• 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.
First, let me say that I agree mostly with your point on damages. And I agree somewhat on your point about malice. From a Webster dictionary definition I think you are right. But from a legal definition, I'm not so sure.

Malice in this context isn't so much that they despise Amanda, that is clear. I think what the law is asking is did they know at the time that they said something that it was wrong. Unfortunately, it seems as if all the lawyers posting are from abroad and are more familiar with the law outside the US. But I'd love to hear an expert legal opinion on this.

Not a lawyer, but IIUC, there are many layers of nuance in US libel laws. Being sincerely stupid is a defense, IIUC.

However, in the US system, the tradition is each party pays their own attorneys, in the UK its the loser pays.

So if you get sued in the US, you're almost certainly getting stuck with lawyers fees, even if you win. Just gettig sued is itself a pretty significant burden, and you'd have to be nuts to not hire a lawyer (or broke).

So the downside of these types of legal actions isn't just the actual outcome, that's actually almost secondary. The first issue is the natural friction in the legal system, i.e. the cost of getting sued in the first place.

Lastly, there's the way the law is supposed to work, and how it works in practice. What jury wouldn't love to take a crack at these imbecile hate trolls, in the US or the UK?

There were so many of them at one point, I imagine only those diehard and foolhardy enough to continue with their slanders will get nailed, civilly and possibly criminally depending on the nature of the conduct.
 
First, let me say that I agree mostly with your point on damages. And I agree somewhat on your point about malice. From a Webster dictionary definition I think you are right. But from a legal definition, I'm not so sure.

Malice in this context isn't so much that they despise Amanda, that is clear. I think what the law is asking is did they know at the time that they said something that it was wrong. Unfortunately, it seems as if all the lawyers posting are from abroad and are more familiar with the law outside the US. But I'd love to hear an expert legal opinion on this.

In the UK there is a difference between "defamation" on the one hand and "malicious falsehood" on the other, not least in where the burden of proof lies. For US law, Diocletus will be your man.
 
Not a lawyer, but IIUC, there are many layers of nuance in US libel laws. Being sincerely stupid is a defense, IIUC.

However, in the US system, the tradition is each party pays their own attorneys, in the UK its the loser pays.

So if you get sued in the US, you're almost certainly getting stuck with lawyers fees, even if you win. Just gettig sued is itself a pretty significant burden, and you'd have to be nuts to not hire a lawyer (or broke).

So the downside of these types of legal actions isn't just the actual outcome, that's actually almost secondary. The first issue is the natural friction in the legal system, i.e. the cost of getting sued in the first place.

Lastly, there's the way the law is supposed to work, and how it works in practice. What jury wouldn't love to take a crack at these imbecile hate trolls, in the US or the UK?

There were so many of them at one point, I imagine only those diehard and foolhardy enough to continue with their slanders will get nailed, civilly and possibly criminally depending on the nature of the conduct.

I agree. More and more people are recognizing that trollish behavior and cyber bullying needs to be curtailed. In effect, that is what many of these people are doing.

I am a huge proponent of free speech, but I don't think there is an unlimited right to free speech. Just like there is no right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater because it could cause damage to others, neither should there be a right to say hurtful things about others for no good reason, especially if those statements are false.

Now I understand and agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in NY Times v Sullivan and why it creates a separate class of people (public vs private) and creating a higher standard for public citizens.
That is mostly about ensuring free political speech, which needs to be protected. But I think the hammer has to come down on some of these people as a warning to others that their behavior is unacceptable.
 
Not a lawyer, but IIUC, there are many layers of nuance in US libel laws. Being sincerely stupid is a defense, IIUC.

However, in the US system, the tradition is each party pays their own attorneys, in the UK its the loser pays.

So if you get sued in the US, you're almost certainly getting stuck with lawyers fees, even if you win. Just gettig sued is itself a pretty significant burden, and you'd have to be nuts to not hire a lawyer (or broke).

So the downside of these types of legal actions isn't just the actual outcome, that's actually almost secondary. The first issue is the natural friction in the legal system, i.e. the cost of getting sued in the first place.

Lastly, there's the way the law is supposed to work, and how it works in practice. What jury wouldn't love to take a crack at these imbecile hate trolls, in the US or the UK?

There were so many of them at one point, I imagine only those diehard and foolhardy enough to continue with their slanders will get nailed, civilly and possibly criminally depending on the nature of the conduct.

Some of the posters in this thread are not members of the wider world of skepticism and even those that are may not be fully aware of situations.

