Google says that it can't be held responsible for videos posted on its Youtube website
Google, based in Mountain View, California, had said it considered the trial a threat to freedom on the Internet because it could force providers to attempt an impossible task - prescreening the thousands of hours of footage uploaded every day onto sites like YouTube.
"We will appeal this astonishing decision," Google spokesman Bill Echikson said at the courthouse. "We are deeply troubled by this decision. It attacks the principles of freedom on which the Internet was built."
Convicted of privacy violations along with Fleischer were Google's senior vice president and chief legal officer David Drummond, retired chief financial officer George Reyes. Senior product marketing manager Arvind Desikan was acquitted.
Prosecutors had insisted the case wasn't about censorship but about balancing the freedom of expression with the rights of an individual. . . .
All four executives, who were tried in absentia, denied wrongdoing. None was in any way involved with the production of the video or uploading it onto the viewing platform, but prosecutors argued that it shot to the top of a most-viewed list and should have been noticed. . . .
This is a defense: "None was in any way involved with the production of the video or uploading it onto the viewing platform"? So, they were involved in making sure that a large number of people could see the video. If someone helps another spread defamatory statements (that means spread false statements) about another person, they bear some responsibility for the damage that those false statements do. Both the person who makes the false statement and the person who helps spread those false statements should be punished for the harm that they do.