Slashdot Mirror


Italy Wants to Restrict Blogs

nx writes "Italy wants to restrict bloggers' rights by forcing everyone to register their blogs, pay a tax and have a journalist as a "responsible director". This law is clearly designed to curb critical voices and free speech, although it has yet to be approved by parliament."

242 comments

  1. In other news by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    [Every country in the world] wants to restrict entrepreneurs' rights by forcing everyone to register their businesses, pay taxes on undistributed and phantom profits, and get a license for all activities that compete with politically-powerful groups. The law is clearly designed to curb competition with government monopolies and free association, although it has yet to be approved by its legislature.

    I just wish y'all would worry about economic regulation *before* it starts getting applied to World of Warcraft and blogging.

    1. Re:In other news by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      just wish y'all would worry about economic regulation *before* it starts getting applied to World of Warcraft and blogging. Nobody cares about economic regulation. For the average American, as long there's beer in the fridge, two new SUV's in the driveway, a white picket fence, bowling on Friday night and Monday Night Football, no one will ever complain, no matter how far they go. It doesn't even matter who wins the presidency, really, at this point.
    2. Re:In other news by Elemenope · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For the average American, as long there's beer in the fridge, two new SUV's in the driveway, a white picket fence, bowling on Friday night and Monday Night Football, no one will ever complain...

      I've heard this meme quite a bit, and while I agree that bread and circuses play a significant role in pacifying the public, I think it is quite overselling the point by implying that the middle class standard (2.2 kids, SUV, owned home) is representative of many peoples' condition. On the contrary, the middle class is vanishing, such that of all the things you listed, perhaps only the beer and the TV with football are still affordable for many, many Americans. The SUV and the white picket fence are far out of reach.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    3. Re:In other news by oliderid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IMHO it is classic amongst European politicians. But this example is clearly the worst of all.

      They write down law proposition for the Internet without using it.
      They don't know how it works, all they know about it is what they read in the newspaper or what they heard in their pompeous conferences. They don't use emails, staffs check their mailbox for them..And print the relevant ones. They don't type, they 've got an assistant for that. A computer is a black box for them, like black magic. So they get scared, they need a way to connect this new tool to the old bureaucratic society that they understand.

      And when you mix ignorance with the european left tendency to regulate/classify anything crawling on the surface of this planet. You end up with this monstruosity.

    4. Re:In other news by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The SUV and the white picket fence are far out of reach.

      The former is demonstrably false, just take a drive anywhere in town. Either you are yourself driving an SUV, or the idiot woman driver who hits you is.

      As for the second, that's only because people are unwilling to move further than Eagle's Creek, Deer Run, Craggy Highlands, or any number of other 2nd rate housing developments in the suburbs. I think you'll find that there are quite a few places in the US that offer the white picket fence at a reasonable price. And considering the ability to telecommute for those of us in the IT business, the only real reason to stay where the prices are high is vanity and the desire to live there.

    5. Re:In other news by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      I can imagine a world without money,
      I cannot imagine a world without speech.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    6. Re:In other news by achilles777033 · · Score: 1

      *before* it starts getting applied to World of Warcraft
      wait, wait, I'm having a little trouble here. Are you telling me there is something *besides* World of Warcraft? ... I just don't think I can accept this. Next thing you're going to tell me is that the so-called "Outside" actually exists.
    7. Re:In other news by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      At risk of sounding too reductionist, they're more similar than you might think.

      Speech is expression of information.

      Money is expression of information. (scroll to part 3)

    8. Re:In other news by pebs · · Score: 1

      Change "two new SUV's" to "two old SUV's" then. Americans like their SUV's.

      --
      #!/
    9. Re:In other news by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      So what your saying is that what this guy did .
      Linking to some sites that had bomb making info in them. Is equivalent to donating money directly to terrorist organizations.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    10. Re:In other news by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      [Every country in the world] wants to restrict entrepreneurs' rights by forcing everyone to register their businesses, pay taxes on undistributed and phantom profits, and get a license for all activities that compete with politically-powerful groups. The law is clearly designed to curb competition with government monopolies and free association, although it has yet to be approved by its legislature.
      Hey! You're stealing Dada21's lines!!!!
    11. Re:In other news by sm62704 · · Score: 1


      Why blogging should be illegal
      Oh wait...
      </pedant>

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    12. Re:In other news by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Nobody cares about economic regulation. For the average American, as long there's beer in the fridge, two new SUV's in the driveway, a white picket fence, bowling on Friday night and Monday Night Football, no one will ever complain, no matter how far they go. It doesn't even matter who wins the presidency, really, at this point.
      Panem et circenses.
    13. Re:In other news by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      I don't think they're morally equivalent. However, they do have a subtle similarity.

      Give money to terrorist group = "Hey world, you actually owe me $500 worth less in goods, and these guys over here, $500 more."

      Post bomb-making materials = "Hey world, this is actually how you can make an explosive device."

      You said you can't imagine a world without money. That includes all worlds in which people don't collectively change decisions about who is entitled to what, because that process is functionally equivalent to monetary transactions.

    14. Re:In other news by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      that's why I can imagine a world without money, there are currently systems called LETS that operate without money and aren't always subject to taxation etc....

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    15. Re:In other news by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As for the second, that's only because people are unwilling to move further than Eagle's Creek, Deer Run, Craggy Highlands, or any number of other 2nd rate housing developments in the suburbs. I think you'll find that there are quite a few places in the US that offer the white picket fence at a reasonable price. And considering the ability to telecommute for those of us in the IT business, the only real reason to stay where the prices are high is vanity and the desire to live there.

      Besides work, there's also the concern of services. Living in a small town(1 bar/restraunt, no gas station), I batch my trips to somewhere larger for shopping. For example, there's no good chinese restraunt in at least four hours drive. Schools are pretty good, but a good distance away. Going to the store is a fairly major expidition, not something jumping on a bicycle for something forgotten for dinner is an option(did that as a kid quite a bit, two grocery stores within 3 miles).

      On the other hand, my house cost less than half a year's income for me, and it's quiet with no crime.

      Life is tradeoffs.

      Picket fence living is not ideal for everyone - some prefer not having to worry about a yard, like not having to drive to eat out, etc...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    16. Re:In other news by SIIHP · · Score: 1

      "Hey! You're a raving moonbat!!!!"

      FYP.

      Oh wait, sorry, you said the same thing I did.

      --
      I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    17. Re:In other news by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Given how much longer vehicles can last today, I don't see that as a bad option - the rich buy a new expensive vehicle every ~3 years, the middle class buy them and drive them for the next 5(or purchase a more reasonable new vehicle, and keep it for ~5 years).

      Then the poor get the decade old vehicle at a very reasonable price.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    18. Re:In other news by bhmit1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sadly, in any democracy where money and votes result in power, entrepreneurs will always lose. We are a minority of the vote, so all the wealth redistribution fans will put people in power that take money from anybody but them. And when it comes to money, the shoe-string garage operations just don't compare to the mega-corporations and their government sponsored monopolies.

      This is why we are seeing more and more laws passed that tax hotel guests, reckless drivers, smokers, the self employed, and um-teen other small groups to fund something like (to use Virginia as an example) our traffic problems when the gas tax is forbidden from being touched, not indexed to inflation, and unchanged since I was born. The more we tax the minorities, the more the minorities will go elsewhere, and eventually they will come for those in the majority because there's no one else left.

      I'd much rather see taxes targeted at people that use the given service. Every person needs to fund the police, property owners need to fund the fire departments, families with children need to fund the schools, drivers with cars or people buying gas need to fund our roads, etc. These kinds of taxes should encourage people to live a more efficient lifestyle and for those that want to pay more to live better, that's their choice. Today, we have a system setup to encourage the poor to have more children to collect a bigger welfare check, I'm paying for their school, and some smoker is paying for the roads that I drive on. The disconnect means that roads are overcrowded and under maintained, schools use trailers to handle the overflow, and every politician promises to do something to cut down on the high property taxes.

    19. Re:In other news by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      I wish I could mod you +6

      Notice however that if said economic regulation applies to Microsoft, Google or [insert any big company] then concern for rights seamlessly vanish on Slashdot and everyone magically becomes turns to law positivism.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    20. Re:In other news by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      Didn't you write a while ago:

      "I like to be in favor of strong employment laws that give the government full audit power over every corporation's decision to fire any one whatsoever."

      Where was your concern for rights and free association then?

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    21. Re:In other news by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The SUV and the white picket fence are far out of reach. If you want to stay out of debt, sure. But just looking around, there are a whole lot of people with multiple 6000-lb road monsters and McMansions, who have no business owning either, thanks to easy mortgages.

      "Middle class" used to mean a small home and a single car, or a modest apartment if you lived in a city -- plus entertainment/disposable income that's a fraction of what people spend today (as a fraction of their income, but probably in absolute terms when you adjust for inflation, too). Today, people don't consider themselves successful unless they live in a large house, have two or three cars, boatloads of entertainment expenses, eat prepared food constantly, and go on jet-setting vacations: none of that was ever part of "middle class" life a few generations ago.

      One of the reasons the 'middle class' has disappeared is because expectations have become unrealistically high as a result of shady credit practices. A person living debt-free and within their means on a moderate income can still be quite comfortable in many parts of the country, but they won't live as well -- to an outside observer, anyway -- as their neighbors who are racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars of mortgage and consumer debt. That creates a lot of social pressure to do the same, particularly since it forces class definitions in a community to creep upwards.
      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    22. Re:In other news by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      That was satire. I was mocking people's support for selective enforcement of laws to satisfy their (inconsistent) intuitions about what "just law" is.

      Which is the exact same thing I'm complaining about now, and here.

    23. Re:In other news by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      yeah I can un-un-friend you again

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    24. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "For the average American, as long there's beer in the fridge, two new SUV's in the driveway, a white picket fence, bowling on Friday night and Monday Night Football, no one will ever complain, no matter how far they go."

      "Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. ... [T]he truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror."



      / V agrees with parent

    25. Re:In other news by Bud+Dickman · · Score: 1

      ""Middle class" used to mean a small home and a single car, or a modest apartment if you lived in a city -- plus entertainment/disposable income that's a fraction of what people spend today (as a fraction of their income, but probably in absolute terms when you adjust for inflation, too)."

      "Bankruptcy law expert and Harvard University Professor Elizabeth Warren spent a lot of time crunching consumer spending numbers for her popular books, "The Fragile Middle Class" and "The Two-Income Trap." In both, she makes this point: Despite all those $200 sneakers you hear about and the long lines at Starbucks, consumers are actually spending less of their income - much less - on discretionary items like clothing, entertainment and food than their parents did. In fact, after taking care of essentials like housing and health care, today's middle class has about half as much spending money as their parents did in the early 1970s"
      Source

      What's your source?

    26. Re:In other news by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty narrow view on life. Parents are generally the ones who can least afford to pony up extra taxes to solely fund the schools. If parents cannot afford to pay for schools, would you want to live where there are lots of uneducated youth with nothing to do?

      As for the other parts of your ill considered rant, property owners generally DO pay for fire protection through property taxes, which get passed down to the renters. Roads are funded chiefly through gasoline taxes (43 cents per gallon in my state).

      While I subscribe to a lot of the Libertarian ideas, this is where we part ways.

    27. Re:In other news by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Given that money is NOTHING but a system of worth exchange, LETS is the exact same bloody thing, just without scrip. Ergo, you in fact CAN'T imagine a world without money, or rather a world without what money truly is, rather than just fluttering pieces of paper.

    28. Re:In other news by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      there's another example of a system without money, everything is exchanged equally amongst the tribes people so the only exchange is to an equal distribution.

      It's been working for hundreds of years without any problems.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    29. Re:In other news by damburger · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh please, spare me your Ayn Rand thought macros. Poor, poor entrepreneurs huddling together for wealth whilst big nasty government oppresses their 'rights'

      What you and your little objectivist buddies don't take into account is the extent to which governments protect your precious entrepreneurs, often at the expense of people who actually work for a living. Every inch of physical and intellectual property claimed is a promise by the government to stamp on anyone who violates it. The government that you and your corporate allies what 'off their backs' enforces medical patents that actually kill people. They enforce a system of third-world debt that kills people. And they have the nerve to claim they are hard done by because they have to pay a little tax. Boo fucking hoo

      You so-called neoliberals and libertarians have no interest in human liberty, only corporate liberty. The freedom of corporations to do as they will and craft laws that further their aims. Don't try and play the martyr.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    30. Re:In other news by bhmit1 · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty narrow view on life. Parents are generally the ones who can least afford to pony up extra taxes to solely fund the schools. If parents cannot afford to pay for schools, would you want to live where there are lots of uneducated youth with nothing to do?
      If you can't afford them, stop having them, or offer them up for adoption. Problem solved. And before you say I'm discriminating against the poor, such a tax would need to be a percentage of a family's income. The percentage would go up as you have more school aged children. And to further keep things fair, you would need to phase it in over time starting with children born X number of years from now. I suspect that education problems would quickly go away if parents saw the school system as something they were investing in rather than a government sponsored daycare service.

      As for the other parts of your ill considered rant, property owners generally DO pay for fire protection through property taxes, which get passed down to the renters. Roads are funded chiefly through gasoline taxes (43 cents per gallon in my state).
      I was stating a general theory, which as you've pointed out is backed up in reality in more ways than not. As for the gas tax, Virginia is 17.5 cents, and we make up for it using the $3000 speeding ticket.

