- Journal Archives
- Volume 19
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
- 2016-2017 Symposium
- 2015-2016 Symposium
- 2014-2015 Symposium
- 2013-2014 Symposium
- 2012-2013 Symposium
- 2011-2012 Symposium
- 2010-2011 Symposium
- 2009-2010 Symposium
- 2008-2009 Symposium
- 2007-2008 Symposium
Imagine the following scenario: A group of students harasses another student who is autistic. The group videotapes its bullying behavior of the student. Someone decides to upload the video to the Internet. After receiving complaints, the website hosting the video immediately removes it. Has a crime been committed?
While most may agree that the actions of those responsible for the bullying and posting of the video are horrendous, a criminal prosecution for the single act of uploading such a video seems to be an unlikely and extraordinary result in the United States. However, this scenario actually played out in Italy in 2006 when a student posted an offensive video to Google Video, and the extent of criminal liability has gone far beyond what is fathomable for many. Not only did Italian officials locate and prosecute the individual responsible for posting the video, but they prosecuted four Google employees on charges of criminal defamation and violation of the Italian privacy code. While all four employees were cleared on the defamation charges, three were convicted of failure to comply with the privacy code and received a suspended prison sentence of six months last Wednesday. A pretty harsh result when the employees, Google executives, never even knew about the video until after it had been removed from the website.
In the United States, notions of free speech and laws work to protect companies such as Google from liability for content that is uploaded or published by individuals. The implications of this decision are not yet clear, but in a post on Google’s blog, attorney Matt Sucherman stated that:
[i]n essence this ruling means that employees of hosting platforms like Google Video are criminally responsible for content that users upload.
Sucherman went on to comment that:
[if] sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them—every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video—then the Web as we know it will cease to exist.
Indeed the Italian court’s decision seems to ignore the practical reality of the Internet. Many websites would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pre-approve all submitted content. Responsibility for ensuring that uploaded content complies with all laws is a heavy burden to place on companies. What effect would such a burden have on the Internet as we know it?
In light of Google’s plan to operate in Italy as usual while aggressively appealing the case, it is hard to know what, if anything, the case will mean for Google and similar Internet companies operating in Italy and other European countries.
– Hannah Smith
Tagged with: contracts • courts • criminal law • cyberbullying • defamation • Google • Google Video • government • harrassment • intellectual property • internet • italy • JETLaw • lawsuits • legislation • privacy • social networking • technology • telecommunications • user-generated content • YouTube
Recent Blog Posts
- Will Patent Litigation Still be Big in Texas? The Supreme Court Hears Arguments for TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands
- Lyft, Drivers Settle; Punt Million Dollar Employee vs. Independent Contractor Classification Question Into the Future.
- Cybersecurity for Autonomous Vehicles
- The Nose Knows: The Powerful Potential of Scent Trademarks
- Artificial Intelligence and Copyright
- Biometric tracking leading to more NBA player rest… and potential lawsuits from fans?
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution