Italian Court Rules Web Editors Not Responsible For Comments

Re:Sadly by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 21:03 · Score: 1

This doesn't mean no one is legally responsible for anonymous comments though.

Then, who's responsible ?

Re:Sadly by CmdrPony · 2011-11-30 21:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

The poster? Just that it doesn't show your details on the page doesn't mean it makes you invulnerable to prosecution if you break the law. Even Slashdot saves the ip addresses of commenters and if you post something that breaks the law and police comes asking about it, they have to hand out the details. That is not going to ever change either.

duh duh duh duh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 21:10 · Score: 1

wow a judge that actually has a brain

it took a lawsuit to figure out there are differences between the internet and a newspaper

Re:duh duh duh duh by Isca · 2011-12-01 01:23 · Score: 1

Even better it took an Italian judge to rule this way. Brought to you by the same folks as this gem: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2049773/Does-Italy-Really-Want-Search-Engines-Recent-Legal-Rulings-Suggest-Not

Which countries do? by abednegoyulo · 2011-11-30 21:12 · Score: 1

I don't know if I really should be getting out of the basement but in my knowledge I don't know any country that holds the editor responsible for any comment made by others on an online publication. Though I am really currious if there is any.

If there isn't any, is this really news?

Re:Which countries do? by getuid() · 2011-11-30 21:45 · Score: 4, Informative

Germany.
Google for "Störerhaftung", for example.
Re:Which countries do? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 22:38 · Score: 1

UK, but only if they do not comply after removal is requested (cf Godfrey vs Demon Internet Ltd). AFAICT, this ruling appears to suggest that 3rd party comments can remain even if removal is requested in Italy, and so is contrary to the UK rule.
(IANAL, and have not read the ruling in question, so this is just my personal interpretation which is quite likely to be wrong...)
Also, if there were any European country that was *going* to hold the editor responsible, it would be Italy. Italy's defamation laws are absurd. Defamation is a criminal offence in Italy, and truthfulness of the statement is not an automatically accepted defence. This is a country that as recently as 2002 imprisoned a newspaper editor for running articles suggesting some judges were mismanaging cases and handing out inappropriate sentences.
It's also worth noting that the defendant in this case is Berlusconi's largest media rival, and the judicial process in Italy is well-known for being politically influenced at times. Whether this helped or hindered them in this case is hard to tell; Berlusconi's certainly had his downs recently...
Re:Which countries do? by Chrisq · 2011-12-01 00:08 · Score: 2

This is a country that as recently as 2002 imprisoned a newspaper editor for running articles suggesting some judges were mismanaging cases and handing out inappropriate sentences.
Did he get an appropriate sentence?
Re:Which countries do? by somersault · 2011-12-01 02:28 · Score: 3, Funny

You mean an appropriate sentence for publishing inappropriate sentences? :p

--
which is totally what she said
Re:Which countries do? by somersault · 2011-12-01 02:34 · Score: 1

Or I should say, an appropriate sentence for publishing "inappropriate" sentences about inappropriate sentences.

--
which is totally what she said

Seen a photo of the judges? by Provocateur · 2011-11-30 21:26 · Score: 4, Funny

Can anyone verify that the court is not made up of CmdrTaco, CowboyNeal and other ex-/. editors wearing robes and fake Italian accents?

--
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.

Re:Seen a photo of the judges? by Neil+Boekend · 2011-11-30 21:45 · Score: 2, Funny

They'll probably have mustaches, are muching on mushrooms and are looking for a princess in a pink dress.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.

Sharpen your keyboards, ACs! by srussia · 2011-11-30 21:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

I hold that anonymous allegations, however defamatory, should not be prosecutable. It's anonymous, wouldn't a reasonable person just dismiss any such allegation considering the source?

Got my Nomex suit on, so let's go!

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!

Re:Sharpen your keyboards, ACs! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 23:57 · Score: 1

Eat them?
Re:Sharpen your keyboards, ACs! by rdnetto · 2011-12-01 04:16 · Score: 1

What if the nature of the allegation was such that they were still at risk, or that it was personally embarrassing to them? e.g. victims of rape and domestic violence
Certainly, reasonableness is important and I doubt a reasonable person would consider an anonymous posting on a forum to be convincing, but to allow all anonymous allegations would be a system ripe for abuse.

