Slashdot Mirror
Criminal Complaint Filed Against Facebook After Girl's Death
An anonymous reader writes "A prosecutor has opened an investigation into how Facebook allowed the publication of insults and bullying posts aimed at 14-year-old Carolina Picchio, who took her own life after a gang of boys circulated a video on Facebook of her appearing drunk and disheveled in a bathroom at a party. The Italian Parents Association has filed a criminal complaint against Facebook for allegedly having a role in the instigation of Carolina's suicide. 'This is the first time a parents' group has filed such a complaint against Facebook in Europe,' said Antonio Affinita, the director. 'Italian law forbids minors under 18 signing contracts, yet Facebook is effectively entering into a contract with minors regarding their privacy, without their parents knowing.''
If that's how Italy wants to play the game, then Facebook should just require that all Italian nationals provide government identification in order to use Facebook. Then they can validate the user's age and ensure that their "contract" is legal.
Stupid and silly, you say? I agree, but how else is Facebook - or any other website - going to ensure that they're able to operate in Italy?
Yes, this may mean that many business simply won't be able to do business in Italy. Oh well. Italy can suffer for its own stupidity I suppose.
Once again the internet blurs the boundaries between public/publishing and private. On one hand this is like complaining to the paper company because someone wrote a nasty note using one of their products. On the other hand web sites do control the means of publishing and bear some responsibilities.
Note they are currently simply exploring. From the prosecutor: "This is an open investigation without named suspects, as yet. Facebook itself is not under investigation."
If this was your kid and she got bullied so bad she killed herself what would you do?
Firstly, I would have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities, had them assisting in chores and other things, and developed in them a sense of self-reliance and independence. A child that can do things for herself is not a child that can readily have their self-esteem destroyed by a bully. Such self-reliance would include self-defense classes; No girl should fear that a boy will assault her. Secondly, I'd track down the parents of the child bullying and explain the situation to them verbally and in person. If the parents didn't step up to the plate, I would explain to them in a non-verbal way my disappointment in their lack of parenting.
But the one thing I wouldn't do is go off whining to the government or some parenting group about how my child was being bullied and, so enmeshed in my own ineptitude as a parent, allow the situation to worsen to the point my child committed suicide. I mean, really, as a parent how can you not see your child is struggling? You do whatever it takes to protect your family; You, not the government, you. It's called taking responsibility for the situation, and I would parent my child by example by showing that same self-reliant quality in my own involvement in the situation.
But I would not engage in 'revenge'. That is the refuge of a coward; If I'm angry enough to fight someone, they're going to be facing me and they're going to be armed. And then they're going to lose.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
To be fair, we're talking about Italy. This is a country that jails seismologists, throws out acquittals, and can't get a single charge to stick on Berlusconi. There aren't a lot of places where you can say the US judicial system has better moral standing, but compared to the Italian system, it does--by a long shot.
It seems you are referring to those seismologists who were sentenced for "not having predicted the L'Aquila earthquake". This is not correct: they were sentenced, and rightly so, for having misled the public that there was a certainty that no earthquake was going to happen. That's different from saying that there was no certainty it was going to happen. Their (very public) statements convinced many to return to their homes, and die there when the earthquake happened.
It seems you are referring to the fact that in Italy prosecutors can appeal an acquittal. This is a possibility in any European country I know of. If anything, the US is special in that new information cannot be used to reopen a case after the defendant has been pronounced innocent only one time.
Why actually there is one. He has dodged a lot but he was sentenced for tax evasion (same as Al Capone, guess what) and already lost an appeal. There is a very real chance he will be convicted in the last degree of appeal this year and will be automatically thrown out of the Parliament. While of course he should have gone to jail long ago, and flaws in the Italian system allowed him to get off scot-free on many an occasion, but prosecutors in the Italian system have not given him preferential treatment for being a powerful politicial.
On the other hand, I have not heard about a single US prosecutor indicting G. W. Bush for starting a war of aggression. That's way worse than tax evasion, corruption, rape or murder. That's the same crime of Nuremberg. Same goes for indicting Dick Cheney for aiding and abetting torture, international kidnapping ring (known as "extraordinary renditions"), or Obama for international terrorism (because that's what drone strikes are).
The US system still practices death penalty, and is based on Common Law (just a notch above tribal law). The Italian system, for all its shortcomings, is not going to get you killed. Also, in lawsuits, the losing part can be and often is sentenced to pay for the other part's legal costs, so frivolous lawsuits are much less common than in the US. Thank you very much, we will keep our Roman-Napoleonic code.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y