{"id":38,"date":"2011-12-10T17:12:11","date_gmt":"2011-12-10T17:12:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/aroundtheworld\/?p=38"},"modified":"2011-12-10T17:12:11","modified_gmt":"2011-12-10T17:12:11","slug":"italy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/aroundtheworld\/2011\/12\/10\/italy\/","title":{"rendered":"Italy"},"content":{"rendered":"

In 2010, Italy did something that antitrust, copyright, and privacy protection lawyers have wanted to do for a long time- it sued Google.\u00a0 It convicted Google executives to actual prison terms, claiming that they had violated the privacy of a boy with a disability by not taking down a video of him on YouTube fast enough.\u00a0 The video was put up by a group of children who beat the disabled boy in the video.\u00a0 Google did remove the video upon being asked to by the police, and complains that it has no obligation to regulate the content put up on its site.[1]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Indeed, such a conviction would have been impossible in the United States. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows website operators to edit the content of its sites without being liable to content posted on the website.\u00a0 Italian prosecutors argue that, because Google receives money from advertising, including from web traffic for illegal videos, it has an obligation to take those videos down.[2]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 This is a rather compelling argument, but it has strong implications that have huge consequences for a free web.\u00a0 If Italy\u2019s case holds, how do corporations find the resources to monitor such isolated areas of its servers?\u00a0 In any case, multinational websites must deal with the challenges of adapting to different laws in different parts of the world.\u00a0 Whether the case against Google executives can be claimed as a violation of privacy at all is also subject to question.\u00a0 Though certainly mean-spirited, it is highly debatable whether simply taking a video in public truly violates privacy.\u00a0 What caused the Italian government to take the noble act of protecting this disabled boy??\u00a0 Was it truly just out of a desire to protect privacy that the case was undertaken??\u00a0 Or were other, potentially even sinister, motives behind the action??<\/p>\n

A look at the current situation in Italy may provide the answer.\u00a0 In November 2011, Silvio Berlusconi stepped down from office after seventeen years as prime minister of Italy.\u00a0 His \u201cabdication\u201d was the result of problems dealing with the Europe-wide debt crisis.[3]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 In his wake, Berlusconi left what appears to be one of the most censored countries in the European Union, to a degree quite uncommon in the liberal west.\u00a0 A number of these attempts at censorship have played out on the platform of cyberspace.\u00a0 A look at Berlusconi\u2019s leadership over the last seventeen years reveals that many of these laws are the result of Berlusconi\u2019s varied efforts to sustain his political leadership and protect his interests as a business tycoon.\u00a0 A rigid protection of privacy and claims in favor of a more restricted Internet both result from troubles in Italy\u2019s past as well as current abuse of political power.<\/p>\n

Italy\u2019s Constitution, written in 1948, looks similar to that of the United States at first glance, but actually is much more nuanced than the fourth amendment.\u00a0 It decrees that \u201cPersonal domicile is inviolable\u201d, similar to the American Constitution\u2019s \u201c…right of persons to be secure in their…houses…\u201d\u00a0 However, the constitution also decrees that \u201cThe liberty and secrecy of correspondence and every form of communication are inviolable.\u201d\u00a0 This is significantly more specific than the United States\u2019 vague protection of \u201c…papers…\u201d\u00a0 This has serious implications for modern technology, where forms of communication probably include e-mail or phone conversation.\u00a0 The constitution does have restrictions akin to achieving a warrant in the US constitution, but goes beyond this by saying that laws for the promotion of \u201c…public health and safety, or for economic and fiscal purposes\u201d may be passed.\u00a0 Thus, Italy casts a wider net in terms of what can be protected but ultimately seems to give fewer securities against abuse by public politicians.[4]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Recent events, however, indicate that wide protections for privacy should not be ignored, as they are often claimed by the government in situations where they do not seem to apply naturally or easily.<\/p>\n

Because the Italian Constitution does not define privacy extraordinarily clearly, its actions undertaken claiming the right to privacy are probably informed from other contexts or backgrounds.\u00a0 Some see the differing views of privacy held by Italy and the United States to be indicative of larger trends in the relative importance of rights between Europe and America.\u00a0 While America is known to decree speech sacred, Europe holds more to privacy as an essential right, and has enforced legislation against the revelation of private lives by mass media.[5]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Many have recently, however, bloggers have tied Italy\u2019s protections for privacy with Berlusconi\u2019s actions while leading Italy.<\/p>\n

Compared with other parts of the European Union, Italy has a great deal more censorship and restrictions on the freedom of speech.\u00a0 Examples of current laws that show Italy\u2019s censorship include draconian measures on the reporting of the status of warrants and current legal investigations.\u00a0 Before his tenure in office was finished, Berlusconi introduced several proposals that could have turned Italy into one of the most censored states in the world.\u00a0 One new proposed law required Internet Service Providers to block access to sites that are decreed by the Minister of the Interior to be illegal.\u00a0 This would be without a trial and would include such common sites as Facebook.\u00a0 Passage of this act would have made Italy a strikingly similar place to China.[6]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Under the law, websites would have had to correct content at the request of any person within 48 hours.\u00a0 No judge would have been available to approve a correction.\u00a0 The proposed law was so egregious that Wikipedia took down its Italian webpage as a form of protest.[7]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 A government decree at the end of 2010 required those who put up videos online to seek government licensing just like a television station.\u00a0 Any proponent of an open net would have recognized the severe risks to Internet freedom posed by these restrictions, since most people will not take the time or effort to obtain authorization.[8]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The fortunate news for Italy is that these new laws could not apply to sites operating outside of the country, including most prominently YouTube.[9]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Still, it is no wonder that Italy sees smaller web traffic than similarly developed countries.<\/p>\n

