• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Contact
  • Reviews

California Defamation Law Blog

  • Home
  • About
  • Blogs
  • Archive Page
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Services
  • Contact Us
  • (626) 793-8607
You are here: Home / cyberlibel / The Wrong Way Forward: Google Execs Face Criminal Consequences For Cyberlibel

The Wrong Way Forward: Google Execs Face Criminal Consequences For Cyberlibel

February 3, 2009 by Adrianos Facchetti 2 Comments

Saul Hansell over at the New York Times’ bits blog writes, Google Execs Face Jail Time For Italian Video.  Google execs are standing trial today for a cellphone video that was posted to Italian Youtube by a third party of some Turin youths teasing a boy with Down Syndrome.  Even though YouTube took the video down because some found it distasteful the Italian authorities insist on holding four Google executives criminally responsible.

This story is noteworthy for two reasons:

  1. It Demonstrates The Role of The Communications Decency Act – In the U.S., Google would be shielded from liability for content created by a third party under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but it appears that Italian law has no such equivalent.
  2. It Highlights The Growing Problem Of Internet Defamation – As I wrote in an earlier post, authorities all around the world are struggling to deal with the explosion of defamation on the Internet.  They simply do not know what to do.  Like many others before them, unfortunately, the Italian authorities are simply using the wrong tools to deal with the problem.  They are using the equivalent of a sledgehammer to kill an ant.

What do you think?  Should defamation be treated as a crime?

 

 

 

Buffer Share

Filed Under: cyberlibel, Google, Internet Defamation, Italian Tagged With: cyberlibel Google Italian

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Grazia says

    March 11, 2009 at 3:28 pm

    Yes, of course this is a crime! The problem with cyber libel is that you cannot trace finger prints on an invisible hand, so a lot of people are off the hook since their identity is so easily hidden behind codes, fake names and fake everything. The internet makes it too easy for anyone to become a publisher.

    Reply
  2. California Defamation Law Blog says

    March 29, 2009 at 9:24 pm

    Defamation Law Chaos

    Say what you will about "Web 2.0" and the so-called "evolution" of the Internet. The fact is, the Internet is still the Wild Wild West, especially with respect to policing/regulating the web. Witness the herculean struggle in the Un…

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Grazia Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Some Featured

How to determine which costs are allowable in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion

Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

Recent Posts

Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law?

Does California’s anti-SLAPP statute apply in bankruptcy court?

Must attorney-client confidences be revealed in order to obtain attorney’s fees after a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

Follow Us On

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Search

Footer

California Defamation Law Blog

Law Offices of Adrianos Facchetti 4444 W. Riverside Drive, Suite 308, Burbank, CA 91505
California Defamation Lawyer & Attorney of Adrianos Facchetti Law Firm, offering services related to libel, internet defamation, slander, defamation of character, disparagement, anti-SLAPP, personal injury, car accidents, motorcycle accidents, trucking accidents, serving Los Angeles, San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, Pasadena, Burbank, Glendale, Arcadia, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Long Beach, Orange County, Ventura County, San Bernardino, and throughout California.

Recent Posts

  • How to determine which costs are allowable in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion July 18, 2022
  • Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion? June 28, 2022
  • May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion? June 24, 2022
  • Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law? June 20, 2022

Copyright © 2025 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in