Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

I didn't misunderstand you, and I don't think you were wrong, per se. I was just trying to explain how I think Amanda approaches things. As others here have said, they didn't see it as her feeling compelled by others to do things, and I agree with that. I also agree with you that she is entitled to a full life, and can choose what she wants to do with it. I just think she is choosing to do what she said in the statement. I think we agree.

I guess for whatever reason I feel protective and just can't stand the idea of giving the haters any opportunity no matter how small to demonize her.

 

[komponisto]

A good time to see this again.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xohNFfsdaP4

I didn't realize this had already been done!

I should have known.

 

[Grinder]

I actually saw most of the posts that were deleted prior to those statements. They didn't have anything to do with the case, but just bickering among site members.

Yes JohnQ and SA were going at it over Scottish "not proven" and some other dander was raised between others over nonsense. SA has been very careful since the ruling not to expose himself to libel.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes JohnQ and SA were going at it over Scottish "not proven" and some other dander was raised between others over nonsense. SA has been very careful since the ruling not to expose himself to libel.

No, it was Hugo and SA. JohnQ was ranting about other issues. But anyhow......

Ganong has already written that she has been ex ante regulating the posts on the board, and that ever since the SC verdict she's been deleting a lot of posts that she's deemed potentially actionable. I suspect that she now realises that many of the posters there are unstable, volatile individuals who cannot (and/or will not) self-censor, and I suspect she is tired of censoring them herself - and possibly fearful that some of those sorts of post might get published before she has a chance to censor them (and that therefore she would open herself up to litigation).

 

[Dougm]

No, it was Hugo and SA. JohnQ was ranting about other issues. But anyhow......

Ganong has already written that she has been ex ante regulating the posts on the board, and that ever since the SC verdict she's been deleting a lot of posts that she's deemed potentially actionable. I suspect that she now realises that many of the posters there are unstable, volatile individuals who cannot (and/or will not) self-censor, and I suspect she is tired of censoring them herself - and possibly fearful that some of those sorts of post might get published before she has a chance to censor them (and that therefore she would open herself up to litigation).

She just realizes that NOW??

 

[HumanityBlues]

Yes JohnQ and SA were going at it over Scottish "not proven" and some other dander was raised between others over nonsense. SA has been very careful since the ruling not to expose himself to libel.

I'm not that familiar with defamation laws in Europe and really don't think there's any real realistic exposure for most of them. Peter Quennell is probably the most vulnerable in the U.S. I think because he clearly just makes things up. But even then, probably not that vulnerable. But hey, if they want to scrub their sites, have at it.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'd like to add that I think a sensible, reasonable debate about the online communities in this case should form a legitimate part of the overall debate about the case. When there was only push-content media (mainly press, TV and radio), those media -and what they said about a particular topic - undoubtedly formed legitimate areas for discussion on that topic. (As a current example, media reporting of the germanwings incident is a pretty central factor to the debate about the topic).

So in a "Web 2.0" world of citizen journalism, I think that online sources of news, opinions and comments are worthy of scrutiny, observation and criticism. Furthermore, in this particular case (Knox and Sollecito), the internet has become - perhaps more than ever before - a tangible and high-profile element of the case. Major "trusted" news/opinion sites - including the quality printed media - have discussed the internet element to this case, and how it's had measurable impacts on public opinion and even perhaps on the legal case itself.

That's why I think that it's fair and appropriate to include discussions about the online communities on this thread, so long as they are reasonable and with some sort of relation to the underlying topic. I think it's entirely appropriate to discuss and analyse the activities and opinions of the pro-guilt community (and of course the pro-acquittal/pro-innocence community). In addition, I personally find it a genuinely fascinating sub-topic within this sorry saga.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm not that familiar with defamation laws in Europe and really don't think there's any real realistic exposure for most of them. Peter Quennell is probably the most vulnerable in the U.S. I think because he clearly just makes things up. But even then, probably not that vulnerable. But hey, if they want to scrub their sites, have at it.