      While I subscribe to a lot of the Libertarian ideas, this is where we part ways.
      Part of the beauty of politics, everyone has an opinion, and everyone's opinions are flawed, mine included.
    31. Re:In other news by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      You've got a pretty weak imagination.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    32. Re:In other news by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      The Bureau of Labor statistics, in particular their "100 Years of Consumer Spending" publication. Available here. (~500k PDF)

      The graphs you want to look at are the "Expenditure Share for Non-Necessities" graphs for various regions (US generally is on p.11). It started off at a little over 20% just after WWI, and then climbed steadily and dramatically (30% after WWII, which was the real formation of the 'middle class' in the U.S., ~35% in 1960, ~40% in the early 70s) until you get to the current figure which is around 50%. Nationally, that's an all-time high.

      If you look at particular areas, like New York City, there has been a small but significant hit in non-necessity spending since the mid-80s boom, probably due to increases in the cost of living due to increased rent. (But in all fairness, NYC is a lot nicer place to live now than it was then.) Spending in Boston also slumped slightly, probably for the same reason. So you get some regions that are probably feeling the pinch -- time to move.

      Anyone who thought the 70s were some sort of picnic is looking at them through some seriously rose-colored glasses. The 70s were a time of instability, high unemployment (over 8%!), and out of control inflation. If people were buying things then, it's only because they knew that trying to save it was a waste of time.

      It's more difficult to find good data that's correlated with income, but there are a few here and there; including this one from the Family Economics and Nutrition Review, which says flat out: "The data indicate that all household groups were better off in 1989-90 than they were in 1980-81, as measured by the amount and share of total expenditures on nonnecessities ("other")." So that would indicate that there hasn't been some sort of continuous slump from the 70s until today -- in the 80s things actually got better, and the 1980s weren't exactly known as a great period for the economy (certainly not compared to the 1990s).

      In terms of cost-adjusted purchasing power (which the BLS estimates in the introduction to the big report above [1], as probably tripled in the last century), you'd be insane to want to live in any previous era, unless your metric for success is purely that of being on the same level as your neighbors. Yes, there were times when there was more income equality, but that's not necessarily an indicator of prosperity; you can still make more money, buy more, and have a better cost of living in a lower socioeconomic bracket today than you could in the past. Lower brackets haven't experienced the growth that higher ones have, but you'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face not to take advantage.

      I think the major way the middle class has been 'squeezed' is that there are a lot of people there who traded up to the upper-class (with McMansions, cruise vacations, etc.) on credit, and probably quite a few people in the lower class who borrowed into middle class lifestyles (via shady mortgages) as well. And understandably, income inequality does create a social pressure to overspend. But now that the credit crunch is coming to an end, people living outside their means are going to have to find their way back to a better balance.

      [1] "Between 1901 and 2003, the average U.S. household's income increased 67-fold, from $750 to $50,302. During the same period, household expenditures increased 53-fold, from $769 to $40,748. Equally dramatic is that the $40,748 would have bought more than $2,000 worth of goods in 1901 prices, indicating a tripling of purchasing power."

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    33. Re:In other news by LuSiDe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its all about control, and that goal isn't limited to Europeans. Not at all. Think of Putin. Or Bush..

      --
      WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
    34. Re:In other news by suitepotato · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, the middle class is vanishing, such that of all the things you listed, perhaps only the beer and the TV with football are still affordable for many, many Americans. The SUV and the white picket fence are far out of reach.

      Either you don't have a serious job because you won't work hard and smart or you have plenty of money. If you're really middle class, you know this is horsesh*t.

      I have an SUV, partially fenced yard, working on the 2.2 kids part, and busting my ass to do so. No one said it would be easy, especially not my dad who did it before me. Just because I don't have money spilling out of my pockets left over after bills does not mean it is unaffordable. I'm doing it AND on a variable mortgage which just jumped a couple months back. AND on a salary well under professional average.

      Stop spreading this claptrap about which you know nothing people. We in the middle class are not disappearing. We're doing fine. It could be better, especially if you social theorists went elsewhere and bothered someone else, but we're just fine thank you. At least, we will be till the inevitable tax increases you shove down our throats to pay for everyone else's universal health care making us unable to afford our own...

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    35. Re:In other news by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      I cannot imagine a world without speech because without speech it wouldn't be a world.
      and when I say speech I include sign language, writing etc....

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    36. Re:In other news by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Did dinosaurs speak ?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  2. This article can be summed up in one word.... by 8127972 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    .... Censorship.

    (What more needs to be said? But since this is /., more will be said)

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
    1. Re:This article can be summed up in one word.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Already 4 days ago, the Italian Minister of Communications, Paolo Gentiloni, declared:

      "The alarm is justified, and the law proposed has to be corrected because it leaves room to absurd and restricted interpretation".

      The law is just proposed, not yet approved, and it is not going to be further pushed in the current form.

    2. Re:This article can be summed up in one word.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An opinion worth sharing is worth reposting 27 times in every vaguely related article...

    3. Re:This article can be summed up in one word.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong. The correct word is stupidity

    4. Re:This article can be summed up in one word.... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. The correct word is stupidity

      Wrong word. The difference between stupidity and ignorance is that one of them is curable.

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    5. Re:This article can be summed up in one word.... by cromar · · Score: 1

      Yeah. 'Cause there's no point in discussing anything.

    6. Re:This article can be summed up in one word.... by adona1 · · Score: 1

      Italy is already in a bad way as far as freedom on the net goes....when I travelled there last year, it is legally required to provide ID when going to a netcafe. Your details are recorded every time you use a computer and kept for a period of time. I wouldn't be suprised if your searches are logged as well, although that is purely suspicion.

      --
      Between the falling angel and the rising ape
  3. Coming soon to a government near you... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I expect blogs to be taxed and licensed almost everywhere, eventually. We can't have people saying things critical of the governm....errr...I mean, we can't have people saying anything offensive. Will someone please think of the children????

    1. Re:Coming soon to a government near you... by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      What amazes me is that some poster a few posts up was *surprised* that it was a socialist that proposed this. Damned ignorance is going to head us all into totalitarism.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    2. Re:Coming soon to a government near you... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Socialism doesn't start with concentration camps, that's where it ends.

      Although you could just go the whole hog and s/Socialism/Government/

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    3. Re:Coming soon to a government near you... by DigitalWallaby · · Score: 1

      Nope. Wrong.

      It was the Nazis (Right Wingers) who implemented the concentration camps and the Communists/Socialists (Left Wingers) that implemented the gulags. Both had similar results. The problem is not the political and social philosophy, but the implementation of that philosophy with no checks and balances in place to protect the people.

  4. Blog by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, what is the definition of a "blog" anyway?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Blog by Marcion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly, just remove the word blog and call it a website.

    2. Re:Blog by madman101 · · Score: 1

      Anything they don't like. The other websites are news outlets.

    3. Re: Blog by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      So, what is the definition of a "blog" anyway? It's what squares call a 6109.
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:Blog by aicrules · · Score: 5, Funny

      A Blog can be identified via the following characteristics:

      1. There is very little traffic to the site other than the bots posting link back comments still trying to fool google.
      2. There is a flurry of postings near the creation date of the site waning down to many once a month with the six of the last 10 postings being the message "No time to post today, too much work. Will try to catch up later."
      3. The posts with content contain many unsubstatiated statements proclaimed as fact all discussed in an exasperated matter in a hardly subtle attempt to garner emotional support from people they don't know.
      4. There are very few comments to postings other than self-posted comments providing clarification or an update.

      I'm sure there are other identifying characteristics, but these are the ones that you can count on...

    5. Re:Blog by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

      You did forget one important characteristic:

      5. There are banner ads framing the text and graphic ads peppered throughout the body in a not very subtle attempt to generate AdSense income.

    6. Re:Blog by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      -Terrible spelling
      -Most articles are about the latest boys band, or who dates who in the classroom, except a few "nazis aren't good" or "we should ban war" vain attempt to bring some intersting content.

    7. Re:Blog by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Very funny, is this from your own experiences with your blog or something? ;-)

      This sure applies to many, but far from all, and many, many blogs are quite popular over time.

      But I hope I don't even have to tell that, and that was mostly just a joke on generalizing blogs.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    8. Re:Blog by aicrules · · Score: 1

      Okay, you're right. It only applies to blogs that would say that they are part of the "blogosphere" then...

    9. Re:Blog by Xcott+Craver · · Score: 1

      3. The posts with content contain many unsubstatiated statements proclaimed as fact all discussed in an exasperated matter in a hardly subtle attempt to garner emotional support from people they don't know.

      3.14. Posts of obvious falsehoods or urban legends, followed by helpful comments from readers linking to Snopes...

      ...followed in turn by a long response by the blogger praising the many-eyes editorial power of the blogosphere and how this example shows that "citizen journalism" is so much superior than the mainstream media. Because on the Internet, publishing utter BS and then getting caught just proves the overall system works.

    10. Re:Blog by Kamineko · · Score: 1

      Fetching green stripes.

    11. Re:Blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you're spending your time like a true bottom feeder - well below the blogs you hate on - by posting drivel I've read many times on Slashdot, Digg, etc., I am off to the bank to cash two recent Google cheques for my "blog with very little traffic" (well over 15,000 daily visitors).

      I keep my blog out of your way. It would be wonderful if I could say the same about you; maybe start your own blog. On the other hand, you can't live up to the "high standards" you just wrote down and NEED to use comment systems?

    12. Re:Blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like a homepage that provides no usable information and makes it harder to find what you're really looking for in searchengines.

    13. Re:Blog by david.given · · Score: 1

      So, what is the definition of a "blog" anyway?

      It's the noise someone makes as they drown in an ocean of bullshit.

  5. The more things change, by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember a news story from way back when I was a kid, of some group getting raided in the USSR for possessing an unregistered mimeograph machine.

    As this and the current Burma censorware article show, nothing threatens the powerful like a free exchange of ideas.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:The more things change, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats right, the powerful are trying to force the end of democracy so that there can be a violent revolution against them. Hmmm... How about teaching some game theory in schools and make it a requirement for entering a public office!?

  6. what's the standard for by ameoba · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does Italy have some sort of registration/licensing of journalists or periodicals? Are their already laws in place that force professional, mainstream journalists to be "responsible"?

    It might go against my USian belief in free speech, but I'd have a hard time arguing against this law if its merely placing blogs & websites under the same scrutiny as other publications. OTOH, I see enforcement of the law as a colossal failure waiting to happen.

    --
    my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    1. Re:what's the standard for by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It might go against my USian belief in free speech, but I'd have a hard time arguing against this law if its merely placing blogs & websites under the same scrutiny as other publications.

      Actually, that's what a lot of people find objectionable about these types of laws: that stringent regulation of "bad people" might actually apply to them too! (Sort of a variant of "a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested".)

      I see this kind of thing all the time:

      ***

      "I think it's HORRIBLE how corporations EXPLOIT all these tax loopholes to avoid paying their FAIR SHARE!"
      "To consistently enforce tax law, we will have to monitor MMORPGs like World of Warcraft so as to insure income earned there is taxed."
      "WHAT???? That's RIDICULOUS!"

      ***

      "I think there should be STRINGENT regulations on businesses to make sure they don't DISCRIMINATE."
      "Excuse me sir, your site, 'Craig's List' has acted in contravention of Fair Housing law so we're suing you."
      "Er, what? I mean, those laws are for bad people, not me."

      ***

      common internet discussion:

      "Corporations are OBVIOUSLY inefficient. Look how easy it is to make something and sell it cheaper."
      "Yeah, but you didn't obey these regulations and pay these taxes."
      "Well ... those shouldn't exist!"
      "And if they didn't, the corporation could sell for less."
      "No, because they're inefficient."
      *falls out of chair*

    2. Re:what's the standard for by tist · · Score: 1

      I'm a little foggy on the whole free speech thing - really...
      Amendment I
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      Rights come with responsibilities (least that what I learned in school). The right of free speech comes with the responsibility not to use it to slander or for libelous speech. Is free speech the same as anonymous speech? Isn't that the root issue here? When an article is published in a newspaper, it is attributed to someone. If the paper publishes it and there is no attribution, they are responsible. In the event of libel, there is a path back to the "speaker". With anonymous free speech, that connection is lost. The victim of the libel or slander has no recourse.
      J

    3. Re:what's the standard for by ampsicora · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're right.
      I am an italian living in the US and I am following this matter closely.
      Basically the first draft of the law that was presented to the parlament was written in an unclear way that could have been interpreted as in this article: that EVERY blog or site needed to be registered.
      After the complaints from the bloggers, the government already said they would change the text, as their intent was merely extend to the digital world the laws that exist for newspapers, so AFAIK just sites who provide news and information commercially and with a certain peridiocity will need to be registered.

    4. Re:what's the standard for by giuntag · · Score: 1

      Yes, there indeed are laws regulating the 'printed' press, and it is the main justification for extending the law: why should slander/libel be condoned on a highly visible blog more than it is on a newspaper selling a few hundred copies?

      Also note that Italy has a dumb anti-terrorism law that basically forbids everybody but the telcos to provide free wifi access (people who do MUST take a copy of the id card of every wifi user that connects to their hotspot, and keep logs of all web access), and it is really hurting the mobile workforce.