Berlusconi realistically justified the rise of censorship laws as arising out of his need for security.\u00a0 The Facebook fan page of someone who directly attacked the prime minister swelled in popularity after the incident.\u00a0 Many popular groups arose on the web appeared in support of the criminal.\u00a0 Italy\u2019s widely restrictive laws could be claimed to be stopping mafia and other terrorist groups that seek to use the Internet to mobilize the masses for illegitimate purposes.[10]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The issue here is that the government\u2019s restrictions on Internet speech seem to have little relation tot he incident itself.\u00a0 How does making web sites accountable for illegal language deal with the hatred of the prime minister which led to the popularity of anti-Berlusconi Facebook pages in the first place?\u00a0 Nevertheless, Facebook remains committed to preventing groups that actively promote violence against an individual, including pages such as \u201cLet\u2019s Kill Berlusconi.\u201d\u00a0 Similar measures are taken in America for groups that advocate Obama\u2019s death, for instance.\u00a0 Many of Italy\u2019s goals, essentially, are for the rapid takedown of groups that most consider simply offensive, such as terrorism or pedophilia.[11]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 At what point is censoring \u201coffensive\u201d speech too far, however?<\/p>\n

Many would say this would be at the point where the censorship serves only as a goal of protecting political or economic power.\u00a0 Berlusconi controlled (and still has an influence over) the public and leading private media outlets in the country.[12]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 One of the reasons for the concern about recent decisions on the Internet that restrict content or make third parties responsible is because they may be simply have been a tool to help Berlusconi dominate the press and public opinion.[13]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 He hoped to restrict communication across the Internet for the purpose of drawing people towards government controlled television networks, thus promoting his own political legitimacy.\u00a0 By seeking to control public opinion, Berlusconi continued already well-founded comparisons of himself to Benito Mussolini, who similarly used propaganda to control public opinion in the Fascist state.<\/p>\n

Berlusconi\u2019s interests were also economic.\u00a0 Berlusconi had interests in real estate and other industries that may have been better promoted in government controlled channels.\u00a0 Furthermore, he derived profits from the media networks he owned himself.\u00a0 Another possible economic interest results from fees that can be made off of videos taken from Italian television programs that violate copyright on YouTube.[14]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The government under Berlusconi did not try to use the Internet itself as a way to promote its own views or to give propaganda, probably because it is so difficult to control.<\/p>\n

Therefore, we can see Italy\u2019s fight against Google in a new light.\u00a0 It is possible that the case was introduced not out of a desire to protect privacy.\u00a0 In fact, the only privacy that it probably sought was the privacy of the government from hearing government criticism as posted on YouTube.\u00a0 Italy\u2019s fight against Google probably mostly results from a direct competition with a cyber corporation for power.\u00a0 Italy\u2019s current situation (a hangover from the days of Berlusconi) has many implications for our own.\u00a0 On the one hand, increased dedication to privacy and countering terrorism seem like noble uses of the Internet.\u00a0 As can be seen, however, restriction by the government can go too far too fast.\u00a0 It is hard to argue that forcing people to seek government authentication before putting up videos is a benefit to our society, and countries should find a fine line between protecting legitimate claims and making sure politicians don\u2019t abuse a vibrant forum of free speech.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n
\n

[1]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> http:\/\/www.cbc.ca\/news\/world\/story\/2010\/02\/24\/italy-google-autism.html<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2010\/02\/25\/technology\/companies\/25google.html?pagewanted=all<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2011\/11\/09\/world\/europe\/support-for-berlusconi-ebbs-before-crucial-vote.html?pagewanted=all<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> http:\/\/www.gilc.nl\/privacy\/survey\/surveyak.html<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[5]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2010\/02\/28\/weekinreview\/28liptak.html<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[6]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/idblog\/2009\/02\/15\/internet-censorship-arrives-in-italy\/<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[7]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> http:\/\/www.slashgear.com\/wikipedia-pulls-italian-site-to-protest-bungasconi-censorship-05185721\/<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[8]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> http:\/\/www.sikharchives.com\/?p=3110<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[9]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> http:\/\/news.idg.no\/cw\/art.cfm?id=52DAD36F-1A64-6A71-CEF3C2A212E62B9F<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[10]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> http:\/\/www.pcworld.idg.com.au\/article\/330180\/italy_contemplates_web_restrictions_after_berlusconi_attack\/<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[11]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> ibid.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[12]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> http:\/\/en.rsf.org\/report-italy,111.html<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[13]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2010\/02\/25\/technology\/companies\/25google.html?pagewanted=all<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[14]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> http:\/\/www.time.com\/time\/world\/article\/0,8599,1955569,00.html<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In 2010, Italy did something that antitrust, copyright, and privacy protection lawyers have wanted to do for a long time- it sued Google.\u00a0 It convicted Google executives to actual prison terms, claiming that they had violated the privacy of a boy with a disability by not taking down a video of him on YouTube fast […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4493,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/aroundtheworld\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/aroundtheworld\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/aroundtheworld\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/aroundtheworld\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4493"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/aroundtheworld\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/aroundtheworld\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/aroundtheworld\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38\/revisions\/40"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/aroundtheworld\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/aroundtheworld\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/aroundtheworld\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}