--
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
Re:Sharpen your keyboards, ACs! by Provocateur · 2011-12-01 06:41 · Score: 1

Everything was fine and peachy until the name Anonymous was co-opted and that entity/unit started doing bad things. He becomes a myth, a spook story that criminals tell their kids at night. "Rat on your pop, and Anonymous will get you."

--
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Re:Sharpen your keyboards, ACs! by cheekyjohnson · 2011-12-01 07:04 · Score: 1

Now we just need a definition of "reasonable" that isn't completely subjective.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Sharpen your keyboards, ACs! by rdnetto · 2011-12-01 16:25 · Score: 1

We already have one. The term 'reasonable person' is a term of art used in law to indicate that an objective test should be applied. It's ambiguous because it's usually used to deal with unanticipated situations. In practice, this means that you usually need a court to decide what is reasonable, if the parties can't agree on it.
The subjective equivalent is 'a reasonable person in the position of X', which considers the knowledge and idiosyncrasies of X but still requires them to have acted reasonably. That one is typically only used where the other party knew X personally.

--
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
Re:Sharpen your keyboards, ACs! by cheekyjohnson · 2011-12-01 16:49 · Score: 1

We already have one.
Whether it is society's (a majority's) opinion on what is reasonable, or a judge's, "reasonable" is still subjective. No matter what test they use, the definition will probably remain subjective.
It may be useful at times, but I think "it's ripe for abuse" depending on the situation.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Sharpen your keyboards, ACs! by rdnetto · 2011-12-02 14:43 · Score: 1

Whether it is society's (a majority's) opinion on what is reasonable, or a judge's, "reasonable" is still subjective. No matter what test they use, the definition will probably remain subjective.
It may be useful at times, but I think "it's ripe for abuse" depending on the situation.
Under that approach, it's impossible to have truly subjective test. I meant subjective only in comparison to the objective test.
Besides, if you can't trust the judges in a common law system to apply the test in a just and equitable manner, then you have bigger problems than defamation law.

--
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
Re:Sharpen your keyboards, ACs! by cheekyjohnson · 2011-12-02 15:07 · Score: 1

objective test
What "objective test"?

Besides, if you can't trust the judges in a common law system to apply the test in a just and equitable manner, then you have bigger problems than defamation law.
What is "just"? That's subjective, too. The fact that you disagree with a judge's decision doesn't mean that his decision wasn't "just."
The system will likely always be ripe for abuse.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

On the other hand ... by Taco+Cowboy · 2011-11-30 21:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

If everything has to go all the way to the court system, how can the society function?

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:On the other hand ... by Kjella · 2011-11-30 22:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

If everything has to go all the way to the court system, how can the society function?
Quite well, actually. It doesn't mean that every instance of something has to go to court, you have big decisions like Sony vs Betamax and then most variations are considered settled case law. There'll always be borderline cases but the contested areas get smaller and smaller. Both in common law and civil law systems you look to higher courts, past cases and similar cases in other jurisdictions and try to be consistent, even if you have different concepts of precedent. Editorial responsibility for comments posted online is typically such a discussion, it'll probably end up in some superior court somewhere and be settled, unless the politicians pass specific laws to make it perfectly clear.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:On the other hand ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 23:51 · Score: 1

Ordinary people with ordinary jobs do not have the time to go to court.
The system works if you run your forum on a commercial basis and free speech is releveant to the forums function.
In all other cases having to go to court is a pretty big disruption to your normal life.
Re:On the other hand ... by apcullen · 2011-12-01 03:25 · Score: 1

Ordinary people with ordinary jobs do not have the time to go to court. The system works if you run your forum on a commercial basis and free speech is releveant to the forums function. In all other cases having to go to court is a pretty big disruption to your normal life.

Agreed. I spend too much time reading slashdot to be bothered with going to court.

Re:Sadly by dotancohen · 2011-11-30 21:46 · Score: 5, Informative

The poster? Just that it doesn't show your details on the page doesn't mean it makes you invulnerable to prosecution if you break the law. Even Slashdot saves the ip addresses of commenters and if you post something that breaks the law and police comes asking about it, they have to hand out the details. That is not going to ever change either.