Erm, there's cast-iron exposure for anyone who refers to Knox or Sollecito directly as a "murderer", "killer" etc as of last Friday night. The only question is whether the potential plaintiffs would have any desire to pursue those making these sorts of defamatory statements. The probable answer to that question is that they (Knox and Sollecito) would not have any such desire (they hopefully have better and more joyful things to do right now), but I'd suggest that if any person or website gets a little too out of hand, it will find itself on the wrong end of an action. And the borderless nature of the internet means that the potential defendants should be even more wary - they open themselves to action in multiple territories under multiple jurisdictions.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Erm, there's cast-iron exposure for anyone who refers to Knox or Sollecito directly as a "murderer", "killer" etc as of last Friday night. The only question is whether the potential plaintiffs would have any desire to pursue those making these sorts of defamatory statements. The probable answer to that question is that they (Knox and Sollecito) would not have any such desire (they hopefully have better and more joyful things to do right now), but I'd suggest that if any person or website gets a little too out of hand, it will find itself on the wrong end of an action. And the borderless nature of the internet means that the potential defendants should be even more wary - they open themselves to action in multiple territories under multiple jurisdictions.

Erm, like I said, I don't know how it works in Europe, but yes you can actually refer to them that way in the United States and not risk paying damages in a civil suit initiated here. So, if you're referring to court action in the United States, you are categorically wrong.

 

[LondonJohn]

Erm, like I said, I don't know how it works in Europe, but yes you can actually refer to them that way in the United States and not risk paying damages in a civil suit initiated here. So, if you're referring to court action in the United States, you are categorically wrong.

You certainly could in England & Wales. But why could someone say this (e.g. "Amanda Knox is a murderer") within all US jurisdictions (state laws?) and not risk a libel suit?

 

[HumanityBlues]

You certainly could in England & Wales. But why could someone say this (e.g. "Amanda Knox is a murderer") within all US jurisdictions (state laws?) and not risk a libel suit?

The same reason you can call George Zimmerman and Casey Anthony a murder even though they are acquitted. I don't have time to go into a full explanation of defamation law and why that's just not going to work here, but suffice it to say, free speech is a lot more free in the United States (for better or worse).

 

[Bill Williams]

No, it was Hugo and SA. JohnQ was ranting about other issues. But anyhow......

Ganong has already written that she has been ex ante regulating the posts on the board, and that ever since the SC verdict she's been deleting a lot of posts that she's deemed potentially actionable. I suspect that she now realises that many of the posters there are unstable, volatile individuals who cannot (and/or will not) self-censor, and I suspect she is tired of censoring them herself - and possibly fearful that some of those sorts of post might get published before she has a chance to censor them (and that therefore she would open herself up to litigation).

Did Peggy use the term "ex ante"?

ex ante is a Latin word which means based on assumption and prediction. It also means beforehand or before the event. The term is used generally in the commercial world, where results of a particular action, or series of actions, are forecast in advance.​

Does this, then, speak to a mens rea?

 

[LondonJohn]

The same reason you can call George Zimmerman and Casey Anthony a murder even though they are acquitted. I don't have time to go into a full explanation of defamation law and why that's just not going to work here, but suffice it to say, free speech is a lot more free in the United States (for better or worse).

I don't really understand. I was of the belief that it is indeed potentially defamatory to (e.g.) call Zimmerman a murderer under US libel laws (in most states), but that those who do so are merely taking the calculated risk that he won't bring action, given the groundswell of public opinion against him.

This site states that in most US states, falsely accusing someone of a criminal act is defined as defamation per se:

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/what-defamatory-statement

And since if one is acquitted of a crime (such as murder), one is legally to be considered innocent of that crime, I find it hard to see how accusing an acquitted person of the crime for which they were tried and acquitted does not constitute defamation per se.

I thought I (broadly) understood the ramifications of the free speech amendment in US federal law, and how it impacts upon state defamation laws. But I'd be interested to learn how and why I'm getting it wrong,

 

[LondonJohn]

Did Peggy use the term "ex ante"?

