• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's hard to know what to write any more. The pair are innocent, obviously innocent, declared innocent (not just not guilty) by Italy.....

..... yet newspaper comments sections are running 3-1 with tripe.... "She knows something she's not telling us," "her footprint was found in the room," "she annoyed Meredith's friends and Meredith was shocked to see a vibrator and condoms," etc. etc.

Will there be another round of whack-a-mole - sex-on-a-train once again?

Michael on .NET has warned against libel, Peggy on .ORG is putting out fires there and reining in those who are mad at Andrea Vogt.....

The motivations report cannot come soon enough.
 
Bill Williams said:
It's hard to know what to write any more. The pair are innocent, obviously innocent, declared innocent (not just not guilty) by Italy.....

..... yet newspaper comments sections are running 3-1 with tripe.... "She knows something she's not telling us," "her footprint was found in the room," "she annoyed Meredith's friends and Meredith was shocked to see a vibrator and condoms," etc. etc.

Will there be another round of whack-a-mole - sex-on-a-train once again?

Michael on .NET has warned against libel, Peggy on .ORG is putting out fires there and reining in those who are mad at Andrea Vogt.....

The motivations report cannot come soon enough.
Click to expand...

If you read the newspaper comments from when the Virginia Governor conditionally pardoned the Norfolk Four, guilt comments outnumbered innocent comments if my memory is correct.
 
HumanityBlues said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just responding here, and I don't know if anyone else has gotten to this.

But the laws against defamation/calunnia, are much stronger in ITALY THAN IN THE US.

There are laws in the US at the federal level that specifically protect US citizens rights to speech, that may well violate laws of another country. For instance, in Thailand, its a crime to insult the king.

Different states provide another layer of protection. IIUC, NY state actually has the strongest protection (Go NY!).

However, that in no way is protection against the US laws of course. In the US, IIUC its just a higher burden of proof.

SO, the issues are not as draconian as people may think.

However, these people must know on some level that what they do is outrageous, and that after the ISC verdict, they need to be more careful. What's lovely about paranoids who see plots behind every corner, is that they can be expected to over-correct.

Anyway, I doubt they'd get sued for anything written in the past. But anything written after the verdict, I think crosses a bright line, and they're caution is prudent.

Of course, they're idiots to begin with.
 
AmyStrange said:
-


-

I believe you're right, but as far as the last (hilited) statement is concerned (especially since OJ was found guilty in a civil trial), which should be the standard, the verdict of a civil trial or a criminal trial?

d

-
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech wins out time and again, as long as the speaker believes what he says is correct. It is irrelevant if a criminal or civil case was decided one way or the other. If I believe something is true, I can say it per my constitutional right of free speech.
 
LondonJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't see Amanda as wanting to have any additional conflict.

I think Raf is spoiling for a fight, having taken this crap for over 7 years. I'm guessing they are audibly preying for some idiot to make an example out of, so the rest of them get the message.

By the way, where's Mach? Have the masons finally caught up with him?
 
carbonjam72 said:
I don't see Amanda as wanting to have any additional conflict.

I think Raf is spoiling for a fight, having taken this crap for over 7 years. I'm guessing they are audibly preying for some idiot to make an example out of, so the rest of them get the message.

By the way, where's Mach? Have the masons finally caught up with him?
Click to expand...

I heard it was the Illuminati

I don't see any of Raf's arguments working real well against Americans although much more of an issue with any British people who post libelous arguments.
 
carbonjam72 said:
I don't see Amanda as wanting to have any additional conflict.

I think Raf is spoiling for a fight, having taken this crap for over 7 years. I'm guessing they are audibly preying for some idiot to make an example out of, so the rest of them get the message.

By the way, where's Mach? Have the masons finally caught up with him?
Click to expand...

Am I bad for saying, I miss Machiavelli?

He certainly knew how to stir the pot - as well as to argue a point, like one tiptoes down the sidelines of a football field....

I miss the guy. He was a loyal friend to Mignini as well as to Andrea Vogt.
 
Strozzi said:
Freedom of speech wins out time and again, as long as the speaker believes what he says is correct. It is irrelevant if a criminal or civil case was decided one way or the other. If I believe something is true, I can say it per my constitutional right of free speech.
Click to expand...