I do not know about today, but back when /. did not save the IP addresses of people posting with UID 666. That actually came to court once, I think, when some Anonymous Coward posted text from the Scientology holy book (copyrighted material).

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

Odd world-view by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 22:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

My mother-in-law once asked me how to remove a comment critical of their (brick-and-mortar) bridal fashion store from an online shop-review forum. At first I didn't understand her question, simply because the idea was too foreign for my brain to parse, and then we had a lively discussion about freedom of speech.

It's good to see this court ruled the way it did, but it remains baffling to me how confused some people are about the mechanics of online forums. And I don't mean the technical mechanics, but the idea that comments/forum posts are content that are not controlled by the site's owner. This seems to be incomprehensible to some people.

Re:Odd world-view by garcia · 2011-12-01 01:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

I operate a website which has a local, loyal, knowledgeable, and (many time) contentious userbase. These people routinely post comments which get to the heart of the matter and because of the content of the site (restaurant reviews and local politics (county/city level)) can cause business owners and politicians to become upset.
One particular business, which isn't local yet but plans to be in the next year+, had some representatives post comments on the site and engage my readership. While I always track down new commenters to the best of my ability, especially to out astrotufing, these reps took the time to clearly announce who they were before I had to do any real work (thanks!)
However, after they posted some comments they realized two things:
1. They didn't sound very good.
2. They didn't like what my readers had to say.
As a result of this several exchanges went back and forth with them trying to get me to allow their comments and the comments of others to be edited/deleted.
Obviously the repeated answer I gave was "No."
---
People are learning about the Internet, especially PR, but for the most part they're very naive. I continually catch business owners or their reps trying to post astroturf comments in favor of the business and I happily out them. This happens on a continual basis and really brings into question sites such as Urbanspoon (which I actively support on my site) and Yelp.
If you're interested you can see one of my discussions about this here: http://www.lazylightning.org/astroturfing-poor-attempts-at-changing-opinion
However, if I am told by a court order to remove the comments, I will. I will go to bat for as long as I can before I have to put my financial stake on the line for a bunch of people on the Internet. I do my best to keep them anonymous (no long-term logging, allow them to use any non-bouncing e-mail address that they actually check) but I will only go so far.
Re:Odd world-view by Just+Some+Guy · 2011-12-01 05:24 · Score: 2

I got a series of robocalls from someone claiming to be Rachel with "Card Services" wanting to help lower my credit card interest rate. I blogged about it, and 280,000 hits and 972 comments to that page later, I guess I wasn't the only one they were pestering. I removed exactly two comments from that post ever:
The first was when a poster alleged that a certain person was responsible for all the calls. I got a letter from that person's lawyer telling me to take down the site because it contained libelous statements, and attached a 20-page printout of all the comments that were attached to that post at that time. I said, "no. Tell me specifically which comments you're referring to and I'll evaluate them. Also tell your client to quit calling me." The end result is that they asked me to remove one comment with the guy's home information, and I thought that was pretty reasonable so I complied. I also got the lawyer to formally state on record that their client was not a telemarketer. I figured that if they'd pursued further legal action and it turned out that the client really was a telemarketer, it'd be handy to show a judge that they'd previously asked their lawyers to lie in writing.
The second comment was full of racial slurs. I'm a huge proponent of freedom of speech and had a hard time deciding how to handle it, but in the end decided that the poster could find their own soapbox to broadcast racism and that I wanted no part in it.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

Re:Sadly by f()rK()_Bomb · 2011-11-30 23:05 · Score: 2

Slashdot might not legally have to, but your ISP sure does. Standard data retention laws. I'd imagine slashdot does save ips just even for stats and tracking purposes.

--
"The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980

A small, meaningless victory by Hentes · 2011-12-01 00:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Italy still has strict limitations on free speech, this victory is but a drop in the ocean.

