An Italian court has convicted Google executives over a video uploaded on Google Video that violated privacy provisions. No matter that the video was taken down after a complaint, the judge convicted.
The move, naturally, sends shock waves through the publishing business. The principles of free speech are generally interpreted as permitting publishers to let material be posted without any significant barriers, then holding them responsible for their response to complaints.
Essentially, if someone complains and they don't respond, they are accountable for what follows.
Google, naturally, is upset. It notes that only the person posting the video could possibly be responsible for understanding whether privacy and consent are upheld.
It suggests that the implications are that publishers won't post material without vetting it --- an impossibility for for most entities.
Jeff Jarvis argues in his latest Buzzmachine post that it could lead to a lowest common denominator approach on the Internet --- provisions that reflect the harshest jurisdiction.
The move, naturally, sends shock waves through the publishing business. The principles of free speech are generally interpreted as permitting publishers to let material be posted without any significant barriers, then holding them responsible for their response to complaints.
Essentially, if someone complains and they don't respond, they are accountable for what follows.
Google, naturally, is upset. It notes that only the person posting the video could possibly be responsible for understanding whether privacy and consent are upheld.
It suggests that the implications are that publishers won't post material without vetting it --- an impossibility for for most entities.
Jeff Jarvis argues in his latest Buzzmachine post that it could lead to a lowest common denominator approach on the Internet --- provisions that reflect the harshest jurisdiction.