Your constitutional right to claim that another person is guilty of a criminal offence that he or she did not commit, however, runs smack up against libel laws, even in the U.S., and although it might give you a wee bit more coverage in the U.S. than elsewhere, the U.S. constitution will not protect you if a libel action is brought against you in another jurisdiction where the libel was published.

Just saying.
 
LashL said:
Libel laws pertaining to Internet defamation do not depend upon where the defendant posts from, and actions for libel can be brought essentially anywhere that the posts are read, which means that a variety of venues are available for such a pursuit. Someone posting libellous material online, even if they are physically situated in the U.S. when they post it, for example, is not protected by U.S. libel laws if that material is available to be read in, for instance, the U.K. and a libel action is brought in the U.K.

Just saying.
Click to expand...

True enough, but a US-based claimant wishing to sue in England has now to prove England is the most appropriate venue. I can see Amanda surmounting that hurdle, against an England-based defendant anyway, because she is a well-known person, but not so much characters associated with the case in a lesser degree. The 2013 Defamation Act has taken a lot of the fun out of our centuries-old jumble of judge-made law but that's progress for you.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
I could be wrong, but I thought the point they were trying to make is that even a successful and totally justified libel action where one is awarded costs can lead to the litigant taking a bath. Unless you have reason to believe that the other side have enough of a bankroll to cover your costs and their costs, with something left over for you to pocket at the end of it, suing them is an exercise in mutual financial destruction that enriches only lawyers.

I don't know how deep someone's pockets have to be to make them an attractive target, but I imagine that many internet trolls lack such pockets.
Click to expand...

It depends on the claimant and the nature of the libel. How much is the case worth and how clear are the issues? Also, an indigent defendant will not be able to afford a professional defence and will be easy prey. There are plenty of people who own a house with equity in it even if they have little else and it's easy to research that. That could be enough by itself to make a claim worthwhile and at the same time to put the fear of God (losing one's home being a mighty threat after all) into all but the most demented nutcases, precipitating an early apology and settlement.
 
Wow. So I tried to engage a few people on twitter over the Knox case. It's weird to see, you just get descended upon by people that just deplore her and the same few people start re-tweeting and favoring the same silly retorts. Quite the experience.
 
Samson said:
Daily Mail seem unconcerned, there are a heap of comments like this in the last few hours


"hobnob, uk, United Kingdom, 3 hours ago
She was also jailed for blaming her boss for the murder, she has to pay him compensation and also compensation the the officers she accused of beating her ( which her attorneys told her didn't happen and she should shut up , she later retracted her story but too late) She is guilty of murder and admitted it in her handwritten letter, she also admitted to her attorneys and PR people she was present at the murder but that sollecito did the actual killing , when she learned he had changed his defense and was blaming her as well as no longer being her alibi"

votes running about 3 to 1 against Amanda

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ring-murdering-Meredith-Kercher.html#comments
Click to expand...

All this under a news item that is quite favourable. What needs to happen is that news websites should moderate their comments sections, and delete content that is defamatory. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't enable comments.
 
Samson said:
Daily Mail seem unconcerned, there are a heap of comments like this in the last few hours


"hobnob, uk, United Kingdom, 3 hours ago
She was also jailed for blaming her boss for the murder, she has to pay him compensation and also compensation the the officers she accused of beating her ( which her attorneys told her didn't happen and she should shut up , she later retracted her story but too late) She is guilty of murder and admitted it in her handwritten letter, she also admitted to her attorneys and PR people she was present at the murder but that sollecito did the actual killing , when she learned he had changed his defense and was blaming her as well as no longer being her alibi"

votes running about 3 to 1 against Amanda

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ring-murdering-Meredith-Kercher.html#comments
Click to expand...


You might have missed that at the top of the comments section, the Mail almost always puts (especially in situations such as this) the words: "The comments below have not been moderated". These words effectively indemnify the Mail against litigation for anything written by a third party in those comment sections.

So the Mail is actually playing an interesting game. It probably actively wants to see provocative comments - that helps drive readership, after all. And it might even be arguable that the Mail would be rather pleased to let the debate in the comments sections cross the line of defamation, for the same reason. And if anyone who thinks they've been defamed in those comments sections wants to being action, they will contact the Mail who will provide them with the details of the commenter in question, and probably also take the comment down pending any litigation. It's a no-lose situation for the Mail.

