The judge's rationale on the Google/Italian legal case

Remember this one? Way, way back in - what was it? - February this year, this was the one about the Italian judge who convicted three Google excutives over the delayed take-down of a highly offensive video (See my previous post and subsequent update on this case).

At the time we were promised an explanation of the judge's ruling, and it has duly arrived, in a 111-page document through which Google themselves are still sifting.  But The Guardian and other news sites provide us with the digest, which is that the ruling was bought due to perceived 'malicious intent' by Google.  Judge Oscar Magi said he believed the Internet giant clearly intended to profit by selling advertising on the site where the footage was posted.

The footage showed an autistic student in Turin being seriously bullied. The prosecutor's case emphasized that the video had been viewed 5,500 times over the two months it was online, when it climbed to the top of Google Italy's "most entertaining" video list and had more than 80 comments, including users urging its removal. Google however argued that it was unaware of the offensive material and acted swiftly to remove it after being notified by authorities, taking the video down within two hours.

This latter point was, to me, the crux of the whole matter. How long after receiving notification (from anyone) did Google remove it? I wonder if somewhere in those 111 pages it is actually proven (perhaps by something as simple as a time and date stamp on a report abuse email), who is telling the truth?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joegratz/ / CC BY-NC 2.0