Italian court overturns Google convictions

Dec 21, 2012 by Colleen Barry

(AP)—An Italian appeals court on Friday overturned the convictions of three Google executives found criminally responsible for a video on a Google site that showed a disabled teen being bullied.

Google said it was "delighted" with the appellate ruling that cleared the executives and removed uncertainty in Italy over the 's business model.

The original verdict raised alarms that Web-based platforms could be forced to police their content in Italy and perhaps beyond, while putting European at odds with the freewheeling nature of the Internet.

A lower court in 2010 convicted the three of for a 2006 video posted on Google Video, a video-sharing service Google ran before the company acquired YouTube later that year.

None of the executives charged in the case were in any way involved in the creation or posting of the video and Google said they took it down within two hours of being notified by authorities.

Google, in its final arguments before the court, noted 72 hours of video is posted on YouTube every minute—a quantity that would be impossible to preview. That has multiplied from 20 hours of video a minute at the time of the initial verdict.

The appellate ruling throws out the and six-month suspended sentences against Google's global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer, its and chief legal officer David Drummond and retired George Reyes.

"We're very happy that the verdict has been reversed and our colleagues' names have been cleared," Giorgia Abeltino, policy manager at Google Italy said in a statement. "Of course, while we are delighted with the appeal, our thoughts continue to be with the family, who have been through the ordeal."

Initially the three executives, along with a fourth, had been charged also with defamation. All four were cleared of that charge in the first trial.

Google and other hosting platforms generally rely on other users flagging objectionable content.

Marco Camisani Calzolari, an Internet entrepreneur, said the ruling only confirmed that "the platform is not responsible for content, of course."

Calzolari runs a platform called www.livepetitions.com , currently active in nine countries with 20,000 new users a day, where he faces similar issues. The five-year-old site allows users to collect signatures on petitions, which can be the source of acrimony and controversy.

"We do not filter in advance," he said, adding that he will remove items on request when it is clear it is in some way illegal or offensive.

The footage in the Google case showed an autistic student in Turin being pushed, pummeled with objects, including a pack of tissues, and insulted by classmates, who called him a "mongoloid."

The prosecutor's in their case—which was based on a complaint by an advocacy group—emphasized that the video had been viewed 5,500 times over the two months it was online and had elicited more than 80 comments, including users urging its removal.

argued that it was unaware of the offensive material and acted swiftly to remove it after being notified by authorities.

Explore further: Putin signs law seen as crimping social media

5 /5 (1 vote)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Italian judge says profit behind Google verdict

Apr 12, 2010

(AP) -- A Milan judge convicted three Google employees of violating the privacy of an autistic teen because the Internet giant sought profit when it hosted an online video of him being bullied, according to the judicial ...

3 Google execs convicted of privacy violations

Feb 24, 2010

(AP) -- Three Google executives were convicted of privacy violations Wednesday in Italy because bullies posted a video online of an autistic boy being abused - a case closely watched due to its implications for Internet ...

Lawyers: Google execs not liable for abuse video

Dec 16, 2009

(AP) -- Four Google executives should not be held responsible for a video posted online that showed teenagers abusing an autistic youth in Turin, their lawyers argued Wednesday in an Italian court.

Google trial in Italy: freedom v. responsibility

Jun 23, 2009

(AP) -- Testimony begins Tuesday in the Italian trial of four Google executives accused of defamation and violating privacy for allowing a video to be posted online showing an autistic youth being abused.

US engineer defends Google in defamation trial

Sep 29, 2009

An American engineer sought to clear Google of defamation charges at a trial over the broadcast in Italy of video showing the bullying of a teenager with Down's Syndrome, a lawyer for the Internet search provider ...

Recommended for you

Putin signs law seen as crimping social media

8 hours ago

President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday signed a law requiring Internet companies to store all personal data of Russian users at data centres in Russia, a move which could chill criticism on foreign social networking ...

User comments : 6

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Ophelia
1 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2012
Google, in its final arguments before the court, noted 72 hours of video is posted on YouTube every minute—a quantity that would be impossible to preview.

Impossible? 72x60x24x7x365/60=4,415,000 hours/year (at most since certain uploaders could be "certified" - certain businesses, charities etc. - to upload without review). If you paid college students $10/hour to review, it would cost Google $45 million.

That's not cheap - but it isn't impossible.

In point of fact, that was a horrendous argument since many more than 72 hours is being watched every minute on Youtube anyway.

I'm not saying Google should have to do that - just that expensive isn't the same as "impossible".
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2012
Youtube is full of unwatched videos
k_m
1.6 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2012
Impossible? 72x60x24x7x365/60=4,415,000 hours/year (at most since certain uploaders could be "certified" - certain businesses, charities etc. - to upload without review)....


72*60=4,320 hours uploaded per hour
4,320*24=103,680 hours uploaded per day
103,680*365.25=37,896,120 hours uploaded per year, accommodating leap year.

Over 8 times more than your calculation. Not sure why you (*7) and (/60). Care to explain?

Even considering that some users could be "pre-certified" and not subject to required review, if every user uploaded the same amount, over 80% of users would need to be certified in order to come close to your hypothetical target expenditure. However, it would be likely no more than 1/3 of users would be certified and thus the cost would be significantly higher.
Ophelia
1 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2012
Yeah, I messed up the calculation.

Still, I suspect more than 1/3 of the total time would not have to be watched. Most individuals' uploads from my viewing are short - a few minutes in length. The longer stuff is most often by entities that could be certified - university courses, etc.

The point is, that even if I'm off by a factor of 10, Google's argument comes down to: It will cost us a lot so let us go ahead and let people get slagged and defamed.

If you are a lone blogger out there not making a profit off your website and someone posts something defamatory, expensive might be a good excuse.

But Google is making billions but wants no responsibility for any harmful effects resulting from how it makes that money.

Seems unfair to me.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2012
Why don't guys just multiply the hours per minute by the minutes per hour by the hours per day by the days per year to get the number of hours uploaded per year?

72*60*24*365 = 37,843,200 good 'nuff,

You gotta please the masses. Cranks rule.
eachus
5 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2012
All this gives is the number of hours of video involved. If you really wanted the material reviewed to some standard, you have training, supervision, time for discussion, review, etc.

If such an organization could start off running full speed, which is unlikely, the expansion rate in video would require a similar expansion rate in first level staff, and enough reorganizations that the management system, whatever it was, would be ineffective.

So maybe possible in theory, totally impossible in practice.