Can someone tell this Italian Judge what Google Video is? And Sunny Hundal, Bloggerheads and Malcolm Coles too.
David T Breaker | Friday, February 26th, 2010 | 1 Comment »The daily must-read TechCrunch blog had this interesting story a few days ago of how an Italian court yesterday convicted two current and one former Google executives.
The Google Italy employees were accused of breaking Italian law by allowing the video of bullying of a teenager with autism to be posted on YouTube Google Video in late 2006. Despite the fact that Google removed the video within hours of being notified of its existence, Judge Oscar Magi (pictured) absolved the three of defamation but convicted them of privacy violations. The three executives have received a suspended six-month sentence, while a fourth defendant was acquitted. Google is appealing the sentences on their behalf.
The situation being explained by Google thus…
In late 2006 Students at a school in Turin, Italy filmed and then uploaded a video to Google Video that showed them bullying an autistic schoolmate. The video was totally reprehensible and we took it down within hours of being notified by the Italian police. We also worked with the local police to help identify the person responsible for uploading it and she was subsequently sentenced to 10 months community service by a court in Turin, as were several other classmates who were also involved. In these rare but unpleasant cases, that’s where our involvement would normally end.
Now my mind would have soon forgotten this sade case of bullying and worrying case of insanity among Italy’s Judisciary [in convicting the Google Execs] – filed forever under “Europe: Reasons not to integrate” – if it wasn’t for a Tweet from Liberal Conspiracy Editor Sunny Hundal supporting the frankly crack-pot decision.
Spot on RT: @bloggerheads: Why Italy was RIGHT to find Google guilty (by @malcolmcoles) http://j.mp/ItalyGoogle
The blog post linked to Malcolm Cole who puts up a rather bizarre argument in support of the decision, an argument that is based entirely on a dislike of Google in my opinion.
The blogger states first that Google did not remove the video fast enough…..
if people are complaining that your platform is allowing abuse of a vulnerable boy, and you do nothing about it – either because you’ve ignored complaints or have no effective way to discover those complaints – it is right you are held to account.
…but he misses the point. The video was removed as soon as they could, and it is not for him, a Judge or the State to deem what constitutes what is fast enough. If an abusive comment is left on his blog, it’s not for us to decide how longer wait until removal is acceptable. Furthermore the platform did not “allow” the abuse, the abuse would have happened with or without GoogleVideo [then a rival to YouTube] – it was simply broadcast on it. This case is rather like convicting the camera or computer manufacturer.
Malcolm goes on to decide that although you may not have anything to do with an illegal activity, you should be made a criminal if they use your product, even if it is impossible to police…
They are senior executives at the company – responsible for the systems put in place to stop abusive content being published. If those systems have failed, it is right that senior executives are held responsible….You have set up a platform that allows people to publish things – some of which it’s illegal or immoral to publish. If you can’t police it properly, that’s not our fault.
Of course it’s not their fault either, but that doesn’t seem to bother them. He goes on to conclude….
if I want anyone to watch a video, I can leave it up on YouTube and forget about it – anyone can then see it by choosing to go and view it. I don’t need to be involved in them seeing it, and anyone can see what the subject of the video is [therefore it is not like convicting the Post Office]. This is why Google can and ought to have systems in place to alert it when abusive videos being published, whereas the post office can’t and shouldn’t. We do hold companies responsible for what they publish or facilitate the publishing of if they are negligent. Google runs a publishing platform. It doesn’t send out individual videos in boxes that were used to hit someone. It has ongoing control over that platform in the way that the tissue-box and camera manufacturer do not.
…which would have serious legal rammifications. If someone puts illegal graffiti on my wall, will I be convicted for not having the “systems” in place to remove it? And if we hold companies responsible for what they facilitate the publishing of, what about libraries with photocopiers, schools with printers, and the entire internet?
Why can’t the Left “get it”. We are responsible for our actions, not other people’s actions.
“The video was removed as soon as they could, and it is not for him, a Judge or the State to deem what constitutes what is fast enough” – well, the video was apparently in breach of the laws on privacy, so surely a judge ought to be involved? And the issue is about whether it was removed “as soon as they could” – did it take 2 months as the prosecution allege or 2 hours as Google say?