      US is not the only government with police-state temptations that needs to be kept in check...

    5. Re:what's the standard for by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      It might go against my USian belief in free speech, but I'd have a hard time arguing against this law if its merely placing blogs & websites under the same scrutiny as other publications.

      What scrutiny!?

      What possible scrutiny or regulation is currently in place for any form of printed media? I believe in the United States is is not only a legal, but a constitutional right, to publish absolutely anything in the form of a book or pamphlet(... crimen exceptum excluded). Journalists can undertake actions that would constitute outright stalking and blatant slander in most other situations. Any yahoo can scribe just about any brain fart he expels onto paper and distribute it and is more than free to do so.

      Europe is different. In some cases, a lot different, but newspapers and book publishers are largely also allowed to do want they want over here.

      Television and movies are the, but seeing as how these are largely controlled by not-so-private semi state groups, they are a clear exception. I'm guessing blogs and the internet are in question because they "blur the line" between video media and printed media (because they're read on a "TV"). Lack of self censorship is probably also a factor here.
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    6. Re:what's the standard for by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Rights and responsibilites are bogus, that someone thinks they have the power to grant them is arrogance in the utmost degree.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    7. Re:what's the standard for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, regarding the WoW topic:

      The issue is that I, as an MMORPG player who never intends to sell anything that I acquire ingame should not have to pay taxes on a non-asset. If some people sell them, that does not mean that they should automatically become taxable assets, in my view.

    8. Re:what's the standard for by eaman · · Score: 1

      Italy has clearly stated in its costitution that every citizen has the right of free speach. As a matter of fact this proposed law is against this principle so can't even became a law. This draft was supposed to upgrade the actual registry of on-line publications, which is not obligatory. It's meant as a trust effort for on-line newspaper like publications: actually it is used just because it's mandatory to become eligible of public money for those press services. You know, if you wanna start a newspaper in Italy you can have financial help from the government and a better deal with the post service (public ) than ordinary mail. The author of the draft and those in charge of it have stated something like: "Sorry we where all busy with other things (the new welfare act) and none of us took the time to give it a read, it was supposed to be just like the previous one... Yeah it's a mistake and it won't see the light of Parliament as it is, we'd rather trash it." Oh well, at least some guys got up and took the blame... Reaction of italian web users has been shocking fast and loud: you know, there's allready a Berlusconi 'round here...

  7. No need to worry. by ZwJGR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like all laws in Italy which are unpopular and/or unenforceable they will be totally ignored by law-enforcement and people alike...

    Although I'd be surprised if this law makes it through parliament without being heavily diluted, or at all...

    --
    There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
    1. Re:No need to worry. by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am worried. Yes, the law is silly and unenforceable. However, having lots of unenforced and silly laws on the books makes everyone a criminal and subject to capricious arrest anytime anywhere. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, maybe even George Bush love laws like this because they can employ them at a moment's notice against their perceived threats.

    2. Re:No need to worry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mussolini is dead. Long live Mussolini.

    3. Re:No need to worry. by Phil-14 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Like all laws in Italy which are unpopular and/or unenforceable they will be totally ignored by law-enforcement and people alike...


      And that's just the sort of laws the bureaucrats like, laws everyone's guilty of violating and which they can selectively enforce.

      --
      (currently testing something about signatures here)
    4. Re:No need to worry. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's gonna be one of those "just in case" laws. Like

      Officer1: "Dammit. I just KNOW that guy's hiding something, but we don't have anything 'gainst him."
      Officer2: "Does he have a blog?"
      Officer1: "Yeah, but he doesn't write anything..."
      Officer2: "Get your gun and let's roll."

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:No need to worry. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      I'd like to point out that the mass killings conducted by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were never within the law and done in a semi-secret fashion. Concentration Camps existed because no one dared to object (lest you be sent there yourself) and because more than a few people tacitly approved of them. Stalin just exterminated those who were a threat - laws be damned. Pol Pot - idem. Mao - idem. They were killers not because the laws allowed them to be, but because everyone carrying out their orders thought that the laws did not apply to their victims.

      I'm not afraid of bad laws. I'm terrified of people who are argue that the laws don't apply to someone based on their ideology, color or clothes.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    6. Re:No need to worry. by Hieronymus+Howard · · Score: 1

      Like all laws in Italy which are unpopular and/or unenforceable they will be totally ignored by law-enforcement and people alike...

      For example, their traffic laws. Anyone who has ever visited Italy will understand this.

    7. Re:No need to worry. by ZwJGR · · Score: 1

      I used to live there, that is one of the things I was referring to...

      --
      There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
    8. Re:No need to worry. by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      FYI, re: your signature: ("Visit: heych-tee-tee-pee-coe-lon-slash-slash-slash-dot-dot-org-slash")

      The letter h is spelled "aitch". Saw it on a televised spelling bee once; freaked the hell out of the contestant.

      "Your word is: h"
      "Can I have the definition?"
      "H is the eighth letter of the alphabet."
      "Umm... H?"
      "No. The correct spelling is a-i-t-c-h."

      True story!

      Oh, and "colon" is spelled "colon".

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    9. Re:No need to worry. by drcagn · · Score: 1

      There is definitely a need to worry if that becomes the case.

      If there are laws on the books for things many people do every day but they're unenforced, what happens when you do something a cop doesn't like? Maybe a cop doesn't like black people and he decided to arrest one for something everyone does. Maybe you said something critical of a government figure, now you'll be jailed for doing something everyone does. The list goes on, and the slope gets steeper.

      Making laws against common behaviors and then not enforcing them means that people can be arrested anytime for anything.

      --
      Scorta futuere amo!
  8. Good luck enforcing this by llirik · · Score: 1

    How would they stop some dodgy Nigerian site from hosting Italian blog?

    1. Re:Good luck enforcing this by Percent+Man · · Score: 1

      Precisely my thoughts.

      Step 1: rent space on an offshore server
      Step 2: encrypt your sessions
      Step 3: ???
      Step 4: blogit!

      You can pass around a foreign URL just as easily as a .it... "Hey, I <cough> found this really neat blog that speaks to us as Italians."

  9. One day soon by davegravy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    PirateBay will have a new torrent section called "thoughts", where one can download all the latest illegal ideas people have uploaded.

    1. Re:One day soon by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      +1 SadlyInsightful

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    2. Re:One day soon by TheMeuge · · Score: 1

      Please, mod parent up.

  10. Great! by tomknight · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a vote for sanity to me....

    --
    Oh arse
    1. Re: Great! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a vote for sanity to me.... You didn't register your post, Mr. Knight. I'm afraid you'll have to come with us.
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re: Great! by AlbertoP · · Score: 1

      Read my answer above. The law doesn't affect blogs and personal sites at all. It justs asks for registrations of professional editorial operators who work on the we, exactly as it happened for others non-online editorial operators (newspapers, magazines, ...) since ever.

    3. Re: Great! by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      Oh, sure... and it doesn't affect freedom of speech...
      Man, I think it's time for you to take a red pill.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
  11. The EU may come to the rescue by andyh3930 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Surely the EU will overrule this law with regard to Human Rights Legislation. UK national law has been deemed illegal on a number of occasions by the EU, so I'd expect the same with this.

    Also how are they going to stop it. It'll be difficult to prove as the bloggers can use proxies and the like and how are the authorities going to prosecute 1000's of people.

  12. even non-commercial. by sdkramer · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm in favor of at least taxing that guy's blog. Interesting approach to using boldface he has.

    On a somewhat serious note this is regardless of whether the blog is intended to be profitable. Yikes!

    --
    "I wish to God these calculations would have been made by steam." -Charles Babbage
  13. Re:BUSHITLER by sdkramer · · Score: 1

    Back under your bridge troll.

    --
    "I wish to God these calculations would have been made by steam." -Charles Babbage
  14. Freedom shmeedom! by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 1

    What we all want is more assurances that we're safe, more flag-waving, and more cores in our CPUS, and more pictures of Britney, Paris and Lindsay stumbling through life.

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
  15. Can we at least pretend to be unbiased? by dws90 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This law is clearly designed to curb critical voices and free speech, although it has yet to be approved by parliament."

    That's one interpretation, yes, and in fact a good one. Nevertheless, it shouldn't be there. Linking to a blogger with strong opinions about the issue is one thing, but could we at least avoid biased summaries? The summaries are supposed to be about news, not opinion. If I wanted one-sided views, I'd read Digg.

    Give us the story, facts-only. Let us decide if it's an assault on free speech. Allowing the reader to come to that conclusion on their own is far more powerful and effective.

    I'm guessing links to articles with different opinions would be too much to ask for.

    1. Re:Can we at least pretend to be unbiased? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Give us the story, facts-only. Let us decide if it's an assault on free speech. Allowing the reader to come to that conclusion on their own is far more powerful and effective.

      I don't care what the motivation is, anytime someone needs to get permission from a government to express their views, that's an assault on free speech.

      The more controversial question is whether it's an assault on free speech designed to stifle criticism of the government.

  16. Il Duce by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't be paranoid. You'll still be able to blog about how great it is that the trains are running on time.

    1. Re:Il Duce by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But the trains ain't running on... hold on, there's someone at the door.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Il Duce by the+bluebrain · · Score: 1

      Or how great it is you can find quite so many nekkid pics of his granddaughter on the intarw ... hold on, there's someone at the door.

      --
      yes, we have no bananas
    3. Re:Il Duce by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Come on guys, this is getting ridiculous. It's not like someone is going to shut you down just for saying something bad about that asshole Ricardo LevATHNO CARRIER

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  17. Censorship or unclear thinking by boyfaceddog · · Score: 1, Troll

    This does not need to be censorship. It could be that the proposed law simply needs to be tweaked to define which sort of blogs need oversight. As the lines between online magazines/newspapers and blogs blurs it becomes important to define the new criteria of what is and is not a "trusted" new source. Although the proposed law seems to attack all blogs, I think it could be tweaked to define a certain type of blog that fits the definition of a news source rather than an opinion source.

    The simplest solution is usually short-sightedness or fuzzy thinking rather than an evil plot.

    --
    Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
  18. For sufficiently small values of "Italy" by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Informative

    The headline in this rather implies that Italy as a nation is behind moves to limit blogs in general, when it would be more accurate to say that certain parts of the Italian government approve of moves to limit blogs in their country. Can we be a bit less gung-ho with the article titles, please?

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:For sufficiently small values of "Italy" by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      You must be new here. The titles are sensationalist all the time yet the articles rarely deliver 100% of what the title promises.

      --
      The game.
    2. Re:For sufficiently small values of "Italy" by LuSiDe · · Score: 1

      Duh. The Italian government has jurisdiction over... you guessed it... Italy! Perhaps if it'd say the US government would like to implement such law world-wide that'd be more common sense, but it'd be common sense to not automagically think of that and instead think of the jurisdiction the government has. E.g. a county rules over its county, a nation over its nation, and a union (like US or EU) over its union/states/countries. So maybe it is you who

      --
      WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
  19. USSR? by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It seems like every day we get closer and closer to changing the name of the planet from Earth to "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"

    --
    The game.
    1. Re:USSR? by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      I Agree, and I think that as Schumpeter has sadly predicted (or sort of) it's unavoidable.
      So, let's see this on the bright side:
      - No more Eminem
      - No more problems with obesity (it's hard to get obese with socialist-style supermarkets, unless, of course you are a high head in the Party)
      - Plenty of space on even the most crowded highways.
      - Your daughters will learn to play oboe instead of listening to Britney Spears

      Of course, I will have to burn all my Rush's CDs, and that books are going to help me keep warm for a few winter also. But, as I said, it's unavoidable.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
  20. Fine I think Ihave the criteria by SIIHP · · Score: 1

    "As the lines between online magazines/newspapers and blogs blurs it becomes important to define the new criteria of what is and is not a "trusted" new source"

    How about "anyone the government defines as a trusted news source is not to be trusted".

    Seriously though, you want THE GOVERNENT to tell you what news sources are trusted? Yikes...

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
  21. Article totally misleading.... get the facts by dan211a · · Score: 5, Informative

    The post is very inaccurate. Editors, please check the facts before posting sensationalistic headlines.

    There is a law being discussed in the Italian parliament which intends to set the rules for online publications, and define their responsibilities.
    The goal is to recognize and treat professional online news sites in the same way as traditional newspapers, where there is an editor ultimately responsible and accountable for the information
    published. This is not unlike press laws in most western countries: if, for instance, the New York Times publishes unfounded corruption allegations against a politician, its editor is ultimately responsible for those allegations, and the politician could sue him for defamation.

    There was some initial concern in the blogging world that this law could also apply to bloggers, but this concern was already cleared by the undersecretary to the Cabinet, Ricardo Franco Levi, which is the main curator of the text of the proposed law. He clearly stated that the new law would only apply to professional journalists, and that it would absolutely not apply to bloggers of any kind.

    More information (in italian): http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_ottobre_23/levi_legge_editoria_no_bavaglio_ai_blog.shtml

    1. Re:Article totally misleading.... get the facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It was cleared but at current state the law is dangerously vague,
      it not need to be 'explained' it need to be corrected to be more
      explicit.
      Fortunately this seems the route that will be taken, corrections
      to avoid any misinterpretations.

