Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: Google bosses convicted in Italy

  1. #11
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Google bosses convicted in Italy

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Sorry but that is in no way the same thing.

    Italy only started to push for an "expansive definition of privacy" when the leader of the country got caught on camera with nakid hookers. They only went after the Internet because their leader could not block said images from being spread on the Internet.

    The British are not trying to stop freespeech on the Internet or anywhere else. Yes they have very harsh privacy/libel laws, but guess what.. Berloscoloony could have sued in the UK against the original picture takers which came from the UK.. but did he? No, because he could not win and since the pictures were already out there, what would be the point. Instead he went after controlling his own little universe even more by hitting down on the only major thing that he does not own.. the Internet.

    His motivations are irrelevant to the question of whether the laws are demonstrably worse than the UK's. You think that the UK's laws don't have an impact on free speech in their country? Talk to a first amendment practitioner at a major international media company and ask them about the special procedures they use to keep things out of the UK. Papers have explicitly carved out particular sections of articles, have blocked UK IPs from accessing portions of the website, and have even changed content in order to avoid the multitude of lawsuits.

    Here's one particularly interesting example: After 9/11, there was a lot of interest around the world as to the involvement of rich Saudis in funding various terrorist groups. Because sharia law requires tithing, most of the wealthy people in SA were just chucking money at various charities without doing much diligence, in order to meet their religious obligations. As a result, some of that money was ending up in bad hands. As various UK newspapers started investigating this and reporting on early attempts by the US to monitor these funds, the Saudis who were being named filed a barrage of lawsuits in the UK. The general counsels of a couple dozen major companies got together to decide what to do, and initially agreed that they were going to go forward and fight the claims. Two days later, every single paper other than the Wall Street Journal Europe backed out and decided to settle with the Saudis. The WSJ got involved in an 8 year battle that they lost at the early stages (thanks to ****ty initial judges), but managed to win in the House of Lords. However, because of the fact that every single other company had settled, news reports about Saudis and terror financing have effectively evaporated from the entire UK.

    When you have the entire news media being too cowed to run stories of critical public importance for the fear that the figures involved will sue and win, your laws are no longer serving the public interest.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #12
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Google bosses convicted in Italy

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    His motivations are irrelevant to the question of whether the laws are demonstrably worse than the UK's. You think that the UK's laws don't have an impact on free speech in their country? Talk to a first amendment practitioner at a major international media company and ask them about the special procedures they use to keep things out of the UK. Papers have explicitly carved out particular sections of articles, have blocked UK IPs from accessing portions of the website, and have even changed content in order to avoid the multitude of lawsuits.

    Here's one particularly interesting example: After 9/11, there was a lot of interest around the world as to the involvement of rich Saudis in funding various terrorist groups. Because sharia law requires tithing, most of the wealthy people in SA were just chucking money at various charities without doing much diligence, in order to meet their religious obligations. As a result, some of that money was ending up in bad hands. As various UK newspapers started investigating this and reporting on early attempts by the US to monitor these funds, the Saudis who were being named filed a barrage of lawsuits in the UK. The general counsels of a couple dozen major companies got together to decide what to do, and initially agreed that they were going to go forward and fight the claims. Two days later, every single paper other than the Wall Street Journal Europe backed out and decided to settle with the Saudis. The WSJ got involved in an 8 year battle that they lost at the early stages (thanks to ****ty initial judges), but managed to win in the House of Lords. However, because of the fact that every single other company had settled, news reports about Saudis and terror financing have effectively evaporated from the entire UK.

    When you have the entire news media being too cowed to run stories of critical public importance for the fear that the figures involved will sue and win, your laws are no longer serving the public interest.
    And congrats on derailing the thread by taking focus away from Italy and on to the UK for some reason. And you should know better.
    PeteEU

  3. #13
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Google bosses convicted in Italy

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    His motivations are irrelevant to the question of whether the laws are demonstrably worse than the UK's. You think that the UK's laws don't have an impact on free speech in their country? Talk to a first amendment practitioner at a major international media company and ask them about the special procedures they use to keep things out of the UK. Papers have explicitly carved out particular sections of articles, have blocked UK IPs from accessing portions of the website, and have even changed content in order to avoid the multitude of lawsuits.

    Here's one particularly interesting example: After 9/11, there was a lot of interest around the world as to the involvement of rich Saudis in funding various terrorist groups. Because sharia law requires tithing, most of the wealthy people in SA were just chucking money at various charities without doing much diligence, in order to meet their religious obligations. As a result, some of that money was ending up in bad hands. As various UK newspapers started investigating this and reporting on early attempts by the US to monitor these funds, the Saudis who were being named filed a barrage of lawsuits in the UK. The general counsels of a couple dozen major companies got together to decide what to do, and initially agreed that they were going to go forward and fight the claims. Two days later, every single paper other than the Wall Street Journal Europe backed out and decided to settle with the Saudis. The WSJ got involved in an 8 year battle that they lost at the early stages (thanks to ****ty initial judges), but managed to win in the House of Lords. However, because of the fact that every single other company had settled, news reports about Saudis and terror financing have effectively evaporated from the entire UK.

    When you have the entire news media being too cowed to run stories of critical public importance for the fear that the figures involved will sue and win, your laws are no longer serving the public interest.
    Of course this is slightly off-topic, but briefly, you are both right and wrong. Right inasmuch as many people, (Saudis have done it, so have several American companies and individuals) use the UK as a country in which to seek recompense for perceived libel. It does have an effect on the freedom to read and hear certain opinions. The worst of it is that sue someone for libel costs, big time, hence it's only really available to the wealthy.

    However, there is a good side to it. No journalist can publish scurrilous and damaging allegations about someone else without being able to back up their claims with solid evidence, evidence that can stand up in court. If you can't prove what you are saying then you have no right to say it in public without consequence.

    I'd be interested to know what kind of protection someone has from malicious falsehoods in other countries.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •