The controversy of censorship and the Law Blog Beppe Grillo

Posted on April 13, 2008
Filed Under Information, Policy | Leave a Comment Visited 2992 Times |

I am surprised that Beppe Grillo has not yet explained the reasons for the objection and has given voice to this story that deals with precisely the arguments of V-day.

I trust that he's catching some information (although I think he should at least be convinced of what he writes) also suppose 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 address ruining the discussions and the comments of others it seems absolutely wrong.
In fact, and 'true that we say that there are preventive filters, but it' 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 do not think that Beppe read all the comments to his post. Will certainly a team of people that gives feedback most relevant, therefore, continue to post references to the legal complaint is useless.

In addition the business itself is not too bright and clear, ie, on http://www.disinformazione.it/censura_legale.htm something is said that in one way or another so often in Italy and in other areas. (Contracts that will require accountability that you deserve and remain buggered)
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 not to be censored, open his blog / forum. I remember that now is not rai 'essentially public, does not guarantee anything to anyone.
Indeed, "the canon" provides for the payment of a tax on "possession of instruments or equipment suitable for reception of broadcasting regardless of quality or quantity of their use" [1], which is levied on subscription TV via the ATM managed grant by RAI for the Ministry of Finance.
The Supreme Court has, on several occasions, clarified the nature of radio and television license fee, which "does not find its reason in the existence of a specific contractual relationship that binds the taxpayer, on the one hand, and the Organization Rai, manages the public service broadcasting, on the other, but it is a benefit tax, based on law, not commensurate with the actual possibility to use the service in question "(Cass. Civ. Sec. UN, 20/11/2007, No. 24010th )
Source: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canone_televisivo
Was once subscription rai, now piu.Si talk radio and television, not a website or web forum or several.

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 in which the main topic was the insult and defamation of M. Gabelli, staff report and RAI "

If you think about but no one takes offense at his house, I say you can not go at someone, to offend and to pretend that you do not censorship.

The real complaint is this: http://www.aams.it/site.php?page=20060213093339418 would be worrying if this happened. But so is not! All sites are visible.

Also:
http://www.disinformazione.it no news on the front 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
Barnard But why not "real" voice to this story with documents, blogs, centralizing 1 bit things?
The order of the journalists could not complain about the Indemnification? And all journalists in Italy are silent? All All? Even those of local broadcasters or independent? It seems a bit strange.
Many blog copy and paste the letter to Barnard without adding any information ...