Re:A small, meaningless victory by worf_mo · 2011-12-01 00:41 · Score: 5, Informative

Care to point out which legal limitations you are referring to?
The problem with free speech in Italy is not caused by the law, but by the media monopoly that is in the hand of a single family, and by the organized crime. Journalists have to fear for their job - and sometimes for their physical integrity - when their work covers the "wrong" person. Dissenting voices from the population are gladly ignored by mainstream media (unless it fits their agenda), and when they cannot be ignored they are pictured as silly, selfish, violent, or anti-democratic.
Michele Santoro had to leave the (publicly funded) RAI because of his critical stance to Berlusconi's political role, and he has received death threats because of his reports. This is the real threat to free speech in Italy right now.
Re:A small, meaningless victory by Hentes · 2011-12-01 01:11 · Score: 2

Here is a nice example.
Re:A small, meaningless victory by worf_mo · 2011-12-01 02:59 · Score: 1

A video of an autistic kid being bullied, uploaded to Google Video by one of the offenders to further humiliate the kid, has nothing to do with free speech. (I believe that the judge addressed the wrong party, though.)
People define free speech differently, depending on their cultural and geopolitical background, and sometimes their agenda (I'm not referring to you, Hentes).
I live in northern Italy, in a part of the country with three main ethnic groups that was annexed after WWI. For the past few decades, coexistence has been mainly peaceful, but when my father was a kid, under fascist law, his parents were not allowed to give him a name that came from our ethnic group, the name had to be Italian. People were also forbidden to speak our native language, only Italian was allowed. Some women and men taught school classes in catacomb schools, risking imprisonment or deportation.
Now that I would define a strict limitation on free speech.
Re:A small, meaningless victory by Hentes · 2011-12-01 03:48 · Score: 1

The problem is, convicting executives of service providers (mind you, they didn't sue the company) can make these kind of services disappear, thus preventing everyone from using them, and that would have a massive effect on free speech.

People define free speech differently, depending on their cultural and geopolitical background, and sometimes their agenda.
I would rather say that people redefine free speech differently so they don't have to face the fact that there isn't unlimited free speech in almost anywhere. Yes, it could be much worse, I agree with that, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be better. True, it varies between cultures and places, and Europe has a tradition of limiting free speech in certain occasions, which is one of the things I don't like in my home continent.

A video of an autistic kid being bullied, uploaded to Google Video by one of the offenders to further humiliate the kid, has nothing to do with free speech.
When you decide what is free speech based on content, it is not free speech anymore. I know how bad it is, I knew a kid in a similar situation, but I think in these cases the crime is not making a video but beating up the kid in the first place. In fact, the bullies can easily be dealt with now that they have been dumb enough to publish evidence against themselves. Getting rid of video sharing sites will not stop bullying, we are just putting our heads in the sand.
Re:A small, meaningless victory by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2011-12-01 04:07 · Score: 1

As an American EU-watcher and sometimes fan of the bloc, I have to say that Italy has the worst "justice" system in the entire EU. Unfortunately I see this as more of an anomaly where they finally got one right than any sort of real progress towards having a more meaningful and useful system of justice. I'd like to point out, again, that while the American system is certainly less than perfect that we don't have the crazy limits on free speech that the EU countries seem very content with and they're a lot closer to having "thought crimes" than the US is.
Re:A small, meaningless victory by canajin56 · 2011-12-01 04:45 · Score: 1

That's why they should do away with laws against libel, slander, death threats, harassment, copyright infringement, false advertising, trade secrets, and so on and so forth. Because you can't decide what is protected speech based on content.

--
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Re:A small, meaningless victory by Hentes · 2011-12-01 05:36 · Score: 1

That's why they should do away with laws against libel, slander, death threats, harassment,
Yes, they should.

copyright infringement, trade secrets
Free speech is not an unalienable right. By signing an NDA, or accepting the licensing terms of a copyrighted material, you accept those limits on your speech..

false advertising
Now this is a hard one, I admit, but I still think it would be possible to rewrite false advertising laws to be compatible with free speech. Instead of blacklisting false advertisers, authorities could allow advertisements found to be honest to display a 'badge' or logo on them, something like "certified honest advertisement".

Re:Who's responsible for anonymous comments? by Chrisq · 2011-12-01 00:05 · Score: 1

Mac is better than PC, Hitler was right about everything, Nintendo is better than Sega, people who use Linux are homosexual, oh and Obama is a Muslim terrorist.

-CmdrTaco

Thanks for that. You've just given the answer to 90% of all the troll threads on Slashdot. Now that's cleared up we can look forward to a troll-free future.

Re:Who's responsible for anonymous comments? by Chrisq · 2011-12-01 00:07 · Score: 1, Funny

and talibans undid wtc.

