Italian salvia webpage prosecuted

[Torsten]

A webpage in Italy that carries an italian language translation of "the salvia user's guide" has been shut down by authorities. Now the owner has been charged with aiding and abetting the use of an illegal drug.

This has huge ramifications for the internet in other countries too. For various reasons I won't comment too much on the position SAB is in in this regard

[Evil Genius]

I didn´t even know that it´s possible to prosecute websites just for hosting translations of books. The Italian Government is really strict but in general, this is a very scary development. I don´t want to comment it too much but this would have a very large influence on many many websites all around the world.

[Auxin]

I'm not sure the global implications are too horribly bad in this case.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC

....

Art. 21

All persons have the right to express freely their ideas by word, in writing and by all other means of communication.

The press may not be subjected to authorisation or censorship.

Seizure is permitted only by a reasoned warrant, issued by the judicial authority, in the case of offences for which the law governing the press gives express authorisation, or in the case of violation of its provisions concerning the disclosure of the identity of those holding responsibility.

In such cases, when there is absolute urgency and when timely intervention of the judicial authority is not possible, periodical publications may be seized by officers of the judicial police, who must promptly, and in any case within twenty-four hours, report the matter to the judicial authority. If the latter does not confirm the seizure order within the following twenty-four hours, the seizure is understood to be withdrawn and null and void.

The law may establish, by means of provisions of a general nature, that the financial sources of the periodical press be disclosed.

Printed publications, public performances and events contrary to public morality are forbidden. The law establishes appropriate means for the prevention and repression of all violations.

As you can see the italian constitution sets freedom of speech as the default but as a right which can be quite easily overridden by any law regulating any specific subject. It doesnt say 'only to protect national security' or anything like that, just that for someone to be arrested for what they write there must be a law saying it was bad. The difference is pretty visable when compared to others

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND

Article 54

1. The freedom to express opinions, to acquire and to disseminate information shall be ensured to everyone.

2. Preventive censorship of the means of social communication and the licensing of the press shall be prohibited. Statutes may require the receipt of a permit for the operation of a radio or television station.

Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Article 57: Everyone has the right to express freely his or her thoughts, ideas or opinions orally, in writing or by any other form of expression, and to use for such purpose any means of communication and diffusion, and no censorship shall be established. Anyone making use of this right assumes full responsibility for everything expressed. Anonymity, war propaganda, discriminatory messages or those promoting religious intolerance are not permitted. Censorship restricting the ability of public officials* to report on matters for which they are responsible is prohibited.

Italy seems the exception, not the rule.

[apothecary]

Yeah Auxin is right, I recall reading that several times Italian websites criticising the pope (i.e. not slandering) have been taken down with prejiduce.

[Torsten]

It is technically illegal for an australian ISP to import any page that contravenes the customs act. This means any page dealing with drug adminstration could be affected. obviously the logistics of that are insane [at this stage], but not impossible [see china, iran, saudi arabia, etc].

This is one of the main reasons why we are hosted outside australia.

[Jesus On Peyote]

Dont suprise me much,dident the Italians once do a mass "culling" of ALL books and made printing presses Illigal to civilians,cept for the ones the vatican self approved during one of their inquisitions. (Which where all only pro vatican, anti everyone else)

Least some human rights are around these days tho,the poor bastards that got cought back in the day where boiled alive in a cauldron, amongst other things. On a more modern note, i think its retarded that all around the world now the internet is being invaded by cyber nazis,once the net is fully regulated then information about anything and everything will be lost and distorted in some way or another, not to mention a shitload of arrest for people reading about information, whateva it may be.

[apothecary]

It is technically illegal for an australian ISP to import any page that contravenes the customs act. This means any page dealing with drug adminstration could be affected. obviously the logistics of that are insane [at this stage], but not impossible [see china, iran, saudi arabia, etc].

This is one of the main reasons why we are hosted outside australia.

