Slashdot

that those Italian prosecutors are going after the really guilty parties instead of the little, misguided tykes who perpetrated the incident.

Punish the kids who were doing the harassing. Google removed the video within a day, once someone actually bothered to contact them about it, and Google cooperated with Italian police:

The prosecutors had also failed to acknowledge Google's cooperation with the Italian police, Pisapia said. The bullying of the handicapped boy, which had been going on for two years, came to an end after Google identified the person responsible for posting the video and enabled the police to identify the boy's tormentors, he said.

I hope this serves as a lesson to companies who seem to want the best of all worlds. I'm kind of glad that google is getting hit with this because it brings to light the problem with trying to cater to the demands of local governments. When Google began working with governments in foreign jurisdictions it opened the door to this type of activity.

Google would have a much more stable leg to stand on if they simply said 'We are a US company, we will follow US laws.' when China asked them to tailor GoogleChina to meet the party demands.

Similar to safe harbor protections when it comes to ISPs, if you 'fly the flag' of a specific country on the Internet, you are bound by that country's laws. That doesn't mean that the local governments can't block your service, but it should serve as protection when local governments attempt to apply their laws to a foreign company.

Strike 1 [cnn.com]

That's strike 2, Google. If you put one more foot wrong I'm changing my homepage over to Bing.

If anyone posts video of someone performing some illegal activity, delete it ASAP, don't tell anyone and sweep everything under the rug. The video was never there, you never saw anything and I'm sorry, Officer that I can't help you, am I free to go now?

At least that's what the court is trying to teach them.

Article 14 Hosting
1. Where an information society service is provided that consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information stored at the request of a recipient of the service, on condition that: (a) the provider does not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information and, as regards claims for damages, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the illegal activity or information is apparent; or (b) the provider, upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply when the recipient of the service is acting under the authority or the control of the provider.
3. This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement, nor does it affect the possibility for Member States of establishing procedures governing the removal or disabling of access to information.

Article 15 No general obligation to monitor
1. Member States shall not impose a general obligation on providers, when providing the services covered by Articles 12, 13 and 14, to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity.
2. Member States may establish obligations for information society service providers promptly to inform the competent public authorities of alleged illegal activities undertaken or information provided by recipients of their service or obligations to communicate to the competent authorities, at their request, information enabling the identification of recipients of their service with whom they have storage agreements.

There is no discussion about it, they cannot be found guilty under EU legislation, and if Italy still sentences them, the Italian government can be dragged into the European court of justice, where they will most likely be found to be in violation of the e-commerce directive.

Unless these execs posted the videos personally, why are they trying to hold Google responsible? What kind of mob law does Italy follow? What was done to the boy was reprehensible, and by all means, punish the people who did this to him. I seriously doubt these execs even knew this video existed until someone told them they had been charged. Allowing public anger to dictate who can be charged as a criminal when they have done nothing wrong is just stupid not to put too fine a point on it.

They should just blacklist blocks of IPs used by Italian law enforcement and legislature for a few weeks from all of Google's services. The Italian government might be able to arrest them if they visit Italy, but Google can deal with them if they go on the Internet.