    2. Re:Article totally misleading.... get the facts by AlbertoP · · Score: 1

      What sure is that it was misinterpreted, probably on purpose just to get some attention.

      I agree it has to be clear that blogs and personal sites are not involved, but it's also clear that they're not "professional editorial services and operators". There's really not much to play around these words.

    3. Re:Article totally misleading.... get the facts by e-scetic · · Score: 1

      The bill/law as you've described it is sufficiently vague (i.e. "online publications", "professional journalists") that I can easily see it being used against bloggers.

      And I don't for a minute believe any politician who says "Don't worry, I promise we won't."

      As for holding people responsible and accountable, using the example you provided of unfounded corruption allegations what's wrong with current defamation laws? Or doesn't Italy have any?

    4. Re:Article totally misleading.... get the facts by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      Oh. So it's more or less like. We used to restrain the freedom on traditional media, so what's the point on restricting freedom on the internet?
      And if a law needs clarification by it's owner because it's not clear enough if it applies to a certain situation or not, what blocks him from changing his idea after the law is approved?
      Man, you trust government too much.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    5. Re:Article totally misleading.... get the facts by blueiron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Marcos Eliziario wrote:
      "And if a law needs clarification"

      It's not a law, it's a proposal. There is a huge difference. It still has to go through several steps.

    6. Re:Article totally misleading.... get the facts by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      Can you see that if it wasn't for the complaints the proposal would become a law, verbatim?

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    7. Re:Article totally misleading.... get the facts by Kamineko · · Score: 1
      > He clearly stated that the new law would only apply to professional journalists, and that it would absolutely not apply to bloggers of any kind.

      What about a professional journalist's personal blog?

    8. Re:Article totally misleading.... get the facts by Shambly · · Score: 1

      If a law had no people complaining about it, wouldn't that law be fair and just?

    9. Re:Article totally misleading.... get the facts by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      No. People may be uninformed, People can be misleaded, it may more or less dangerous in your country to complain.
      What is funny in your comment, and that this proposal, on its original form would be another restraint on free press, and thus, in the long range would increase the chance of more unjust and unfair laws being passed without a single complaint.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    10. Re:Article totally misleading.... get the facts by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      And btw, what matters is not some vague promise from the author of the proposal saying "No, take it easy, we will never use it against bloggers".
      What matters is what the judges will say based on that law.
      Just out of curiousity: are you affiliated with said politician or his party?

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    11. Re:Article totally misleading.... get the facts by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      The post is very inaccurate. Editors, please check the facts before posting sensationalistic headlines.

      You're new here, aren't you?

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    12. Re:Article totally misleading.... get the facts by Shihar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      , for instance, the New York Times publishes unfounded corruption allegations against a politician, its editor is ultimately responsible for those allegations, and the politician could sue him for defamation. No, not in the US. The US has some of the weakest defamation laws in the world, and they become even weaker when talking about a public figure. In order for an editor to get sued in your example he would have to knowingly and blatantly lie AND do it for the purpose of causing the politician in question harm. If he can point to even a scrap of evidence to show that he could have thought what he was printing was true, he is off free. Even then, the fact that the politician is a public figure means that the burden of proof is so high, he basically has to be caught on camera laughing melavolantly while declaring out loud that his false and horrible lies will finally bring down politician X. You think I am joking, but I am not. It is nearly impossible to get sued in the US for libel and or defamation against a public figure.

      Now, the editor might very well get skewed for writing false alligations, but he will get skewered by his boss and adveritsers, not by the law. He might very well find himself out on the street, but the law will have no part in it.

      There are a lot of things to not love about many American laws. US free speech law (or lack there off) is not one of them. When it comes to free speech, the US kicks ass and takes names like few others in the world. You will find yourself very hard pressed to find a nation with more liberal free speech laws.
    13. Re:Article totally misleading.... get the facts by Baumi · · Score: 1

      The US has some of the weakest defamation laws in the world [...] It is nearly impossible to get sued in the US for libel and or defamation against a public figure.
      [...]
      There are a lot of things to not love about many American laws. US free speech law (or lack there off) is not one of them. That depends on whether you're the one being slandered without just cause or the one doing the slandering...
    14. Re:Article totally misleading.... get the facts by Shihar · · Score: 1

      That depends on whether you're the one being slandered without just cause or the one doing the slandering... Being a less than wealthy person in the grand scheme of things, I can safely say that I much prefer it when getting sued for saying mean things is harder rather than easier. Even if I put absolutely no value on freedom of speech, I do put a great deal of value in not having to defend myself from a lawsuit every single time I say something that some public figure might take issue with. Just the threat of having to defend a lawsuit, regardless of its merits, results in most people folding long before the law gets involved. This has been shown very clearly in cases of the DMCA in the US.

      In the US, do to less than happy copyright law wording, you can be very easily sued for copyright violations. There is a provision in the law for what is known as 'fair use', which lets you use copyrighted works without the consent of the author. In extreme fit of poor judgment on the part of law makers, US laws state that all 'creative works' are automatically under copyright unless the artists in question relinquishes his copyright claims. So for instance, this post is technically under US copyright protection and copying it would be a clear violation of the law. Fair use laws state that you can copy such works under certain circumstances. So, you can legally quote this post in the US, despite the fact that it is automatically under copyright, via the "fair use" provision.

      So, we have a system designed to protect the "reasonable" use of copyrighted works. How does this work in practice? If a copy decides that it doesn't like you using any portion of their copyrighted works, irregardless of if it is fair use or not, they can send a DMCA take down notice to demand that you take it down and sue you if you don't. Now, technically you can merrily go to court and fight for your right of fair use. In practice though, few people have the time or money to battle Sony in court for 7 years defending their fair use rights.

      I can think of nothing more distasteful than trying to recreate this battle of lawsuits over to free speech. Individuals get fucked in such systems. Even when they win, they lose in court costs, or at the very least, time and heartache. Copyright restrictions are stifling enough, but at least I can speak my piece about anyone or anything so long as I don't copy without a threat of lawsuit.
  22. Italy, a person, political party, country? by Pond823 · · Score: 1

    Who is this 'Italy' you talk of?

  23. Hurray! by supertsaar · · Score: 1

    Finally. The whole net is clogged with those things.
    They all copy each other and some seem to be so popular that they register as top hits on Google when I search for something.
    I find it very irritating to find blog posts by some unemployed twat with too much time on his hands seem to matter more to Google (or other engines) than for instance the official company website for a certain product do.
    So in stead of finding tech spec for something I find rants on it sucks because they dont make it in pink, sign a petition here
    I say hurray to Italy.

    --
    The Bigger The Headache The Bigger the Pill
  24. Not the truth by AlbertoP · · Score: 5, Informative

    The statement about blogs is not true, and the source of the information is questionable. As you can read on this article of Corriere della Sera, http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_ottobre_23/levi_legge_editoria_no_bavaglio_ai_blog.shtml (sorry, it's in Italian), where Mr Levi has been interviewed, the law you're discussing about refers to the editorial market, which means newspaper, magazines, books. As a consequence it only affects professional operators who produce them. Personal sites and blogs are excluded from these categories. The law only wants to extend to Internet newspapers the existing rules for the editorial market. Regards

    1. Re:Not the truth by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thanks for the clarification. However, what sort of site would Slashdot be if not for the sensationalist headlines and trumped up accusations?

      Why, they might even be required to pay a tax in Italy!

    2. Re:Not the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a good analogy... something's obviously very wrong!

    3. Re:Not the truth by dintech · · Score: 3, Funny

      what sort of site would Slashdot be if not for the sensationalist headlines and trumped up accusations?

      Something like this

    4. Re:Not the truth by scosta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, the original post was basically vaporware, and "questionable" in origin in the sense that who has written it (http://www.beppegrillo.it/) has a personal interest to make things worse then they are.

      But it is true that the law text was extremely generic, and so prone to every kind of interpretation, pessimistic or optimistic.

      The basic problem is that italian laws are often very badly written (in the sense that are basically and fundamentally unclear). And in the confusion, everyone can say everything...

    5. Re:Not the truth by mikael · · Score: 1

      Like this The Random Slashdot Story generator


      Games: John Carmack On Centipede
      Posted by brian on Wed October 24, 10:26 AM
      from the have fun hitting reload page dept.
      Cpt_Garthos writes "John Carmack says that there is too much violence in today's games especially Centipede. Game makers should focus on playability and include more lasers in their games rather than more gore. The interview is here"

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    6. Re:Not the truth by spamking · · Score: 1

      So you're a Dick huh . . .

    7. Re:Not the truth by oliderid · · Score: 4, Informative

      What is a professional operator?

      Example 1:
      I make 100 Euro per month with Google ads on my blog. It means that my blog or web site is "profitable". I guess like anywhere in Europe, you can keep it "as an secondary source of revenue" without any company registration until it reaches a max. turnover.
      Should I register my web site to this administration?

      Example 2:
      I have a popular video game news web site: It makes a relatively serious turnover, let's say 50.000 Euro. Enough for me to live, not enough to hire a professional journalist.
      I guess this time I will be forced to register my web site to this administration and to hire in some way a profesional journalist.

      In this case it hurts "very badly" entrepreneuship. As usual European European internet small/young entrepreneurs will be "forced" to stay undercover (using various techniques like a paypal account, offshore address etc.) until they reach a decent turnover and when they can face the high burden of running an "official" activity in this highly bureaucratic
      continent.

      The only ones who won't be hurt is the establishment or those who have moved to a more business friendly country (one click away)

    8. Re:Not the truth by Lord+Yupa · · Score: 1

      Please, be more accurate! That interview was released to calm down the blogger's reactions only four days after Beppe Grillo post.
      For another source read here (sorry, it is in italian too): http://laspinanelfianco.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/giu-le-mani-dai-blog/

    9. Re:Not the truth by eiapoce · · Score: 1

      Nevertheless we are ruled by idiots.

    10. Re:Not the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at my corner of the world the law was also supposed to cover only the editorial market and exclude blogs. but later it turned out to be so generic, that it could rate your personal home page as "mass media" and for a violation of any law even through a comment/guestbook on your blog/website by someone else you, as the owner, would be tried as a "responsible editor". when evaluating laws always read the fine print and never believe the spokesmen - they're the PR people to convince you at the first place.

    11. Re:Not the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We voted for them, we deserve it.

    12. Re:Not the truth by Kidbro · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did you have to do that? I clicked the link and.... recognized the stories.

      *sigh*

    13. Re:Not the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The text of the proposed have a broader scope than Mr. Levi admitted.
      So big that the Di Pietro admitted it is a mistake and promise to change the text or to leave the government (administration) and the coalition.
      This is a demonstration that government is inherently inept and ignorant. They probably did it not to stifle free speech, but only because they are stupid.

      Last year financial law (Finanziaria) they did something like this. They established a tax they though would raise 470 million of Euro, and they changed the laws immediately (few days or weeks) after when they started understanding the tax would raise 20 - 30 billions of Euro.

  25. Sounds hard to enforce by reabbotted · · Score: 0

    would this law apply to someone posting to a message board? or to an email that gets posted to the Internet? in the end, this sounds like a tough law to enforce that has some easy workarounds.

  26. Unlikely to pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The proposed law has very little change to pass unaltered,
    or pass at all, most of the ministers already have dissociated
    themselves from the law and various parties on the parliament
    will not vote the current form.
    Pretty dumb, this demonstrates that the governement don't read
    their own laws, since the proposal was voted unanimously.
    Also, this is not the first time: the preceding government tried
    the same trick (registration of all news related site with very
    vague terms) but resulted in the same outraged response and the
    law being trashed.

  27. They fail. by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

    It has been a long going joke that Italy would not be able to join the EU, if they had to sign up today.
    Silvio Berlusconi has done a good job of dragging them back in the hole.

    1. Re:They fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be reading The Economist too much. This law is being pushed by Prodi's leftist government. No big surprise, since they are keen on Big Government and everything has to be regulated and stamped.

  28. Not the white picket fence part... by SIIHP · · Score: 3, Informative

    "The SUV and the white picket fence are far out of reach."

    US home ownership has been increasing for years and continues to do so.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States#Historical

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    1. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Ever hear of Suburban Sprawl? Guess what it's made of! Homeowners!!!

    2. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      Actually, unless you're a true homesteader, you neither own your home, nor ever will. Unless you're willing to pull your estate OFF the economic market, you'll always be paying rent to your local, state and federal leeches (taxmen).

      Home ownership is up only if you count the UNPAID mortgages that are skyrocketting.

      No surprise there. In typical true geek fashion, many of us still count the numbers on the screen as a measure of true wealth.

      As a friend of mine told me several years back... "Those numbers on paper or on the screen mean NOTHING until you've converted them into real, tangible, physical goods. Until then, they merely show potential wealth that you aren't acquiring."

      The more I deal with my "fellow geeks" the more I realize this to be a truth.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    3. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      When you said "rent," I think you actually meant "fees necessary to provide essential services, including fire-fighting, police protection, and an educated local population."

      Also, I would love to see you tell Warren Buffet that his portfolio is worthless because stock certificates aren't "real, tangible, physical goods."

      You know you're a bit of a kook, don't you?

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    4. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      I see the last two years are missing. I can guarantee you that even if 2006 stays even with 2005 and 2004, 2007 will show a massive drop in home ownership. Estimates are that about 2 million people are at risk of losing their homes, and, barring some not-so-self-less concessions from companies like Countrywide and government bail-outs, the percentage quoted by Wikipedia is going to drop significantly.