As far as I know, all ISPs are pretty much unaccountable for anything illegal their customers do, protected by Common Carrier status. Same as how phone companies can't be held accountable if you talk about bomb-making or pedophilia on the phone.

[Torsten]

As far as I know, all ISPs are pretty much unaccountable for anything illegal their customers do, protected by Common Carrier status. Same as how phone companies can't be held accountable if you talk about bomb-making or pedophilia on the phone.

Well, that's what they would like you to believe. Thats ection of the act was very hotly disputed at the time as Howard was sucking up to senator Harradine in pushing this crap through.

here are the relevant sections of the act:

First the definition of the content. Note that anything that cold reasonable be presumed to be RC or X is to be treated as prohibited.

Part 3--Prohibited content Division 1--Prohibited content and potential prohibited content

8 Internet content hosted outside Australia

(2) For the purposes of this Schedule, Internet content hosted outside Australia is prohibited content if the Internet content has been classified RC or X by the Classification Board.

Note: Classified means classified under this Schedule--see clause 2.

9 Potential prohibited content (1) For the purposes of this Schedule, Internet content is potential prohibited content if:

(a) the Internet content has not been classified by the Classification Board; and

( if the Internet content were to be classified by the Classification Board, there is a substantial likelihood that the Internet content would be prohibited content.

(2) In determining whether particular Internet content is potential prohibited content, it is to be assumed that this Schedule authorised the Classification Board to classify the Internet content

Now the definition of the offence.

Division 4--Action to be taken in relation to a complaint about prohibited content hosted outside Australia 37 Action to be taken in relation to a complaint about prohibited content hosted outside Australia (1) If, in the course of an investigation under Division 2, the ABA is satisfied that Internet content hosted outside Australia is prohibited content or potential prohibited content, the ABA must:

(a) if the ABA considers the content is of a sufficiently serious nature to warrant referral to a law enforcement agency (whether in or outside Australia)--notify the content to:

(i) a member of an Australian police force; or

(ii) if there is an arrangement between the ABA and the chief (however described) of an Australian police force under which the ABA is authorised to notify the content to a another person or body (whether in or outside Australia)--that other person or body; and

( if a code registered, or standard determined, under Part 5 of this Schedule deals with the matters referred to in subclause 56(2)--notify the content to Internet service providers under the designated notification scheme set out in the code or standard, as the case may be; and

© if paragraph ( does not apply--give each Internet service provider known to the ABA a written notice (a standard access-prevention notice) directing the provider to take all reasonable steps to prevent end-users from accessing the content.

part c clearly states that the ISP has a responsibility to filter any content that the ABA directs it to do so, purely on the basis of legality of classification. ie, by the letter of the law, all ISPs could be directed to filter all content that is likely to be x-rated or RC rated. This is what brian Harradine wanted and that's what Howard gave him.

Here is the enforcement part, stating that all notices must be complied with by the ISP wihtin 24 hours maximum.

45 Compliance with access-prevention notices Standard access-prevention notice

(1) An Internet service provider must comply with a standard access-prevention notice that applies to the provider as soon as practicable, and in any event within 24 hours, after the notice was given to the provider.

and it also states that an ISP is not liable AS LONG AS THE ABA DIRECTIONS ARE IMPLEMENTED AS REQUIRED.

ie, as long as the ISP filters as demanded by the ABA, the ISP is not liable.

I an not aware of any broad scale filtering demands from the ABA, but the point is that the law as it exists is no different than the law in many non-democratic countries. It's just that it hasn't been applied yet. That doesn't mean we actually have that extra freedom though.

[Auntyjack]

so if they 'deemed' it necessary to enforce what is basically in place, would that mean that anything prior would be subject and accountable...or is that just too big a book to open?

AJ

[Torsten]

they can enforce it from the day the notice is given. ie, the ABA could serve every ISP on monday morning with a list of RC and X sites that are no longer permitted to be imported. The ISPs would then have to comply by tuesday morning. The ISP is never breaking the law by importing an RC/X site - it can only be in breach of an ABA order to cease such an import.