Better watch the use of those <h1> tags then.

we, Poles (http://prawo.vagla.pl/node/7703), are not alone.

Is this an attempt to get into the "Click-Easy" business?

I'm sure the Human Rights Act would work in the fellows favour, and as every member of the EU has to sign up for it, then Italy is no exception right?

Given judgements in other countries that they have jurisdiction because a website was accessible from their country, doesn't this put all of us in breach of Italian law? Perhaps El Reg needs to either apply for a permit or block requests from Italian IP addresses?

The reg should come up with a special jack ass award for stupid judges.

Good article. I had to check the author name twice to believe it. The headline is still misleading, but... I'm erasing my predjudice against you. Keep it up.

Other than that, I don't think it's a "law" thing, as the mandatory registration thing (for newspapers) works quite well in other countries (it's still bad, though). It has more to do with a stupid judge (and _maybe_ a wrong turn in the Italian politics a while ago). In my opinion it's not as bad as the transfer of some .com domain names to an US state (reported here in the Mighty Vulture's nest, go find it!). Stupid judges and politicians with self-serving agenda and no IT-ish knowledge of any sort. I second the request by kain preacher: we need a "clueless moron" icon for these things.

This is clearly in contravention of Article 10 of The European Convention on Human Rights.

ARTICLE 10

1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

In this case I do not think Italy can use clause 2 as a defence. Is Italy going to withdraw from the EU?

The Honourable `Made Men´of Sicily are still a force to be reckoned with and it is they who are in this instance using the law to proscribe a blogger who is against them. For any who wish to change the law, they may find it difficult as the mafia have over a hundred and twenty years of experience in controlling what the Italian government do or don't do in their favour.

Stop slagging off the Italians, they are years ahead of us in terms of civil rights.

Hell, they already have a compulsory ID card scheme in place!

Yeh Cool!!!!

I know the perfect icon for this one.

A Picture of G.W. Bush!

Anything below that is just a page in a larger publication.

You claim "Roman law basically says you can;t do anyhting, unless it is specifically permitted". Could you give a source for that? I don't recall ever coming across this concept when I studied law (in mainland Europe) and certainly not in my history of law/Roman law lectures. As far as I am aware, in Roman law countries too, everything is generally permitted unless it is specifically prohibited. If not, the Scots are going to have a problem as their legal system system is heavily influenced by Roman law.

Incidentally, I long ago saw the light and became a technical translator rather than a lawyer and now specialise in exciting stuff like ITIL :)