      Furthermore, I can also tell you that that house depicted in the article is not worth 550K. It's more likely hanging around 750k, if not more. I make good money - about twice the national median - and where I live, I can't afford a house. That should tell you something about the current state of home ownership, middle class and the American Dream.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    5. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by SIIHP · · Score: 1

      So how about instead of complaining about what you disagree with, but couldn't possibly know to be true, you edit the article?

      Oh right, cause making unfounded assertions on Slashdot requires a much lower standard of proof than editing Wikipedia (which is comical).

      --
      I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    6. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmmm, "essential services" ? I don't seem to recall the fire fighters in my local jurisdiction being paid out of taxes. In fact, the local pool for the firefighter is all volunteers and donations, taxes go to pay cops to give speeding tickets.

      Local population "education" isn't worth the cash and never was or will be.

      Warren Buffet is smart enough to have plenty of physical wealth. What he uses to make a profit isn't what he uses for physical assets. In the end, what you cannot get during a "bank panic" is what you "don't have".

      I'm sure I'm a kook to you. And a good thing it is, too.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    7. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      In the event of a bank run, only checking/savings accounts could be hard to redeem. Stocks and bonds can't simply vanish in a puff of fractional-reserve magic. In that way, these items really do represent real wealth.

      Personally, I only keep about a month of expenses in the bank. Everything else goes directly to the investment brokerage. I expect my investment dividends to exceed my personal income from work in about 15 years. If I kept everything I earn in "physical" goods, as you suggest, that would never be possible. Good luck railing against the evils of the monetary system, though. Just remember, nobody is stopping you from profiting from it yourself. Bank of America stock pays dividends of almost 5%!

      Also, you have no argument from me for saying property tax is sometimes used inefficiently, but calling it rent is dishonest.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    8. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      As opposed to making a fool of yourself by quoting old data from a publicly editable encyclopedia in a discussion about current events? Nice going.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    9. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      Fine and fine.

      Last point.... my properties are generally far enough that short of a nuclear blast (yet another failure of our governing masters, parading themselves as representatives, instead of what they are) is that I do not, and SHOULD not pay taxes. I put out my own fires, I clear my own brush, I built my own home out here. I neither receive, nor ask for services, and I'm not plugged into the 911 service lines. If cops were late as hell when I lived in the city, they would be here much later than the flies if I ever called them out here.

      I deal very little with the educational system, and I wager I've got a more sizeable library than what others may term "rich" people, spanning a pretty vast array of subjects from the technical to the esoteric...

      So then, the question arises... why am I forced to pay property taxes, if it isn't rent? If I refuse to pay, the government moves in jack booted thugs and takes my land from me. Guess it isn't really mine, then, is it?

      And if you try to argue that I pay so "soldiers can defend us from the enemy"... I can defend this land FAR more effectively than the local cops, and the local national guard or even the army. In fact, if it weren't for politicians, over here and in whatever country is our designated enemy of the day, not even you would have the audacity to say "defense" is "essential services" because there would be little reason to use it. Much like the cops, who as a cop acquaintance of mine says "they are a bag and tag service".

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    10. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Property taxes do not pay for any of the services you mention. Even if they did, what are the sales taxes for? Why do we have "occupation privilege" taxes? It's a privilege to work? If our tangible assets and livelihoods are both taxed, do we have or own anything? Everything we have is at the grace of the state.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    11. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by Vexor · · Score: 1

      I live in Minnesota and they've been advertising on the radio about foreclosed homes in the range of 4bed/2bath houses for $17,000 mortgages... If that's far out of reach then people need to stop flipping burgers and get a real education.

      --
      ~Vexed and loving it!
    12. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by Skreems · · Score: 1

      I deal very little with the educational system
      You deal with it every time you interact with another person. You deal with it every day you come home and your house hasn't been burglarized, whether you're prepared to "defend it yourself or not".
      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    13. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      In theory, sales taxes pay for the infrastructure that enables commerce. When someone shoplifts, the sales taxes pay for the officers who investigate and prosecute the crime, and for the jails that follow.

      Some sales taxes are also used to pay for public works which are intended to attract more commerce to an area.

      The idea of "redistributing wealth" via "consumption tax" is behind sales tax in some areas. Whether this is a valid use is really a discussion for philosophers and economists.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    14. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      Buddy, in places with heavy education spending (big city in Virginia several years back) my house was Burglarized... the educational system spends cash and teaches thugs that its safe to rob people, because the cops are their only real problem... not at my house, not since then :)

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    15. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by davidsyes · · Score: 1
      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    16. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Your checking / savings accounts are FDIC insured, or the equivalent in your country, up to the limit.

      Bonds are loans to people who are probably less secure than your bank.

      Stockholders are at the back of the queue in the event of problems.
      Your Bank of America stock may pay 5% dividends at the moment, but that isn't guaranteed, and is likely to fall if the sub-prime problems continue. Stockholders will lose out long before deposit account holders.

    17. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by Skreems · · Score: 1

      Yeah, one failure means it's completely pointless to try to maintain a well-educated society. You should go ask Africa how well that's working out for them.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    18. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      The most obvious thing you pay property taxes for, is the legalized and recognized proof that you in fact own your property, next up of course is access to your property is via public roads, then you have rubbish removal and of course all the administrative and accountability effort behind that. Add of course the cost of managing a democracy, the election stuff, offices, administration. Yeah I know, you only want the benefit of other peoples taxes but not the cost.

      Then of course you, I believe you were not born as an adult and as a child made use of many government supplied services for which you didn't pay and are of course now paying for them.

      Here is an interesting thought for you, do you believe that the various law enforcement agencies peruse the forums and subject the postings to psychological profiling for possible criminal investigation. At a guess you post would reflect that you don't always 'er' pay your fair share of taxes, exactly when was the last time you were audited ;).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    19. Re:Not the white picket fence part... by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      Bah, you've a long way to go kid.

      Rubbish? Must be BritISH. Out here its TRASH, we take it we take it to the DUMP and its a PRIVATE service. Taxes didn't pay for our local dump, its setup by a local trash company. Then again, we don't have public sewer or public water where I live... and I like it that way...

      Oh, and a gravel road... not state paved, not state owned. Speed limit? On my property, whatever doesn't get you killed. Quite fun actually.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  29. Apparently, the law wil be changed by Baumi · · Score: 3, Informative
    BoingBoing covered the story, too, and the comments on it are rather encouraging.

    Especially this one:

    For now, I can report that this proposal is apparently not going anywhere: Paolo Gentiloni, one of the ministers involved in drafting the law, admitted of "not having thoroughly read the proposal" because he thought that "it was not going to alter the status quo". He is now declaring that this law will certainly be changed in order to keep blogs out of the picture, and
    that he's sure that Mr. Ricardo Franco Levi is the first who will be willing to take action to change it.
    1. Re:Apparently, the law wil be changed by jfreaksho · · Score: 1

      This is really interesting. Why would a minister draft a law that doesn't change the status quo? What is the point of drafting, voting on, passing, and enforcing a law that doesn't do anything different than was already done by other laws before? The more laws there are, the more complex the legal system gets, the harder it is to find liberty and justice for all.
      J.

  30. Missing a tag ----Mussolini by HW_Hack · · Score: 1

    some things never change

    --
    Its not the years, its the mileage .....
    1. Re:Missing a tag ----Mussolini by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because Mussolini started out as a Communist newspaper editor (Il Popolo). Now the Communists are in charge of Italy and editing all the news papers. At least Alessandra Mussolini gets returned to the EUP for MSI on the regular. Better to be a fascist than a fag and all that - but its somehow different.

  31. Only Europeans? by keirre23hu · · Score: 1

    This sounds like global politcal practice to me. I don't about TFA's veracity, but if this is true, its quite sad. I'll also say that politicians the world over attempt to regulate things about which they have little to no knowledge, and fail to enlist knowledgeable impartial people in the lawmaking process. This is how we end up with things such as the DMCA and the ability of RIAA to sue their customers for thousands of dollar per song shared, enforcement of ridiculous software EULA's, software patents, ineffective anti-spam legislation, and other misplaced attempts ad infinitum.

  32. My Name Is Earl by sm62704 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    hello , my name is Richard and I know you get a lot of spammy comments , I can help you with this problem

    Hi, my name is steve, and I'm a trollbiter. In the attempt to rid myself of this horrible addiction, I founded Biters Anonymous back in 2005. Although I stopped responding to K5 trolls some time that year, I still have an occasional relapse (as you can see from this post).

    If you have a hard time ignoring trolls, you should join our organization. As the linked text states,

    Biters Anonymous is a crowd of losers who share their experience, roflcopters and lolerskates with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from the ravages of biting.

    The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop biting.

    There are no dues or fees for BA membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions. BA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution or endorses nor opposes any causes.

    Our primary purpose is to stay troll-free and help other Biters to achieve bitelessness.
    The twelve step program is listed in the linked text.

    Thank you for your support.

    -mcgrew
    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  33. The next step... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will be banning Rails from italy

  34. Do they have tanks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will they run over protesters with them?

  35. Come on... by bestiarosa · · Score: 1

    Come on, it's Italy after all. Do you really think this is going to pass? And should it pass, do you really believe anybody's going to actually enforce this law? Italians are comendians, and this comes from an Italian.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  36. Wouldn't you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Italy seems to have this vicious circle about it when it comes to these sort of things, huh.

    1. Re:Wouldn't you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because all our politicians, save probably a half handful of them, are sold to the Mafia and other powerful not-so-honest entities. People over here still think about left and right, but when it comes to avoiding laws and fines it's common practice for one wing to help the other. There are multiple well known examples from both sides in the last two administrations.

      It's not about left vs right anymore, it's about them vs us.

  37. This is false NEWS! by zborro · · Score: 1

    First, this is not a law, but an already discarded law proposal.
    Second, as already cited elsewhere among the replies, an interview with the law proponent
    has already clarified the situation saying that it does not apply to blogs or personal sites
    but just to internet newspapers.

    Actually there is no Mussolini in Italy at the moment.
    He's just waiting in the right opposition side...

  38. Re:BUSHITLER by syrinx · · Score: 1

    More like 'bad joke' than 'troll', really...

    (Also, the 'troll' expression really refers to fishing, not Scandanavian folklore, so references to bridges aren't really appropriate.)

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
  39. The flip side of the coin... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 0, Troll

    ... and get a license for all activities that compete with politically-powerful groups.

    Such as, oh I don't know, license to practice neurosurgery ....

    Let Invisible Hand of the Free Market figure this out! I mean after a few dead, disfigured and crippled patients, the customers will get it and vote with their wallets! Then of course the "surgeon" moves to the next city/state and ... lather, rinse, repeat! But no pain, no gain! Sure there is this wee problem with the fact that the "customers" could be unconscious and thus rather unable to make an "informed consumer choice", based on all available information, who should do their emergency heart bypass surgery, but we simply Cannot Have the Evil Government being involved in this! The same applies to food processing, city water supply (with 25 companies running pipes competetively under your pay-per-use toll-booth equipped driveway)! Etc and so on. But what is a few tens of millions dead and crippled (a lot of children included) against the Freedom of Free Markets To Bloom in Your Pocket! What do you care about this society thing!? Its for the Socialist Commies to do! All you have to worry about is glorious, shiny coins!

    On a serious note, everything in life is some form of compromise between two or more choices, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Governments are, in any modern society, thanks to centuries of history full of countless sociopathic asshats bent on becoming warlords and kings, pretty much unavoidable as a protection (sometimes feeble) against the said assholes. And business regulation is, thanks to countless avarice blinded sociopathic asshats, pretty much a necessary evil. The trick is not to abolish them or to get them to stop regulating and controlling things, but to ensure that they regulate and control things which make sense and that the power of the government is kept in check by the citizenry. Libertarians are radical utopists in the same class as such government abolishionists as anarcho-communists, whose proposed system of society is so laughably ripe for abuse, with pretty much similar outcomes as that of the commies, that it makes me wonder if their cognitive abilities are being surpressed by their hatred of all things that interfere with their greed.

    1. Re:The flip side of the coin... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Your trollish tone and ignorance of your opponents' actual positions is neither necessary nor helpful. But you do have a valid point, so let me clarify:

      My criticism there was not of licensure as such, but the fact that this licensure inevitably goes far beyond what those public interest concerns you listed, could possibly justify. They do not, in other words, simply make sure every practicing neurosurgeon knows what he's doing. They make sure that, in addition to being qualified for neurosurgery, he has X years of unrelated schooling. They restrict entry into fields as mundane as floral arrangement (!) and auctioneering (there was a story about how some state actually wanted to enforce its law that would imply ebay sellers have to learn proper breathing techniques for hosting an auction). The bulk of the licensure requirements are simply the group flexing its political muscle to restrict entry and prop up their incomes. (And people like you are more than happy to vote for "feel good" policies to placate them.)

      If the legislature merely wanted to protect public safety, it could just require that anyone wanted to do that activity must buy a $X million liability insurance policy against the type of outcomes you described, and then the insurers would only cover those who have been vetted to have proper qualifictions, *genuinely* matching those justified by safety concerns.

      But then, that wouldn't artficially prop up a politically-powerful group's income, now, would it?

    2. Re:The flip side of the coin... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      ... and ignorance of your opponents' actual positions ....