But it's most assuredly not a no-lose situation for those who are actually writing those sorts of comment.....................................
 
LondonJohn said:
You might have missed that at the top of the comments section, the Mail almost always puts (especially in situations such as this) the words: "The comments below have not been moderated". These words effectively indemnify the Mail against litigation for anything written by a third party in those comment sections.

So the Mail is actually playing an interesting game. It probably actively wants to see provocative comments - that helps drive readership, after all. And it might even be arguable that the Mail would be rather pleased to let the debate in the comments sections cross the line of defamation, for the same reason. And if anyone who thinks they've been defamed in those comments sections wants to being action, they will contact the Mail who will provide them with the details of the commenter in question, and probably also take the comment down pending any litigation. It's a no-lose situation for the Mail.

But it's most assuredly not a no-lose situation for those who are actually writing those sorts of comment.....................................
Click to expand...

Yes I did note they stated as unmoderated, and if I thought about it I would have deduced this must be the case that they are indemnified. What you say all makes sense after the fact, but I am surprised the law allows such a loophole. Maybe someone should test by requesting the IP of the commenter...At this stage it is fascinating that not one internet identity appears to have changed their position a millimeter since the acquittals.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
It depends on the claimant and the nature of the libel. How much is the case worth and how clear are the issues? Also, an indigent defendant will not be able to afford a professional defence and will be easy prey. There are plenty of people who own a house with equity in it even if they have little else and it's easy to research that. That could be enough by itself to make a claim worthwhile and at the same time to put the fear of God (losing one's home being a mighty threat after all) into all but the most demented nutcases, precipitating an early apology and settlement.
Click to expand...


Exactly. I would have thought that the most effective - and the most humane - strategy to employ against the hard core of nutters who continue to aggressively defame Knox and/or Sollecito would be to communicate with them via a formal legal letter. The letter would let the recipient know that the plaintiff (i.e. Knox or Sollecito) is giving notice of bringing action in a certain jurisdiction within a certain time frame. It would also perhaps note that the plaintiff understands that the recipient has a certain wealth in assets. And, importantly, it would state clearly that all such litigation can be indefinitely deferred if the plaintiff apologises, removes all potentially defamatory content where possible, and makes a written undertaking not to say or write certain things in the future. And that sort of deal might also request a fair payment for costs.

One would hope that this sort of strategy would effectively persuade most of the nutters of the error of their ways. And those whom it didn't persuade might have to end up being persuaded in other ways.
 
Samson said:
Yes I did note they stated as unmoderated, and if I thought about it I would have deduced this must be the case that they are indemnified. What you say all makes sense after the fact, but I am surprised the law allows such a loophole. Maybe someone should test by requesting the IP of the commenter...At this stage it is fascinating that not one internet identity appears to have changed their position a millimeter since the acquittals.
Click to expand...



In the US, this sort of thing is now actually codified in law. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others.


http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-under-communications-decency-act


And in England and Wales, I believe that a similar test would apply in practice, even though it's not (to my knowledge) formally codified in any legislation.
 
Planigale said:
Italian navy vs clapped out biplanes.

http://ww2today.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Taranto-attack-aerial-reconnaissance.jpg
Click to expand...


Hahaha :D (A bit like the old joke: Q. What's got 400,000 legs and walks backwards? A. The Italian Army.)

In fact, I think it's actually quite germane to any discussion about certain phenomena in the Knox/Sollecito case to reference the 20th century history of Italy. Those in the US and UK sometimes don't realise that there were lasting pernicious effects of being so thoroughly beaten in 1945. And I'd argue that Italy might have been far more adversely affected than even Germany. Remember, after all, that Italy decided to throw out its fascist dictator half way through the war, and was politically, culturally and economically emasculated by total defeat.

I would argue that it's not unreasonable to suggest that some institutionalised behaviours in Italy, such as pride (including "bella figura"), defensiveness and an (apparently) implicit acceptance of a partial police state, can be traced back at least in part to Italy's 20th century history. And I think that Knox and Sollecito might have experienced the consequences of those sorts of attitudes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom