Hate speech on the web, identifications hampered by social platforms
For the ISPs, the right to spread 'ideas' prevails over the interest in investigating. Forced indictment of seven users and investigation of 90 other unknown authors of the posts
3' min read
3' min read
The web is not a free zone. Even if Internet service providers deny any collaboration to identify keyboard haters. Starting from this principle, the Gip of Milan, after having ordered the forced indictment of seven haters who entrusted to the net their insults against the life senator Liliana Segre, decided to investigate another 90 who remained anonymous, despite the Isp refused to cooperate.
A no that did not convince the Court of Milan to endorse the prosecutor's request for archiving. "The Internet service providers that manage social media are based abroad," reads the order, "and do not believe they are subject to EU regulations on discovery and data retention of log files. Nonetheless, in many cases decrees have been issued for the acquisition of telematic traffic data and the cooperation of the ISPs has been solicited'.
Providers' answers
.The responses obtained, the Gip points out, 'can be summarised as follows: Facebook and Instagram indicated that they had taken charge of the requests and only responded on a discretionary basis; Google communicated that the user's right to hold opinions and spread ideas free from interference by public authority overrides the legitimate interest of law enforcement in investigations; Twitter responded on a discretionary basis, considering that it could only communicate the data it held, both registration and connection data, for some of the requested accounts; Telegram provided no response'. From two providers, on the other hand, came the indication of a route that was possible in theory, but useless in practice.
"Facebook and Twitter have asked for a request by rogatory: although the formal tenor of the reply suggests that the rogatory is a feasible avenue," writes the court, "it is nevertheless known that the United States Department of Justice does not follow up on requests for cooperation for the identification of the perpetrators of the crime of defamation.
It follows that 'the only activities that could be carried out profitably are investigations based on personal information posted on the various social profiles'. As is evident from the investigations carried out in connection with the first complaints - in connection with which 12 other users were identified and remanded for trial - in most cases Facebook users register their profiles under their real names and enter a lot of personal information.
