statement. I've also written a critique of the media's portrayal of this verdict as "an attack on freedom." My reasons are slightly different that yours though. It seems that Google simply failed to comply with its obligation under Italian law to follow certain procedures. Had they done so, it is unlikely that a guilty verdict would have been reached. I go into this in a bit more detail in my blog if you want to check it out.

By: Tom Foremski

Tom Foremski — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:22:25 +0000

I totally agree. Google is a media company and it should bear the same responsibilities as other media companies. It cannot claims "Internet freedom" without the corresponding need for responsibility. Press freedom carries the responsibility to be fair and accurate and socially responsible. Google needs to do the same. There's more here: Google Is A Media Company - New York Times Sees The Connection In Italian Court Case

By: Tom W

Tom W — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:58:50 +0000

I wonder what proportion of YouTube videos have been flagged as 'inappropriate', by someone who just doesn't like what it says, or thinks it's not funny, or just to be perverse? Anyone who has ever looked at the comments posted to many of the popular videos knows that the YouTube user base is not exactly well-mannered. It seems to me that, from an operational standpoint, insisting that Google deal with user-flagged videos within days may well be tantamount to requiring them to pre-screen everything.

By: Malcolm Coles

Malcolm Coles — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:37:41 +0000

Meh: I don't think the car analogy you give is right, as there is no negligence on the part of the highway manufacturers. What about Toyota execs who didn't handle the recall well with the cars that wouldn't brake - if they were shown to be negligent (I'm not saying they are), it would seem right to hold them responsible, no? Chris - I think the difficulty here is understanding what went on the Italian court room. It looks like they were found guilty of a breach of privacy because they hadn't acted on warnings. Does that deserve a jail sentence - I'm not sure. Was it right to hold someone at Google accountable for this - yes.

By: meh

meh — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:33:51 +0000

you fine the company, you don't jail the execs. the whole point of incorporating in the first place is absolving liability. and it's not even a big deal, it's mere negligence in practices, it's not like they went over and beat the boy themselves. it's also BS to claim that it is any moral responsibility at all for whatever happens on a free platform. let's start jailing people who make highways because people get killed in car accidents on them...

By: Michela

Michela — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:29:30 +0000

I think you were right on many points, but the problem is that speech freedom is currently really in danger in Italy, and the web is getting a big enemy of Berlusconi and his henchmen, who are, by the way, controlling most of the remaining media.

On almost a daily basis they talk outraged of Facebook groups, Youtube videos, blogs etc..., while their tv channels and newspapers often use a very offensive language towards whoever tries to be against the goverment, and treat women as they were object, not even animals.

So, even if I kind of agree with you, I don't trust this sentence to be really for the human rights. Strongly possible is quite the opposite.

By: Chris Applegate

Chris Applegate — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:50:32 +0000

Re: the first point - there is no conflict between what Google and the police said re: takedown. They said they took the video down as soon as the police notified them; that's entirely compatible with the video being on for several months and Google not heeding user's complaints, if the police notification came months after the video's upload. Which shows a bit of a fuzzy distinction throughout this entire post - Google's duty to their community of users and the subject of the video (which they clearly failed on) and their duty to obey the law - what's morally right and legally right. Google clearly failed in the former but that doesn't necessarily make them criminals.