I think it’s absurd to punish a website owner for someone else’s content. Doing so would ruin not only social media but all viral aspects of internet marketing.

In Italy as in the US, too often there are lawsuits or criminal prosecutions that have no merit such as this one. In my humble opinion, it sounds like someone in Italy has a political agenda in mind and is trying to make an example out of the Google defendants.

Fortunatelly for every internet user, and entrepreneur, Google has billions of dollars to spend in defending and appealing this lawsuit. In the end, I believe this will bring about some kind of unification in the EU with respects to the responsibility of the online providers, users and consumers.

In the end, if this decision is not overturned, the real losers will be the Italian internet consumers. Any web domain can block specific traffic from accessing its content and a temporary solution that online entities can resort to is to block all traffic from Italy until this law suit is resolved. Who would then loose out? The Italian people and every Italian company that has a web presence.

I agree with My Circles that this sounds fishy from a legal standpoint. It would be interesting to hear more about the judge’s reasoning in making such a decision, especially given that Google cooperated with authorities in removing the video and identifying the perpetrators.

To an certain extent the service providers are responsible for the type of content they allow to be uploaded, stored and served in a public domain – that should be very clear in their T&Cs, privacy policies and mission statement. HOWEVER, the individual should always be held accountable, and responsible, for his or her own behaviour. I think this will be a wake-up call to social media/UGC sites to extend their user T&Cs to indemnify themselves against legal action through user behaviour. It only takes a few to mess it up for everyone. I disagree with the precedent this ruling is setting in Europe, and the message it is sending to irresponsible individuals. When you make the corporations pay, the individuals feel even more empowered to push the boundaries further into the grey knowing they are safe from personal liability and prosecution. It’s reprehensible.

The main problem with the web is that everyone (if they wish to be) is anonymous. Anonymity creates an environment where I can do and say what I want with no responsibility.

If the names/email addresses of the posters were readily or easily available this kind of behavior would decrease if not disappear totally.

This is a blatant case of attacking freedom of speech, and has become a witch hunt to punish someone, anyone! No, The google executives should NOT be punished for the actions of others. Tell the Italian’s to go after the one who posted it! If the poster breaks the law of the land, they should be held accountable, not the web site.

Well I agree with The Ex-pat European and Dennis Hayes 100%.

I get what Joe is saying but the minute the video goes onto the web site it is the website’s content which would help the website’s traffic and ranking in that is right Google.

I don’t 100% agree Google should have gotten in trouble. But for it Google should go around and sue the people that put up the video since they had execs get damages in there actions. I would sue the people that did it $300,001 part of the exec salaries plus bandwidth they used.

Also agree with YouKiddingMe, also take off all Italian content as well.

We want media to exist to promote the free flow of ideas.

Just as we don’t want Apple to censor sexy Apps, we don’t want FOX News to be falsifying “news” and inflaming the electorate. Google, YouTube, etc. should be more pro-active in editing illegal content on their search engines. YouTube is quick to delete a video that has nudity in it, but not so for videos with hate speech, copyright infringing music (sorry, the new links to iTunes to buy the song used illegally in an uploaded video doesn’t cut it), violence, and worse.

I think Google should be a few more of its resources towards cleaning up the garbage pail that YouTube and its search engine it. Maybe this court decision will nudge that, but Google is pretty arrogant and self-righteous, so maybe not.

But it really serves no purpose to have such a platform for hate, violence,a nd illegal activity.

Call me paranoid if you like, but considering who is the current Italian prime Minister and his history so far of muzzling the opposition, what better way than nobbling Google Execs and the like and trying to frighten off the conduits of protest. Mind you, it’s Italy now, Murdoch yesterday, and I have no doubt that politicians everywhere are hoping the day will come when they also can stifle dissent. Long live Internet freedom!

What was the judges point? What will he protect through his ruling? Who will he stop in the future on Youtube? Why are the people that provide the infrastructure for valid social communication responsible for irresponsible people? If you build a road and you use it for get from point A to point B then some else uses it to bring a criminal act from point A to point B is it the roads fault, the road builder, the road user or the road police? If you use a fork to eat with and some uses it to commit a crime then should the fork maker be held accountable, the fork owner, the fork user, or society in general for not making sure that forks are not viewed as possible weapons? These are all questions that need to discussed and OPEN communications forums and things like youtube are only as useful and SAFE as the people that are using them, only as responsible as they are, only as thoughtful as they are and only as lawful as they are. So let me get this straight what does that have to do with GOOGLE again…???

The Google decision may seem extreme but highlights the game played by both social media and mainstream media; the more outrageous the content, the more traffic is generated. CNN broadcast a sniper killing a US soldier, Fox News shows vids of brutal girl fights, NBC replayed an Olympic Luger crashing to his death – in slo mo. The game is to broadcast, or facilitate the broadcast of shocking content that is only removed under threat of prosecution or negative public sentiment. The warning, “caution, some viewers may find this video disturbing” is ratings gold. Problem is media (social and mainstream) benefit from shocking content.

Key issue is one of foreseeability and whether a duty of care exists. Few cry 1st Amendment when a hosting company is held liable for the actions of spammers or child pornographers especially when said company knows exactly what is going on. Google knows full well that UTube facilitates the dissemination of uncensored content and violation of trademarks and copyrights. In addition, Google states that any requests for takedowns of copyrighted material will be publicly displayed in an attempt to discourage copyright owners from enforcing their rights.

Consider this, everyone. Someone takes a vid of your wife, girlfriend, sister, or mother being raped and beaten to death. The vid is uploaded to UTube where it garners a million plus views until taken down. 1st Amendment?

The next battle? I predict Google’s location services and facial recognition apps will result in a few high profile assaults and murders (what a great way to track down that pesky chick that won’t go out with you). With social media comes social responsibility. Everyone should vet content before they use it.