And Islam is the religion of peace..... no wait that's just too rediculous

Re:Sadly by gutnor · 2011-12-01 01:31 · Score: 2

The poster? Just that it doesn't show your details on the page doesn't mean it makes you invulnerable to prosecution if you break the law.

Yet, to post on most website, including Slashdot, you need to relinquish any rights you have on what you said. It seems to be that if you are responsible for the negative consequences of what you post, you should retain some modicum control on it.

For example imagine you are drunk and post something offensive on slashdot - you cannot go back and delete it before it offends more people. If slashdot then randomly select your comment and use it as a quote, you also need to assume responsibility for that. And if in 5 years someone digs up your comment, you are still responsible for it.

That's not a problem, especially not on slashdot, when you understand what you are doing. Not sure it is clear to the masses though.

Re:Who's responsible for anonymous comments? by M8e · 2011-12-01 01:48 · Score: 1

I think that some people didn't get my stupid joke.

The Anonymous Coward wrote "Jews did wtc" i.e "jews made/created the World Trade Center", which is partly true.
My comment was made to turn that comment into just that instead of the intended "jews did the wtc attack".

"talibans undid wtc" = talibans uncreated the world trade center.

Re:Sadly by Dog-Cow · 2011-12-01 02:37 · Score: 1

You may be correct that it's not clear to the masses, but it should be. If you do or say something, you are responsible for it. Period. Outside of mental illnesses, there are no excuses.

Re:Sadly by shentino · 2011-12-01 02:40 · Score: 2

Which was only a problem because the legal system let Scientology treat their religious texts as trade secrets or something. Something related to intellectual property for sure.

You'd think if the religion was any good they'd want their text spread as far and wide as possible.

I don't get it.

After his... by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2011-12-01 03:16 · Score: 3, Funny

...career as a judge in Italy, Captain Obvious will be running for political office. And there was singing and dancing in the streets of Italy!

--
I8-D

Re:Sadly by bberens · 2011-12-01 03:23 · Score: 1

Exclusivity is a very effective marketing tool.

--
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com

Re:Sadly by shentino · 2011-12-01 03:37 · Score: 1

True enough, but I do question its effectiveness as an evangelizing tool.

Which just begs the question on if scientology is actually a bona fide religion to begin with.

Re:Sadly by Samantha+Wright · 2011-12-01 04:54 · Score: 1

Besides the traditional pedantry of the proper use of "begging the question": it's pretty established at this point that Scientology isn't a bona fide religion. A number of countries have already banned it.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!

Re:Sadly by dotancohen · 2011-12-01 05:33 · Score: 1

it's pretty established at this point that Scientology isn't a bona fide religion. A number of countries have already banned it.

Actually, I would say that being banned quite makes Scientology that much more legitimate. Think of the Bahai, Jews, or Falun Gong.

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

Re:Sadly by Ihmhi · 2011-12-01 06:02 · Score: 1

I don't get it.

I do. They shoot for the "elite rich" angle.

Let's say you offer a service (in the case of Scientology, it would be metaphysical bullshit (like most religions IMO)). Posit that said service is something like a club where you can engage in a few activities as well as attached extras like a restaurant and bar. There's nothing really special about most of this stuff, but if you package it all together, make it look nice, hire a bunch of security, and act pretentious as hell you can call it a "Country Club" and collect tens of thousands of dollars a year per person because they will buy into the bullshit.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)

Re:Sadly by Bucky24 · 2011-12-01 07:32 · Score: 1

If you're taking about legally being recognized as a religion, that I can't comment on (because I don't know) but a bona fide religion can be as small as a dozen people. The point is that the rest of the world does not have to recognize it as a religion for it to be a religion.

Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

By that definition, the Church of Google, http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/, is a religion. Jediism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jediism) is a religion. Just because very few people take it seriously does not make it any less of a real religion. Note that also doesn't mean that it's something that people SHOULD take seriously.

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents

Re:Who's responsible for anonymous comments? by Bucky24 · 2011-12-01 07:34 · Score: 1

I dunno why this was modded offtopic-seems very on-topic to me.

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents

Slashdot Mirror

Italian Court Rules Web Editors Not Responsible For Comments

52 of 72 comments (clear)