I am surprised that Beppe Grillo has not yet explained the reasons for the objection and has given voice to this story that is precisely the arguments of V-Day .
I believe that is catching some information (I think he should at least be convinced of what he writes) also imagine that the load of "work" is actually much and maybe a little man can not take care of everything. 
The use of blogs Cricket board as staff continuously to bring the same Internet addresses ruining the discussions and the comments of others it seems absolutely wrong.
In fact, it 's true that they say that there are preventive filters, but it' s also true that:
Are not allowed:
- Messages not related to the post
Then there are millions of unnecessary comments and off-topic and not removed this is a management problem ...
And I do not think Beppe read all the comments to his post. Will certainly have a team of people that gives feedback most important, therefore, continue to post references to the legal complaint is useless.
Plus the thing itself is not too bright and clear, that is, on http://www.disinformazione.it/censura_legale.htm tells you something in one way or another often happens in Italy and in other areas. (Contracts that will require that you would have to bear responsibility and is sodomized)
Censorship of reports can be legitimate in the sense that the Forum report does not guarantee against any non-censorship. If Barnard wants to be sure of not being censored, open a blog / forum. I remember that now is not rai 'public basically does not guarantee anything to anyone.
In fact "the canon" requires payment of a tax on "possession of instruments or apparatus adapted to receive the broadcasting regardless of quality or quantity of their use [1] which is levied by the ATM for TV subscriptions managed granted by RAI for the Ministry of Finance.
The Supreme Court has on several occasions, clarified the nature of license fees, which "does not find its reason in the existence of a specific contractual relationship that binds the taxpayer, on the one hand, and the Organisation Rai, manages the public service broadcasting, on the other, but is a tax benefit based on law, not commensurate with the real possibility to use the service in question "(Cass. Civ. Sec. United, 20/11/2007, No. 24010 )
Source: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canone_televisivo
It was once subscription rai, now speaks piu.Si Broadcasting, not website or web forums or different.
If we want to discuss the ethical choice of censorship on the forum is a different concept. Moreover, the motivations that have led to this complaint are "continuous and prolonged discussion thread where the main topic was the insult and defamation of M. Gabelli, staff report and RAI
If you think about it but nobody would accept insults to his house, I repeat can not go at someone, offend and to pretend that you do not censor.
The real complaint is this: http://www.aams.it/site.php?page=20060213093339418 would be worrying if this were to happen. But so is not! All sites are visible.
Also:
http://www.disinformazione.it no news on the first page and do not understand why.
I can not find a website / blog / forum that speaks seriously of the matter, perhaps giving more information.
http://polinux.altervista.org/index.php makes a summary of what is said on the video simply Barnard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-XRabg3NhM
But why Barnard not "real" voice in this story with documents, blogs, insisting things a bit?
The order of the journalists could not complain about the indemnification clause? And all journalists in Italy are silent? All All? Even those of local broadcasters or independent? It seems a little strange.
Many blog copy and paste the letter to Barnard without adding any information ...
Beppe Grillo I expect however to clarify the situation of the complaint at least give reasons why.
Tags: Beppe Grillo , censorship , censorship law , disinformation , information , free information , v-day