      My response was to my opponent's actual position, as he/she wrote it. I am under no obligation to figure out his/her unwritten positions, which he/she might hold, which somehow temper or put in another light their message. As it was written, the message bemoans all regulation without exception. To which I responded.

      But then, that wouldn't artficially prop up a politically-powerful group's income, now, would it?

      True, these things occur. And that is a failure of governance, to address which is the responsibility of the citizenry in a functioning, sane, modern state. I will not argue with you that, as it stands, the US government for example, is not being essentially subverted by the same very jerks it is supposed to protect the US citizens against. But this failure stemms from the general apathy and dis-interest of the general populace of their own goverment and their unwillingess to do anything to improve its operation. As some wise man once said: "You get exactly the government you deserve". How true.

    3. Re:The flip side of the coin... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      My response was to my opponent's actual position, as he/she wrote it. I am under no obligation to figure out his/her unwritten positions, which he/she might hold, which somehow temper or put in another light their message.

      Your post criticized libertarians *in general* with little apparent knowledge of what libertarians *in general* believe.

      As it was written, the message bemoans all regulation without exception.

      No, it bemoans licensure *aimed at limiting competition with politically-powerful groups*.

      To which I responded.

      You responded with a long spiel about libertarians in general, only tangentially related to the issues I raised.

      True, these things occur. And that is a failure of governance, to address which is the responsibility of the citizenry in a functioning, sane, modern state. I will not argue with you that, as it stands, the US government for example, is not being essentially subverted by the same very jerks it is supposed to protect the US citizens against. But this failure stemms from the general apathy and dis-interest of the general populace of their own goverment and their unwillingess to do anything to improve its operation.

      Kind of. Remember, it's the *interested* citizens *who are voting for these bad policies* in the first place. It's the active voters that buy into the "OMG people will die if doctors don't get umpteen years of unrelated education" line. Suggesting that we vote out these policies misses the point. It's like saying, "You don't like pollution? Quit burning fuel." My individual pollution doesn't make a difference! Well, asking that voters reduce their "political pollution" is flawed for the same reason. People can afford to "vote with their hearts" rather than their minds, because it is costless to them to do so, just as my individual pollution is costless to me.

      (This is the thesis of the recent book The Myth of the Rational Voter, summarized here.)

      Are there systems that avoid these "problems of governance"? Yes. But they don't give each person a vote on how the law treats doctors ;-)

    4. Re:The flip side of the coin... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Your post criticized libertarians *in general* with little apparent knowledge of what libertarians *in general* believe

      Little knowledge? You gotta be kidding me. I have been rather acutely made aware of the whole murky depths of Libertarian thought in hundreds of exchanges on Slashdot alone.

      No, it bemoans licensure *aimed at limiting competition with politically-powerful groups*.

      Of which doctors are prime example.

      You responded with a long spiel about libertarians in general, only tangentially related to the issues I raised.

      No, I merely took the "regulation is evil" line of thought to its logical conclusions, to demonstrate, rather forcefully (and I hoped comically) the actual results which are being advocated.

      Remember, it's the *interested* citizens *who are voting for these bad policies* in the first place.

      Well, as I said, you get the government you deserve. If the voters are so easily bamboozled, which they apparently are in a lot of places, then they deserve their Kings and Feudal Lords disguised as Presidents and CEOs. There is really nothing one can do about this other then support education and hope that future generations turn out better.

      It's like saying, "You don't like pollution? Quit burning fuel." My individual pollution doesn't make a difference! Well, asking that voters reduce their "political pollution" is flawed for the same reason. People can afford to "vote with their hearts" rather than their minds, because it is costless to them to do so, just as my individual pollution is costless to me.

      These things are examples of delayed costs. Both industrial and political "pollution" eventually comes around to bite the ignorant in the ass. And again, unless people are educated enough to understand these things, they (or their children) will pay dearly for all the stupidity.

      Are there systems that avoid these "problems of governance"? Yes. But they don't give each person a vote on how the law treats doctors ;-)

      I never suggested such a thing. I merely pointed out that the true focus should be on improving the mechanisms of governance (and also improving the citizens upon whom these mechanisms depend) not by focusing on a specific facet of malfunctioning governance and making it (possibly unintentionally in your case) appear as it was the root of all evil.

  40. Actually it is: here's the text by orzetto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The source of the information is not just Beppe Grillo's blog, since that redirects to this article by La Repubblica, the main Italian newspaper, and the text of the proposed law itself.

    In the text of the proposed law, I read: (Art. 2:1)

    Per prodotto editoriale si intende qualsiasi prodotto contraddistinto da finalità di informazione, di formazione, di divulgazione, di intrattenimento, che sia destinato alla pubblicazione, quali che siano la forma nella quale esso è realizzato e il mezzo con il quale esso viene diffuso.

    This means, in brief, that any product with purpose of information, formation, diffusion and entertainment meant for publication is actually targeted by the law, with no exception for no-profit sites. You only need to be a provider of information to be required to register your activity (Art. 6:1). Mr. AlbertoP, you are talking out of your ass, and Mr. Levi in his interview is lying (or he's incompetent, or both).

    Now, some background for you Americans about what is happening over in Italy: there is mounting dissatisfaction with the current political class, which is seen as highly corrupt and mostly busy with covering its ass. I voted for the current government (Prodi, centre-left), and there is no way I am going over to the other side (which would be Berlusconi's), but I am myself very dissatisfied with the current bipartisan climate, and it seems I am in good company. Last year the parliament passed a general pardon to solve an overpopulation problem in jails (you read right: too many criminals, let's put them back on the streets!) which caused a spike in crime rate; the actual reason for a pardon instead of building more jails was that the pardon covered also crimes committed by certain politicians. This, the fact that the government is more busy with infighting that with maintaining the promises given in their 280-page program presented at the last election, the personality of jackass-politician Clemente Mastella (who attended a mafioso's wedding and is now fittingly minister of Justice) and many other things caused a general discontent.

    Enter Beppe Grillo. A well-known comedian with a history of getting banned and censored for jokes on politicians since the '80s, he started a blog a few years ago and, in the current climate, decided to organise a "Fuck-off day" ("Vaffanculo day", V-Day as in V for Vendetta), a series of national rallies all over Italy and abroad. 4-letter words aside, the idea was to gather signatures for some popular-initiative law proposals (no felons can run for office, two-term limit in parliament, and so on). About a million people participated, and 300,000 signatures were gathered (even on an Italian scale, this is quite a success).

    Politicians got scared and started to attack Grillo almost in unison; this law is an effort to silence Grillo and anybody who would take his place.

    For the good news: infrastructure minister Antonio Di Pietro (yes, I voted for his party and I'm damn happy I did) said that if this law proposal is not retired he's torpedoing the government and forcing new elections. Nothing straightens out politicians like the threat to lose their post... Grazie Tonino!

    --
    Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    1. Re:Actually it is: here's the text by lbbros · · Score: 2, Informative

      Aside all the political siding here (which adds nothing to the discussion), you should notice that some articles of the law contradict the Constitution (the Italian Constitution, that is), therefore this law won't make it anywhere.
      Also, a minor correction: the main Italian newspaper is "Il Corriere della Sera", not "La Repubblica" (important, but not the main).
      The rest of the post is off-topic, although debatable, so I'm not going to comment on it.

      --
      A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
    2. Re:Actually it is: here's the text by orzetto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Aside all the political siding here (which adds nothing to the discussion), you should notice that some articles of the law contradict the Constitution (the Italian Constitution, that is), therefore this law won't make it anywhere.

      I wish I could believe that. The Constitution explicitly forbids financing private schools in article 33, yet private schools are financed using some creative accountability, such as calculating the savings to public school when a kid goes to private school. Anyway, which article of the Constitution would this law violate? Article 21 says nothing about being free from a requirement of registration. This is the same system applied to newspapers, it's not illegal today. The point is not to prohibit blogs, which would never get through the Constitutional Court, the point is to make it difficult to open one, or to make it a liability if you do open one without having gone through the bureaucracy, or to open a loophole so that blogs may be closed for some administrative reason.

      Also, a minor correction: the main Italian newspaper is "Il Corriere della Sera", not "La Repubblica" (important, but not the main).

      Hmm, I think I recall reading that Repubblica passed Corriere some months ago. The Wikipedia has only data from 2005, unfortunately.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    3. Re:Actually it is: here's the text by AlbertoP · · Score: 1

      Mr Orzetto,
      I know the text of the law and if you feel the need to insult me instead of discussing, you're not obtaining much, at least from me.

      First of all you're discussing as if this is already law, and it's not the case. Moreover, you comment one single line of the law. Let me think it's a bit superficial, at least, and give me a reasonable explanation of why Mr Levi should lie on the most important newspaper when he's already widely under attack.

      In the full text of the law there are explicit references only to subject operating in the editorial field commercially, excluding resellers (art 6). Article 8 of the law defines what it's considered "editorial field" as (point 2) "The definition of the relevant markets which constitutes the editorial sector is done by the Authority of guarantee of Communications according to the the Antitrust authority". At point 3 they clarify that "Editorial markets usually have national dimensions, but for regional and interregional cases, the authority can define their regional extension differently". Article 9 is about fighting dominant positions. Articles 10 and 11 discuss the publicity shares, to grant commercial transparency. Article 12 grants equal importance to the distribution of all daily and periodic editorial products. Article 13 defines fees for who violates the law. Article 14 discusses about books prices policy. Article 15 defined the field of operation of the Authority. Articles 16 to 26 discuss about incentives given to editorial operators and facilitations provided to them. Article 27 encourages the distribution of newspapers in schools. Articles 28 to 32 discusses the competencies in the application of the law and the financial support to it.

      If I perfectly agree the law is not clear enough in stating that bloggers and personal sites maintainer are not interested, it's a bit difficult to define these decisions as a way to close our mouths.

    4. Re:Actually it is: here's the text by lbbros · · Score: 1

      First, I'd suggest you to avoid putting a spin to what I said. I don't hold our Constiution, the product of a compromise, a so something sacred. However, that is not the point of my post at all: I am merely stating that such a law proposal contrasts with it. Art.5 of the new proposal violates art.3 comma 2, art.9, art.21 and art.41 of the Constitution. That is why it won't pass or it will be easily struck down.

      Oh, and IANAL.

      --
      A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
    5. Re:Actually it is: here's the text by orzetto · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I know the text of the law and if you feel the need to insult me instead of discussing, you're not obtaining much, at least from me.

      No you don't, you have only been skimming the article headings, as your post proves. If it were not for the fact that you can write English, I would suspect you were a shill from some think-tank close to UDEUR, posting from a dark and moist dungeon or something like that. A pointer in that direction is that your account was created specifically for this thread, but let's not be too much of a conspiracy theorist for today.

      First of all you're discussing as if this is already law, and it's not the case.

      I'll benevolently put aside the fact that I did nowhere say the law was already enforced, indeed I explicitly wrote "proposed law" in the first line; but, even so, am I allowed to cry foul only when the law is actually passed? Am I supposed to stand idle until politicians are finished enacting racial laws, collecting bribes, selling weapons to dictators?

      Moreover, you comment one single line of the law.

      Do'h, 'cause, dude, that's the part under scrutiny that's making all this noise. Ever heard the word "focus"?

      Let me think it's a bit superficial, at least, and give me a reasonable explanation of why Mr Levi should lie on the most important newspaper when he's already widely under attack.

      Oh, now you convinced me. Right, why would ever a politician lie when he is caught red-handed?

      In the full text of the law there are explicit references only to subject operating in the editorial field commercially, excluding resellers (art 6). Article 8 of the law defines what it's considered "editorial field" as (point 2) "The definition of the relevant markets which constitutes the editorial sector is done by the Authority of guarantee of Communications according to the the Antitrust authority".

      I wonder whether you are actually reading what you are writing. The article you mention basically says that the government-appointed Authority of Communications has discretionary powers to decide where the gun is actually going to be aimed. It is placing a ludicrously large power in a body separated by three degrees from the people (authority -> government -> parliament -> people).

      At point 3 they clarify that "Editorial markets usually have national dimensions, but for regional and interregional cases, the authority can define their regional extension differently".

      Ahem, you know the Intahrweb? It's kind of global. Any Web page has at least "national dimensions".

      Article 9 is about [... blah blah blah ...] and the financial support to it.

      What's the point with this summary of article headings you make here? The point of content are articles 2 and 6, it is the fact that non-commercial sites are subject to registration just like nation-wide newspapers. The text is quite clear about that, there is no distinction whatsoever.

      If I perfectly agree the law is not clear enough in stating that bloggers and personal sites maintainer are not interested, it's a bit difficult to define these decisions as a way to close our mouths.

      No, of course it was just a mistake. Why would they ever think of anything like that, especially after blogs have started appearing all over the place, not just Grillo's? An odd coincidence indeed.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    6. Re:Actually it is: here's the text by AlbertoP · · Score: 1

      Yes, I created my account today to comment this story. I doubt it's questionable and I did it respectfully, not anonymously and in a polite manner.

      You talk about focus, but actually citing a single sentence out of the context just increase ambiguity. That's why I reported a very short summary of the key points of the law, considering that most of Slashdot's readers don't speak and read Italian.

      About the rest, I already explained my point of view.

