Italy may force ISPs to block access to some sites
02/19/2009Italy was back in the news last week, this time over a bill being discussed in the Italian Senate and throughout the Internet. According to Bloomberg.com, if the bill is passed, it will "force Internet service providers to block access to Web sites including Facebook Inc... if they incite or justify criminal behavior..." What is the catalyst that has brought this bill about? The mafia.
Two groups on the popular social networking site, one called gruppo creato per la santificazione di BERNARDO PROVENZANO ( group created for the sainthood of BERNARDO PROVENZANO ) and another for Salvatore Riina, both mafia bosses from Corleone, came under the attention of Italian prosecutors, who wondered if the groups were used for mob business. Both Provenzano and Riina (known as Totò) were convicted of many homicides, and are currently serving several life sentences. Facebook has criticized the bill based on reports they received about it, drawing parallels between Italy's blocking sites (the entire site would be blocked, not just the page with unlawful content) to shutting down the country's entire railroad network because of some objectionable graffiti in one train station . Internet service providers failing to block sites encouraging or justifying criminal behavior could be fined as much as 250,000 euros.
It is not only Facebook that would be blocked. Any sites falling under the category as sites that incite or justify criminal behavior could potentially be blocked, including other popular sites, such as YouTube. This news is distressing for many people who rely on sites that would be made vulnerable with this bill for news and other innocuous content. But a question is begging: what about websites that, while not inciting or justifying criminal behavior, encourage and instruct in behaviors and actions that may be damaging to others? Sites falling under this category might include pro-anorexia and pro-bulemia sites, known in the Internet world as pro-ana and pro-mia sites, which encourage and instruct people in behaviors that can cause serious harm to one's health. The Facebook groups in question were never officially investigated, according to Bloomberg. This begs another question: is a presupposition about a website with no concrete evidence the same as something that can and does harm people? Is it really more of a threat to the general populace?
This bill touches on the same issues as the lawsuit against the four Google executives in Torino. There is no mention of punishing the individuals who post such material, but rather, the service providers. It is assumed that anyone actually committing a crime will be punished accordingly, but free speech laws do apply - to an extent. As the waters of Internet law get murkier with International disagreements over how the legislation should be handled and cases getting more and more complex, it seems that service providers are taking on much of the responsibility for maintaining the Web as a relatively save community. Not all laws in the real world can make a smooth transition into the domain of Internet law. More and more teenagers each week are getting slapped with federal charges for child pornography for texting boyfriends or girlfriends nude photos, but that is in no way the fault of the mobile phone service providers, and it seems odd that an action so common among minors that nearly half of all teens under the age of 18 have done it should be condemned so harshly.
