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."

Comments

Re:In other news

[damburger]

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.

You posted no facts yet called me an idiot

[SIIHP]

"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.

Re:Actually it is: here's the text

[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.

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.