      Regards

    7. Re:Actually it is: here's the text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, a minor correction: the main Italian newspaper is "Il Corriere della Sera", not "La Repubblica" (important, but not the main).

      Hmm, I think I recall reading that Repubblica passed Corriere some months ago. The Wikipedia has only data from 2005, unfortunately.

      It may sell more copies but it hasn't Corriere's history neither its authority.

      If when someone refers to the main Italian newspaper you think of Repubblica, there's something wrong.

      Let me guess: you are very pleased that Repubblica sold more copies because you are a supporter of their ideas. That's why you boldly stated it. The cliché private school argument is the nail in the coffin.
    8. Re:Actually it is: here's the text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it hasn't Corriere's history neither its authority.

      You mean Corriere's history of blind partisanship and biasedness? Indeed...

      > If when someone refers to the main Italian newspaper you think of Repubblica, there's something wrong.

      Why? Because he doesn't share your political biases?

      > Let me guess: you are very pleased that Repubblica sold more copies because you are a supporter of their ideas.

      Err, the original poster clearly identified himself as a Prodi voter and a leftist so he basically agrees with the ideas of Corriere (leftist newspaper, Prodi's unconditional supporter)... just recognizing La Repubblica (center-left, sometimes critical of Prodi's government) has become the most widely read newspaper in Italy doesn't make you a supporter of their ideas.

      BTW, I think both newspapers suck ass.

    9. Re:Actually it is: here's the text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not registered and I'm anonymous, to reaffirm my freedom of speech. I would like to ask a simple question, as an italian taxpayer:

      Are you on the payroll of the "Caste"?

      To non italians: In case you are wondering about what I just said read the synopsis translated of this book (bestseller in my country): http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bol.it%2Flibri%2Fscheda%2Fea978881701714.html&langpair=it%7Cen&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

    10. Re:Actually it is: here's the text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it hasn't Corriere's history neither its authority. You mean Corriere's history of blind partisanship and biasedness? Indeed...

      That's your opinion. I may even share it, but as a matter of fact Corriere was founded in 1876, Repubblica in 1976. One of them is part of history, even if you don't like it.

      > If when someone refers to the main Italian newspaper you think of Repubblica, there's something wrong. Why? Because he doesn't share your political biases?

      Now you start behaving like an idiot. There's no politics in this. Not at all. I'm not a supporter of their views, but facts are facts. Corriere was there during fascism, Repubblica was yet to be founded 50 years later. Almost everybody refers to Corriere as the main Italian newspaper. Only the supporters Repubblica's politics (left wing) refer to Repubblica in that way, but they have to add the name of the newspaper because none would understand. As the gp did.
    11. Re:Actually it is: here's the text by orzetto · · Score: 2, Informative

      Art.5 of the new proposal violates art.3 comma 2, art.9, art.21 and art.41 of the Constitution.

      Article 5 of the proposal defines "publishing activity" as production, distribution and collecting advertisement revenue. Did you mean article 6, the one that makes it compulsory for anyone with a "publishing activity" to register?

      As for the Constitution articles, let's flesh them out one by one:

      • Article 3:2 says It is the duty of the Republic to remove those obstacles of an economic and social nature which, really limiting the freedom and equality of citizens, impede the full development of the human person and the effective participation of all workers in the political, economic and social organization of the country. This has not much to do with publishing. If it were to be as widely interpreted as you seem to want it to be, then they should abolish train and public-transport fares (hey, I'm in favor of that), completely cover all costs of political activity and so on.
      • Article 9 says The Republic promotes the development of culture and scientific and technical research. It safeguards landscape and the historical and artistic heritage of the Nation. This is about universities and higher educations. It does not even state that research is free. Writing on a website has little to do with this article.
      • Article 21 says All have the right to express freely their own thought by word, in writing and by all other means of communication. The press cannot be subjected to authorization or censorship. [...] Printed publications, shows and other displays contrary to morality are forbidden. The law establishes appropriate means for preventing and suppressing all violations. It seems to me that this article's last two sentences were written by some fascist, and are already now something that should be abolished. Aside that, compulsory registration does not eliminate your freedom of speech, it only makes it difficult to actually use it. Anyone familiar with Italian bureaucracy will know that registering is going to take time, effort, probably money, a decent amount of patience, and of course approving the registration may take forever: in the law proposal, there are no maximum terms after which registration must be granted.
      • Article 41 says Private economic initiative is free. [...] This has, again, nothing to do with what we were discussing. We were discussing personal websites, not commercial ones. This article is not about freedom of speech: indeed, it is listed under "Title III: Economic relations", not "Title I: Civil Rights".

      So, again, I do not see what is directly unconstitutional about this law proposal. Of course, my opinion is that this means there is a problem in the Constitution, not that the proposal is fine. Feel free to elaborate.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    12. Re:Actually it is: here's the text by lbbros · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's a good writeup here (link in Italian), which describes well why it is uncostitutional (the author is a lawyer, as well).

      --
      A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
    13. Re:Actually it is: here's the text by orzetto · · Score: 1

      Ok, that's an interesting point. IANAL either, but the highlighted part in the post you link to seems to be superfluous: it says that:

      Publishing activity can also be pursued in non-enterpreneurial form for no profit.
      Whereas the previous sentence read:

      Publishing activity is understood to be every activity aimed at the production and distribution of publishing products, and also the collection of the related advertisement revenue.

      I do not know whether this is azzeccagarbugli-speak, but it looks like the first sentence already specifies that all writing and publishing is covered, without any specification on whether it is for- or no-profit; the second part seems to be superficial. Then again, it is a lousy law draft.

      Anyway, I do not believe this is relevant: the law has not yet been passed, not even discussed in Parliament in fact, so they only have to change article 5, and any problem with the Constitution is over; yet, registration is still required from anyone who has a website.

      Fortunately, with all the noise that it made, this draft has the chances of a paper cat chasing an asbestos rat through hell of becoming a law.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
  41. mussolini by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is funny that the article is tagget with "mussolini"... the current government in italy is belonging to the opposite part...

  42. Your post didn't sit right with me by SIIHP · · Score: 1

    So I did some checking.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas,_California#Housing_prices

    "While the median household income in Salinas remains near the national median at $50,165 ,[6] the median home price in the city has risen to $560,600[7]. "

    So when you claim that "I can also tell you that that house depicted in the article is not worth 550K. It's more likely hanging around 750k" I have to dismiss it, as the link I gave clearly shows it could EASILY be 550k, despite your completely baseless assertion otherwise.

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    1. Re:Your post didn't sit right with me by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Good god. At least check the dates, will ya? You're talking about the 2005 US Census. It's quite possible that I'm wrong, and quite possible that Salinas, located in the middle of nowhere between Monterey and San Jose, is indeed that cheap. But please, for the love of god, quote me some current figures. I can at least claim bad memory for my incorrect data (and I'm quite happy to have someone correct me), but man.... beyond the problem that you're relying on a publicly editable encyclopedia for support, you didn't even read the title of the reference.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:Your post didn't sit right with me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your "logic", if I am 55 years old and the median age of my community is 35, I could EASILY be 35 years old.

  43. Re:And a staunch EU supporter at that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fock Italy.

  44. Sounds like a good law for Turkey not Italy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds like a great law if we are talking about Turkey instead of Italy. This way they can monitor who crosses who the fascist Kemalist ideological lines and can take action more effectively.

  45. Italy Wants to Restrict Blogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And by Italy, you mean an Italian politician?

    Stupid Slashdot!

  46. Number 5 by wsanders · · Score: 1

    5. Any attempt to simply suck money out of the blog so some government can spend it on yet more crap will be interpreted as a crime against humanity, genocide, and the basic human right to babble on about nutritional supplements, cat pictures, the new world order, and whether that chick in history class is hot or not.

    You need to talk to some Italians about the Italian government's propensity to tax anything and everything, thus basically creating a nation of expert tax cheats. Indeed, a continent of tax cheats with their own RSS feed!

    http://eupolitics.einnews.com/rss/news/eu-tax-evasion

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  47. Franco Levi wrote a public email to Beppe Grillo by kalman5 · · Score: 1

    Franco Levi already replied to Beppe Grillo, you can read it here (it's in italian): http://www.governo.it/GovernoInforma/Comunicati/dettaglio.asp?d=36855 but of course Beppe Grillo doesn't show it on his famous Blog.

  48. NO: in fact, it was going to be the truth!!! by feanor981 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    AlbertoP and the other one above citing corriere.it article are forgetting how facts actually evolved:

    1) Draft law has been approved October, 12th

    2) First on-line concernments exploded October, 19th

    3) Asked about that, Mr Levi first replied: "It's not up to the government to establish that. It'll be for the Communications Authority to indicate with regulations, which people and which companies will have to register. And the regulations will arrive only after the law has been discussed and approved by the Lower House." - in other words "I don't care too much about what could happen to web sites and blogs. Eventually, someone other will fix (later) what i'm breaking (now)."

    4) After many politicians expressed serious concern about the draft, and literally menaced to leave the government coalition (see: Antonio di Pietro's Blog - October, 20th) Mr Levi suddenly "changed opinion", releasing the interview AlbertoP refers to, in date October 23rd!!


    So, the REAL STORY is:

    Mr Levi has been caught with hands in the jam and immediately changed opinion. Wouldn't have been so, we in Italy were going to be mass-censored - exactly as posted by nx!

    Cheers, Feanor.
  49. And while we're on the topic ... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

    Your quote refers to the median price. I was referring to the price of THAT home. If you actually read the ENTIRE article (I know, it's tough), you'll find out that "an average 1,800 sq ft (170 m) home in the city's desirable north-western district [is] valued at roughly $700k." Which, coincidentally, is approximately where the house in the picture is. Not only that, but the house in question has a specific style (ranch) that generally fetches more than the average cookie-cutter house - primarily because of layout and building materials. In other words, according to your own source, I was actually remarkably close in my eye-ball assessment.

    Seriously. If you want to correct me, feel free. I'm always interested in learning something new. But right now, you're coming across like an idiot with confirmation bias. You can't read the full article you're quoting, you're insisting on quoting old data, and you're insisting on references sources that will get you laughed out of any serious discussion about.... well, anything.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  50. In Soviet Russia.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mimeograph machine registers YOU!

  51. Re:Franco Levi wrote a public email to Beppe Grill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The letter from Levi was probably not shown on Grillo's blog because all articles since then were written about minister Mastella who took away the investigation about himself from De Magistris. These two facts are unrelated, though a law putting in place a stricter control on blogs can help prevent common people from knowing about other things like Mastella's relationships with Mafia bosses.

  52. Incomplete thought :) by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Last point.... my properties are generally far enough that short of a nuclear blast , I do not, and would not require ANY of their so called "essential" services, and even IN the case of said blast, I wager I can survive longer hiding in my basement and washing my veggies than living in a concentration camp or "safety zone" as they call it.

    There is honestly NOTHING that government does that could not be BETTER handled by a local business or a local coalition. Monolithic government as an entity, instead of a PACT between NEIGHBORS is nothing short of criminal... it drains resources, accomplishes little short of its own propagation, and ends up harming everyone involved, with the exception of those who cannot enjoy life without controlling others, who invariably end up at the helm of said monolithic government entity.

    gotta go, lunch awaits

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    1. Re:Incomplete thought :) by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is honestly NOTHING that government does that could not be BETTER handled by a local business or a local coalition.
      There are some nobel prize winning economists who disagree with you. You're falling in to a trap called "reductionism," where we want simple answers, so we oversimplify to the point of being wrong.

      Also, you DO use the public education system. If it weren't for public education, the US wouldn't even HAVE the economy that enables you to earn the money to buy the computer you are typing on. If it weren't for public education, your income would likely decrease by an amount FAR GREATER than what is currently spent on taxes.

      In other words, your rant is just factually incorrect in multiple ways.
      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    2. Re:Incomplete thought :) by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      As is yours. Public education hasn't created some of the most enlightened minds in history. In fact, even up to Einstein which so many glorify, he mentioned that the reason he felt enlightened was not because of the schooling but because he managed to "survive it".

      Most nobel prize winners get it not for achievement, but for parroting the system's teachings back at it.

      Voila, Al Gore.

      And you ARE correct, if it weren't for "public education" we'd have a better economy where people aren't borrowing money from the "house ATM" (aka the second mortgage, etc) to pay for crap they don't really need, nor can afford.

      Ah, what am I wasting my keyboard's lifetime for? You won't get it, and I have no desire to really argue this out.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    3. Re:Incomplete thought :) by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Well, considering you provide no evidence in support of your economic theory* (which we might call "extremist free market fundamentalism"), whereas nobel laureate economists have piles of research supporting their own theories, the reasonable person must side with them over you.

      You may be interested to know that Adam Smith, who coined the phrase "invisible hand," and is considered the preliminary thinker on capitalist theory, was a strong proponent of government investment in economic infrastructure, such as public education.

      * Anecdotes are meaningless in a discussion of macroeconomic theory. That's why there's a "macro" in the word.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    4. Re:Incomplete thought :) by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I have two of his books on my shelf and have re-read them recently, other than minor help to the truly needy (crop failure, disaster victims, massive disease outbreak, etc) it seemed to me, as of my last writing, that Smith referred to the MARKET itself as the invisible hand, self correcting and balancing if left alone instead of being interfered with.

