Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Italian Wikipedia May Shut Down Due To New Legislation

Posted by Soulskill on from the citation-not-needed-if-it-bugs-you dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Proposed legislation under debate in Italy has Wikipedia warning of a shutdown for the Italian version of the site. They say the law would create 'a requirement to all websites to publish, within 48 hours of the request and without any comment, a correction of any content that the applicant deems detrimental to his/her image.' They further explain. 'Unfortunately, the law does not require an evaluation of the claim by an impartial third judge — the opinion of the person allegedly injured is all that is required, in order to impose such correction to any website. Hence, anyone who feels offended by any content published on a blog, an online newspaper and, most likely, even on Wikipedia can directly request the removal of such contents and its permanent replacement with a "corrected" version, aimed to contradict and disprove the allegedly harmful contents, regardless of the truthfulness of the information deemed as offensive, and its sources.'"

7 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. Berlusconi's a c**t... by GrahamCox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There, I think I just got Slashdot shut down...

    1. Re:Berlusconi's a c**t... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You misspelled "cunt"

    2. Re:Berlusconi's a c**t... by peppepz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The big problem is "without any comment", not the change

      The problem is also in the "within 48 hours" part. You can't have a blog and go on vacation without risking *massive* fines when you're back if somebody got offended by what you wrote on it while you weren't checking your email.

      In Italy, using anti-defamation laws to intimidate honest journalists is a national sport (that's why we have so few free reporters). This law will make this practice "a commodity", so that even normal citizens will think twice before saying something about anyone over the web (not only high-ranking politicians - it's especially low-ranking people, think e.g snake oil vendors, who resort to these means to defend their lawn).

  2. Why are countries like this... by bky1701 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...allowed in the European Union? It really compromises the image of the whole entity that they have no problem with this absurd level of corruption. This is obviously another censorship/media control ploy by Berlusconi, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was specifically designed to hurt Wikipedia.

    --
    Great Intellect...
    1. Re:Why are countries like this... by hedwards · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is definitely an issue, but their justice system is a joke and their politicians have immunity from prosecution IIRC. As long as those facts remain facts there is little hope of Italy joining the modern world. I mean hell, they still try people in absentia and expect to extradite the convicted afterwards.

    2. Re:Why are countries like this... by hydrofix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...allowed in the European Union? It really compromises the image of the whole entity that they have no problem with this absurd level of corruption. This is obviously another censorship/media control ploy by Berlusconi, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was specifically designed to hurt Wikipedia.

      Very good question. I have been worried about the situation in Italy for long. The country is ruled by a media-controlling Prime Minister, while the parliament is paralyzed by deep corruption, reckless spending and robbing the tax money. And, I mean really, really unbelievable stuff, like the mayor of a small province earning more than the President of the United States.

      I think EU is essentially in the cross-roads of three alternative paths:

      1. Keep going on like this, from crisis to crisis, with disparity in levels of democracy and wealth between different parts of the Union.
      2. Turn in to a Federation, subordinating national parliaments to one Federal Parliament in Brussels.
      3. Split into two or more sub-Unions (Corrupt South, Torn East and Prosperous North).

      I feel like the second path is the only feasible way to proceed. First option means ever-continuing disparity within the Union, which will stall its political and economic development forever. Third option is a solution, but not a very constructive one. It would mean a new divide in Europe, akin to the times of the Cold War, and a step back of over seven decades politically.

      If EU became a Federation with a corpus of Federal Law, and national legislation became subject to repeal by Federal courts, it would truly make EU a uniform, legally homogenous area, where all EU citizens and businesses would really have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities from the shores of Black Sea in Romania to the Atlantic cliffs in Ireland, and from the tip of Gibraltar in Iberia to the rural fells of Lapland. Doing business and living in Europe would become ever more easier, as human rights would be universally respected.

      Maybe the current crisis will have only one possible outcome: the establishment of the Federal Government of the European Union.

  3. Re:What's the problem? by Teancum · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I agree with this proposition, that the language being edited is irrelevant. The issue here is how it impacts collaborative writing projects involving Italian citizens rather than simply a particular language edition of Wikipedia.

    What is significant here is that the Italian language version of the the project generally already conforms to Italian law in part because the policies have been established by people who are familiar with that country's laws. The threat here is that the volunteers are suggesting a nuclear/scorched earth option that if they are not going to be legally permitted to edit or maintain Wikipedia, that they simply want to get rid of the whole project altogether. At least that is my gist of what the threat listed on the Italian language edition of Wikipedia is trying to say.

    Even more significant, the volunteers at the Italian language edition of Wikipedia hosted a 24 hour "blackout" after considerable discussion that was supported by the greater Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees that essentially gave a blank check support to the Italian language volunteers as well as the "Wikimedia Italia" local chapter in their fight on this particular issue. While it may not be strictly necessary to shut down the project in America, the net effect is essentially the same if the volunteer community simply pulls the plug.

    Since many people in Italy use Wikipedia as a resource in their native language, the volunteers want the Italian people to realize just how serious this issue is to them, and how a very valuable resource can simply disappear if this law is allowed to stand. In that sense, I think this "blackout" was a very good idea. The real "news for nerds" isn't the law... even if that is the trigger... but the fact that Wikipedia blanked itself out yesterday and this morning (depending on what time zone you live in) with the Italian language edition.

    The fact that legally speaking it seems like we are moving into a world where the lowest common denominator seems to be prevailing in terms of how you conduct yourself with international projects on the internet, this is an issue even with other language editions of Wikipedia or for that matter even Slashdot.... assuming Italian citizens participate with posts here. In the case of Slashdot, they are going to be forced by the Italian law to respond to any potential slander or "misrepresentation of fact" by removing content in a fashion similar to the DMCA. Note that the DMCA only covers blatant copyright violations, where as this law covers much more (hence the slander or "misrepresentation" issues) where take-down notices can be filed for practically any reason at all and must be dealt with or you will be facing international legal injunctions that might be recognized by American courts due to "intellectual property" treaties.

    There is some real teeth in the issue here, and one that sadly might start impacting other websites over time as well. Even worse, there seems to be a tendency for laws of this nature to spread to other countries, where there certainly are several Europhiles in the American government who love to adopt laws like this into American society once they have been established "over there". This is a canary in a coalmine, so to say, and the canary is dying. At stake here is the concept of free speech altogether, especially for such a seductive concept for the expansion of government authority over the printed word.