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."
[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.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
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????
My blog
So, what is the definition of a "blog" anyway?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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
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.
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
How would they stop some dodgy Nigerian site from hosting Italian blog?
PirateBay will have a new torrent section called "thoughts", where one can download all the latest illegal ideas people have uploaded.
Sounds like a vote for sanity to me....
Oh arse
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.
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
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.
Back under your bridge troll.
"I wish to God these calculations would have been made by steam." -Charles Babbage
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.
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.
Don't be paranoid. You'll still be able to blog about how great it is that the trains are running on time.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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
Who is this 'Italy' you talk of?
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
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
some things never change
Its not the years, its the mileage
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.
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
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.
:(){
Italy seems to have this vicious circle about it when it comes to these sort of things, huh.
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...
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.
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)
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
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?
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
So I did some checking.
,[6] the median home price in the city has risen to $560,600[7]. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas,_California#Housing_prices
"While the median household income in Salinas remains near the national median at $50,165
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.
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.
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.
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
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
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?"
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.
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.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.
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.
Of which doctors are prime example.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
Yeah. 'Cause there's no point in discussing anything.
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.
Perhaps R. Levi didn't even read the law proposal before B. Grillo post...
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.
"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.
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?!
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.
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
or the other way around
...to avoid unpleasant scenes like this.
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
"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.