      If anything at all, Smith seemed to draw the parallel that the invisible hand ONLY works as a correction to the market when the market is left be, and the only things kept out by government are outright criminal endeavors. Of course when the government establishes itself as the only monopoly on any service, and enacts what the US Post Office did to "out compete" Lysander Spooner (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/) whom it put out of business only by cutting costs beyond what a realistic business would. In other words, to keep its monopoly, the USPS WASTED taxpayer money to chokehold a legitimate and superior business out of the marketplace. Eventually LS went on to write "No Treason" and several other texts that market anarchists seem to enjoy.

      Of course I let you be reasonable and side with the masses. Just recall that when SHTF you'd best keep to the other side of someone's property line. They might mistake you for a looter (or perhaps notice you to be such) and take appropriate action. Nobel prizes and snippy quotes of collectivist enforcers will not keep you fed, safe or warm during an emergency... unless you're an enforcer, and the problem with enforcers is that they still need a group of victims to "enforce" against.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    5. Re:Incomplete thought :) by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I am not a Ph.D economist, but I'm dating one. She says that part of Smith's role for governments, facilitating commerce, is widely interpreted to include education. A population which is illiterate and unable to do math will certainly add some inefficiency to a market. That's one whopper of an understatement, by the way.

      That said, Smith is famous for being first, not for being infallible. She has pointed out to me (when defending an EU law mandating returns for flawed consumer goods) that the market Smith described does not exist today; the complexity of modern goods, for example, makes it extremely difficult for purchasers to adequately evaluate the quality of many types of products.

      By the way, the topic at hand is the value of public education, not some specific incident of government corruption.

      Also, I should note that there are many other reasons to fund education, apart from direct economic improvement. Since decisions about whether to be educated are made by parents, not children, a lack of public education would lead to a permanent underclass, and is entirely contrary to the principles of meritocracy (an almost universally cherished western value).

      One more thing: Education is essential for a democracy, because the people run the government. If the majority are idiots, then idiots run the country.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    6. Re:Incomplete thought :) by Reziac · · Score: 1

      All you have to do to see what happens if education is handled by the parents, not as required by and standardized by the gov't, is to look back about 150 years. The "permanent underclass" of the uneducated quite definitely existed.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:Incomplete thought :) by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      How about to simply not force any particular "monopoly" on education, nor taxing those unwilling to participate?

      After all, I'm not a PHD in physics, but I got my math and science education from one at home. I have met many of the school system's finest who are STILL unable to lay claim to ANY of the cognitive abilities and skills you described. Schooling or no schooling aside, my question is the same. Why be force to eat at the public trough and pay for it, when one can cook his or her own and NOT pay for the slop others choose to eat for "free".? Same can be said of education. Public education hasn't given us history's greatest minds, but it has given us lots of easily replaced "cogs in the machine", which IS after all, what the Prussian system was designed to do, and what it did admirably.

      It was designed to provide easily controlled drones, not enlightened minds able to think things out for themselves. That a few come out undamaged is no doubt a sign of the absolute resilience of human intellect... not proof of how enlightening the public school system is.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    8. Re:Incomplete thought :) by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Unwilling to participate? YOU sure as hell are willing to participate because you use the fruits of society. If you don't want to contribute to society, trash everything you can't build yourself from wood and go live with the Amish. Wait--the Amish are using our hospitals, today--hospitals almost entirely staffed by physicians from the public education system. They should be paying taxes, too.

      Before public education, there actually WAS a permanent underclass. I'm sure 99% of parents today consider themselves smart enough teach their children everything they need to know, but very few of them actually could.

      Public education is the primary force of social mobility in our society. Social mobility causes optimism. Optimism causes ambition. Ambition causes productivity. Productivity causes our amazing economy where nobody starves despite only a few men and machines actually working the farms! You really must not know what life was like for the average person before everyone, no matter how poor, had a chance to be educated. You don't want that. I promise. A few rare people can teach themselves only from books, but most can not.

      Also, your claim that there are no creative and brilliant minds is just not true. Most of the time, truly great thinkers are not fully recognized until after their deaths. String/M-brane theory is a popular example of a concept which requires math more complex and thinking more creative than Einstein. We don't know how "true" it is yet, but it is the complete opposite of "cog in the machine" thinking.

      I agree that much of our public education system is still excessively geared toward the industrial age, but it still outweighs the alternative system a billion to one. And that industrial thinking is changing, too. While I attended PUBLIC university, I was involved in a program that taught PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL students how do design and build robots. Design is the height of creativity. It's not just cogs, anymore.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  53. You posted no facts yet called me an idiot by SIIHP · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "Your quote refers to the median price. I was referring to the price of THAT home. If you actually read the ENTIRE article (I know, it's tough), you'll find out that "an average 1,800 sq ft (170 m) home in the city's desirable north-western district [is] valued at roughly $700k." Which, coincidentally, is approximately where the house in the picture is."

    Check again your location is off, and regardless, your post refutes nothing.

    "But right now, you're coming across like an idiot with confirmation bias."

    Fuck you. YOU are the one insisting something cannot be accurate while providing NOT ONE OUNCE of evidence.

    How about instead of spewing your useless opinion YOU look up some FACTS and post them?

    So far all you've done is say "nuh uh" while asking ME to do YOUR research for you. Why is it my job to prove YOUR baseless assertions?

    Fuck off now troll, I have no desire to waste another second with you.

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    1. Re:You posted no facts yet called me an idiot by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Fuck you. YOU are the one insisting something cannot be accurate while providing NOT ONE OUNCE of evidence.

      Incorrect. I've provided plenty of evidence that your evidence is incomplete at best, wrong at worst, shoddy every time, and when read in full, supports my position more than yours.

      Since I need to spell it out: I'm accusing you of selectively using incomplete data from a non-authoritative source, as well as implying that a median price is the price of a specific house. I'm calling you an idiot because easily available facts support that notion.

      And since you asked so nicely for facts:
      http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/12/crl_foreclosures.html
      http://househunt.org/cgibin/househunt/supermls/mls_prop_detail.cgi?mls_agent_id=hbustos&agent_id=ncalreil&property_id=752244
      Note that the house is the closest thing I could find in style and apparent size without actually tracking down what the actual house in the picture is. You'll also note that that price is far above what you claim, and even what I claimed.

      Now sit down, boy.
      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  54. Answer the question by SIIHP · · Score: 1

    "So how about instead of complaining about what you disagree with, but couldn't possibly know to be true, you edit the article?"

    Answer the question, don't change the subject.

    "As opposed to making a fool of yourself by..."

    Calling names when you have no support for your position? Because that's all you did in that post, and it doesn't address the central point, if it's wrong and you HAVE FACTS THAT SHOW IT, then edit the fucking article, don't whine to me about it.

    But you don't, so you can't, so you call names.

    And in so doing admit to everything I said about you.

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    1. Re:Answer the question by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      And in so doing admit to everything I said about you.

      Wow, you're what, a freshman in highschool?

      I don't edit Wikipedia articles unless it's my area of expertise. It's a metric ton of work to do it properly, and I don't care enough about this particular subject. Finally, you seem to be relying on an editable encyclopedia for reference. The problem is not the article, the problem is you relying on it. What are you, a freshman in highschool?
      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  55. I wouldn't worry about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're talking about a country who's government is as stable as a Windows ME installation. 38 prime ministers in 60 years. That's an average time in power of 1.5 years.

  56. Ok, you finally admit you have no facts by SIIHP · · Score: 1

    Ok, you can't.

    You should have just said you were making shit up so I could ignore you from the beginning, instead of being forced to read your posts before I decide to ignore you.

    "Wow, you're what, a freshman in highschool?"

    Just like I said, no facts so you resort to insults.

    At least you finally admitted you were full of shit and have no support for your opinion.

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
  57. So you're still posting no support by SIIHP · · Score: 0, Troll

    "Note that the house is the closest thing I could find in style and apparent size without actually tracking down what the actual house in the picture is. You'll also note that that price is far above what you claim, and even what I claimed."

    Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with ANYTHING, you claimed THAT HOUSE could not be 550k. Support that statement or admit what you already know, YOU CAN'T.

    For all you know he house pictured is behind a treatment plant or something which decreases it's value significantly. Hell houses as close as one block in my area differ by 150k. So save that link, it only proves you can't support your claim.

    "Now sit down, boy."

    As soon as you fuck off.

    You're a troll who made a bullshit claim that you can't support, and now you're contorting yourself in order to avoid admitting it.

    Save it, you've had plenty of tries, you're full of shit and it's plain for everyone to see. We're done.

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    1. Re:So you're still posting no support by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Conversely, your statement "that house costs 550k" has been thoroughly debunked. What exactly was your point again?

      Heh. I see. You don't understand what "supporting evidence" means. Fine by me. Nor do you understand how to be convincing, debate a subject, keep track of a topic, cite, read, write and not be a complete idiot. Congrats. BTW, there's some anger management you ought to take. I know puberty is tough, but there is no need in making it harder.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  58. Re:Franco Levi wrote a public email to Beppe Grill by Lord+Yupa · · Score: 1

    Perhaps R. Levi didn't even read the law proposal before B. Grillo post...

  59. How bad is your reading comprehension. by SIIHP · · Score: 1

    "Conversely, your statement "that house costs 550k" has been thoroughly debunked"

    HOW? You posted evidence related to a DIFFERENT house, there has been NO evidence about THAT house but mine, and I obviously didn't debunk myself. Are you stupid, or just afraid of being wrong that you lie like that?

    You're just flailing because your pathetic "proof" got taken apart and you can't do anything about it.

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    1. Re:How bad is your reading comprehension. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Snicker. Actually, you did debunk yourself. First, by relying on a publicly editable article to prove anything. Second, your second "proof" clearly states that that's the median price in 2005 in Salinas in general, not the price of that particular house. Third - do you really think Wikipedia has the up-to-date price of a specific house available? In a general article about the area? Wow, you really are incredibly gullible. I have that bridge, you know....

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  60. Way off topic, but by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    I really don't understand why everyone taxes by the gallon. They should charge by the dollar. Then they wouldn't have to pass a new law every couple of years because of inflation or price fluctuations. Unless the point is to have a reason to pass new laws, which can then have unrelated riders attached to them.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:Way off topic, but by pluther · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand why everyone taxes by the gallon. They should charge by the dollar. Then they wouldn't have to pass a new law every couple of years because of inflation or price fluctuations.

      The rationale behind taxing by the gallon, I think, is that it's an indicator of how much you use the road. The more you drive, the more gallons of gas you buy.

      The road doesn't get more expensive to maintain as fuel prices go up, so taxing by dollar wouldn't make sense there. Though adjusting for inflation does, of course.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    2. Re:Way off topic, but by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The road doesn't get more expensive to maintain as fuel prices go up, so taxing by dollar wouldn't make sense there. Though adjusting for inflation does, of course.
      That's where you're wrong. (except for the inflation)

      Road maintenance is highly dependent on the cost of petroleum. You can't do major road work without petroleum powered heavy machinery; said machinery is always going to require some kind of portable energy source. Further, crude products are required for synthetic asphalt production.
      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  61. Nope, and now you're just pathetic by SIIHP · · Score: 1

    Noting you posted there debunks anything.

    First, disprove it.

    Second, it only proves IT COULD BE 550k. So you're wrong again.

    Third- DISPROVE IT.

    You're still flailing, and more pathetically by the minute.

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    1. Re:Nope, and now you're just pathetic by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Dance, monkeyboy! Dance!

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  62. ATTN: ASTROTURFER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Although I don't agree much with what orzetto said in another submission, this guy _really_ seems to be someone paid to write this crap.

    In the full text of the law there are explicit references only to subject operating in the editorial field commercially, excluding resellers (art 6). Article 8 of the law defines what it's considered "editorial field" as (point 2) "The definition of the relevant markets which constitutes the editorial sector is done by the Authority of guarantee of Communications according to the the Antitrust authority". At point 3 they clarify that "Editorial markets usually have national dimensions, but for regional and interregional cases, the authority can define their regional extension differently". Emphasis is mine. Notice that his post shows:
    A. He probably thinks that quoting laws' articles confuses people enough, he doesn't even bother to notice that what he quotes is against him (or unrelated to the subject in other places).
    B. He has absolutely no idea of what he's speaking about. Very common among politicians. How can you quantify the "editorial market" of a blog? Is it regional? Or national? Do I have to show the logs of the webserver? Oh I forgot, the Authority of guarantee of Communications will probably decide. Now I'm absolutely sure it does not apply to blogs. C'mon!

    How can you read /. and post this crap?
  63. Re:Franco Levi wrote a public email to Beppe Grill by kalman5 · · Score: 1

    or the other way around

  64. Probably... by b00fhead · · Score: 1

    ...to avoid unpleasant scenes like this.

  65. Godwin's L*w... by Xodmoe · · Score: 1

    "However, having lots of unenforced and silly laws on the books makes everyone a criminal and subject to capricious arrest anytime anywhere. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, maybe even George Bush love laws like this because they can employ them at a moment's notice against their perceived threats."

    As bad as things have been under the present administration, it rather trivializes the crimes against humanity of Hitler et al when you casually lump Baby Bush in with that lot.

    Even worse, it dulls the moral impact of the suffering of their victims. ...and all to add weight to your argument against "registration" of blogs, which isn't the law yet in Italy, or in the US, and might never be.

  66. What you say??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...eat prepared food constantly... What do you eat?