As a trial begins in Italy against Google employees over an offensive user-uploaded video, the question of who is responsible for user-generated content has to be asked. Is it the user or is it the Web site that has to morally and legally take the blame for what is uploaded?
Online Video Wild West
In 2006, before Google had bought YouTube, Google Video was its entry into the online video market. Looking back now, both Google Video and YouTube were pretty lawless back then, with few of the checks and balances on content being uploaded to the sites.
This lawlessness lead to Viacom suing YouTube for $1 billion over the copyrighted clips it claims were allowed on the site. But it also lead to another lawsuit, smaller, and less publicized, but still important.
Down’s Syndrome Bully Video
During 2006, a video was uploaded to Google Video which showed four students bullying a teenager with Down Syndrome’s in front of several other students. Not a nice video, I’m sure everyone would agree, but offensive enough to mean Google are culpable?
The 191-second video made it on the site and stayed on there for months until complaints were received. At which time, Google removed the video. But that fact wasn’t enough for Italian investigators who spent two years building a case against Google.
The Legal Obligation
Italian prosecutors claim that the search giant should have had filters in place to prevent the video finding its way online in the first place or human eyes watching for that sort of content. Furthermore, the fact that all parties shown in the video hadn’t given permission amounts to invasion of privacy.
According to BBC News, the trial began yesterday, with four Google employees, “David Carl Drummond, head of Google Italy’s managing board; George De Los Reyes, a board member; Peter Fleitcher, in charge of privacy protection in Europe; and Arvind Desikan, who worked in marketing for Google Video” in the dock.
The Bigger Question
Personally, speaking as a layman, I can’t see how Google or its employees can be held accountable for this video. Maybe more steps should have been taken to prevent it appearing on the site, but the fact Google removed it as soon as it was informed of its existence is surely a key point.
If this case does end with convictions for the four Google employees then it could have implications for other Web sites which rely on UGC, YouTube and other video sites included. The trial is set to last until December and the verdict will prove very interesting.
Related Ad
Buy ‘Law of Internet Speech’ on Amazon