​

Does this, then, speak to a mens rea?

No, I did. Ganong appeared to be referring to screening posts prior to their appearance on the board, which would be ex ante regulation/censorship.

 

[LondonJohn]

(In centuries gone by, all theatrical plays in London had to be submitted to the Lord Chamberlain's office for vetting, and only once the play had been vetted, passed and issued a performance licence could it be performed on stage. That is a classic example of ex ante regulation. An example of ex post regulation is where there's no regulation prior to publication/performance/etc, but where the regulator can ban or modify the content once it's already in the public domain. An example might be most TV advertising markets, where regulators don't vet commercials before they're allowed to air, but occasionally order certain commercials not to be rebroadcast (either altogether or until they are modified) once they've already been aired one or more times.)

 

[Bill Williams]

ANALYSIS
Monica Lewinsky, writer Jon Ronson taking on internet shamers. Good luck.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/monica-lewinsky-writer-jon-ronson-taking-on-internet-shamers-good-luck-1.3015660

In the past few years, an immense pack of hyenas has gathered out there in the virtual darkness just beyond the campfire, licking their chops and waiting.

Actually, to call them hyenas is a libel against hyenas. These creatures are not looking for sustenance. They merely want to punish.

They are pitiless and astringent. Most, in fact, see themselves as championing some sort of moral rectitude.
They are the public shamers — tweeters, bloggers, facebookers, online rule-makers — and they have collectively revived a practice so cruel that Western courts abolished it long ago.

They inspire terror, or should, in just about anyone who thinks about what they do.​

 

[anglolawyer]

The same reason you can call George Zimmerman and Casey Anthony a murder even though they are acquitted. I don't have time to go into a full explanation of defamation law and why that's just not going to work here, but suffice it to say, free speech is a lot more free in the United States (for better or worse).

Since the beginning of 2014 it has become more free in the UK too, although I think calling Amanda Knox a murderer is probably not a good idea because she could probably surmount the hurdles and sue here (assuming she could give a ****). I am less confident of the prospects for more peripheral figures since a new 'substantial harm' test stands in the way of a claim and one anonymous internet person abusing another is mostly not harmful in the required sense.

 

[LondonJohn]

Since the beginning of 2014 it has become more free in the UK too, although I think calling Amanda Knox a murderer is probably not a good idea because she could probably surmount the hurdles and sue here (assuming she could give a ****). I am less confident of the prospects for more peripheral figures since a new 'substantial harm' test stands in the way of a claim and one anonymous internet person abusing another is mostly not harmful in the required sense.

Oh yes - I'm strictly talking about people making false accusations against Knox and Sollecito. And I also agree (and hope) that neither Knox nor Sollecito could give a "fig" about nutters on the internet calling them murderers - as I wrote in a previous post. But as I also wrote, I suspect that if that sort of accusation becomes more of a coordinated, concerted campaign, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Knox's and Sollecito's legal teams - who, I imagine, are very probably keeping a casual eye on things like twitter and certain websites - might swing into action.

 

[Strozzi]

Yes JohnQ and SA were going at it over Scottish "not proven" and some other dander was raised between others over nonsense. SA has been very careful since the ruling not to expose himself to libel.

I saw this morning that JohnQ revealed that the US gave Italy two aircraft to throw the case. That was supposed to be a secret. I guess this is the last time the US Secretary of the Air Force will go out for a beer with JohnQ. He told me he is going to put JohnQ on the "No Fly" list!

 

[LondonJohn]

I saw this morning that JohnQ revealed that the US gave Italy two aircraft to throw the case. That was supposed to be a secret. I guess this is the last time the US Secretary of the Air Force will go out for a beer with JonhQ.

Yes, this is exactly the type of post that was removed (as well as some unedifying bickering). There were also others that were alleging corruption of the Italian Supreme Court by entities including Italian and US political parties and the Sollecito family.