The judge's position is from fantasy-land. It reads like the impossible nonsense that comes out of California.

What if Google were to file and endless stream of cases against members of the Italian government and every other company doing business in Italy since they must all be guilty of every crime committed by everyone working in their organizations?

First of all, Italian Law is not based on past decision made by judges, like in Common Law, but on Codes that implies that every judicial case must be covered by one law or another, otherwise a new law is required and the Parliament does it.
This is in reply to those imaging strange consequences from the application of this sentence.
Second, in Italy as I think in all the western civilization, there is personal responsibility from the journalist to the publisher, through the Editor in chief in matter of Media. Google is seen as a publisher by Italian law, not just as a simple mean by which data are passed through. Indeed google video is a publishing service and the fact that there is no restriction on the material that can be posted doesn't change the fact that the publisher is always responsible. Probably Internet has changed things, but not yet the Italian Law.
On top of that, I would like to know from the superior civilizations if someone has ever paid in your countries for the "wrong" statements about WMD in Iraq made by your governments and by your so respected media. That makes sense about what you consider right, wrong and moreover your opinion about personal responsibility. Bye

His reasoning is too stupid for words.
Let me give some samples:

1) A kitchen-knife-manufacturer should be pout in jail if some idiot kills somebody with it?

2) Phone company must be put in jail because you listen to porn?

3) Microsoft put behind bars because you use it to upload to You-tube?

4) Nokia put in jail because it's used to shoot the nasty video?

Get real, just because you provide a technology doesn't mean you are guilty.
All the technology was designed with a different way of use, to do us all good.
The abusers should be punished, not the creators of these products.

However, I do believe that people that sell/manufacture guns should be put behind bars if they are sold to the public.
As those products are designed to harm people with intent.

Im not talking about the trend of trampling over freedom and indvidual rights, though that certainly is disturbing enough. (And W: its *stupid* to distinguish between the rights of individuals and those of corporations - if a bad precedent is set, we *all* suffer.)

Im talking about the trend for (usually chickensh!t) lawsuits to end in an obviously-bad decision that leaves you wondering what the hell the court could have been *on*?

One could almost be forgiven for thinking that it is almost as if they deliberately nobble the original outcome, so that they all get paid again when it goes through on the inevitable appeal.

Not implyin nothin, just sayin.

Yet another rational, logical article explaining why the judge is wrong. The ruling probably had nothing to do with rationality and more to do with corruption, scared traditional media and bribed officials. Seen in that light the ruling makes perfect sense.

google has a fair old pile of moneys, unemployment is north of 10%. so, tbh:

"it would have to employ thousands of monkeys on thousands of computers just to give each new post the non-opposable thumbs up or thumbs down."

doesn't sound such a bad thing, as a job it's not as bad as flipping burgers?

You can expect nothing else from a country under Il Duce II, who owns not only the judiciary but nearly 100 per cent of the print and electronic "news" media and whose petulance at not controlling Google is making itself evident.

Ethiopia is next.

If Italy is still too immature to use such technology and services, let us take it away and they can remain backwards.

@Min-woo Kim
Drugs are bad mm'kay

@Tony

Google helped officials to find out who posted the video and later prosecuted. So it wasn't an anonymous posting.

But it does indicate several prevalent trends in our world today:

1) The refusal to take responsibility for one's own actions.

2) The acceptance of shifting personal responsibility or the actions of others to an innocent third party.

Which results in the notion that it is proper that someone like Joe Schoen (CEO of U-Haul) should be held responsible for the actions of Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma City bomber) since Timothy McVeigh used a U-Haul to construct, transport and detonate the bomb.

Or, case in point, the notion that one or more CEO's of a service provider are responsible for the actions of others.

Oh NOW we have to worry about freedom suddenly, now that a big corporation becomes the victim instead of all of us, like the wonderful freedom every youtube user is familiar with where they remove the sound because a song plays on the background, or where something is flagged 18+ because there's a kiss between 2 girls and the religious fanatics throw a fit.
Hell people have had content removed they created and owned and was 100% of themselves without any 3rd party material just because someone claimed it was copyright protected, when it was clear it wasn't if you looked, but appeals land on deaf ears.
And you can go on for days with examples.

But NOW we have to suddenly care because the ones with the control and money get a taste of their own medicine eh, so bloody typical.

But why should the poor bullied victim have no right to dignity while Google allows the perpetrators to post anonymously?

Google should just shut down any IP with an Italian origin.

I am not surprised at all this happened in Italy of all places.