One of the leaders in skepticism movement is a Yale professor and doctor named Steven Novella. He writes in various blogs including Science based Medicine. He is currently being sued by a doctor named Edward Tobinick over comments which were made by Dr Novella. These are solid well supported comments but it does not stop this issue from being a severe financial burden.
 
One of the leaders in skepticism movement is a Yale professor and doctor named Steven Novella. He writes in various blogs including Science based Medicine. He is currently being sued by a doctor named Edward Tobinick over comments which were made by Dr Novella. These are solid well supported comments but it does not stop this issue from being a severe financial burden.

I had never heard of Edward Tobinick, but after hearing that he's been placed in my "probably a quack" compartment, whether he belongs there or not. This is a fine example of the Streisand effect in action, and should inspire due caution for anyone thinking to protect their reputation by going on the litigation warpath. A few precision strikes on certain key websites would obviously be in order, and real news outlets will of course have to watch themselves, but otherwise there's nothing for it but to wait for the circus to leave town.
 
I agree. More and more people are recognizing that trollish behavior and cyber bullying needs to be curtailed. In effect, that is what many of these people are doing.

I am a huge proponent of free speech, but I don't think there is an unlimited right to free speech. Just like there is no right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater because it could cause damage to others, neither should there be a right to say hurtful things about others for no good reason, especially if those statements are false.

Now I understand and agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in NY Times v Sullivan and why it creates a separate class of people (public vs private) and creating a higher standard for public citizens.
That is mostly about ensuring free political speech, which needs to be protected. But I think the hammer has to come down on some of these people as a warning to others that their behavior is unacceptable.

Most of the hateful rhetoric derives from innuendo, distortions and outright lies put out by the Italian authorities. IMO the police and prosecutors should be made to pay dearly for demonizing two innocent people and whipping up a mob. The mob itself is less culpable.

Having said that, people are monitoring the online chatter, and law enforcement will take prompt action to address security issues.
 
Most of the hateful rhetoric derives from innuendo, distortions and outright lies put out by the Italian authorities. IMO the police and prosecutors should be made to pay dearly for demonizing two innocent people and whipping up a mob. The mob itself is less culpable.

I agree with that. What about the media carriers of the inflammatory stories? How can they be held responsible?

What infuriates me is that only now that A & R have the Italian judiciary off their backs, they also have protection against defamation. All the time they were having to fight a crippling legal battle, their enemies were free to make up any prejudicial falsehood they could think of, to add to their problems.
Having said that, people are monitoring the online chatter, and law enforcement will take prompt action to address security issues.
 
I agree with that. What about the media carriers of the inflammatory stories? How can they be held responsible?
What infuriates me is that only now that A & R have the Italian judiciary off their backs, they also have protection against defamation. All the time they were having to fight a crippling legal battle, their enemies were free to make up any prejudicial falsehood they could think of, to add to their problems.

How can all the profits made by the tabloids on peddling lies be considered lawful?

It's not only necessary to take away all those ill gotten profits, but to take away double or triple damages to discourage that type of behavior. imo.

The tabloid reporters say, 'we just report what the prosecution tells us'. But when it turns out they've been told lies, what do they do them? Retract? Correct? Apologize? Or just move onto the next story cycle.
 
Most of the hateful rhetoric derives from innuendo, distortions and outright lies put out by the Italian authorities. IMO the police and prosecutors should be made to pay dearly for demonizing two innocent people and whipping up a mob.

I wish that this was really possible My impression is that authorities do a poor job making public officials accountable and Italy does a worse job than they do in other western countries.
 
I wish that this was really possible My impression is that authorities do a poor job making public officials accountable and Italy does a worse job than they do in other western countries.

I think other the authorities I'd like to make pay, it would be the Daily Mail.
 
First, let me say that I agree mostly with your point on damages. And I agree somewhat on your point about malice. From a Webster dictionary definition I think you are right. But from a legal definition, I'm not so sure.

Malice in this context isn't so much that they despise Amanda, that is clear. I think what the law is asking is did they know at the time that they said something that it was wrong. Unfortunately, it seems as if all the lawyers posting are from abroad and are more familiar with the law outside the US. But I'd love to hear an expert legal opinion on this.

Online Defamation Law

The Bloggers' FAQ on Online Defamation Law provides an overview of defamation (libel) law, including a discussion of the constitutional and statutory privileges that may protect you.

What is defamation?

Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.

What are the elements of a defamation claim?

The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

a publication to one other than the person defamed;
a false statement of fact;
that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.​

"Defamation" is a catch-all term for any statement that hurts someone's reputation. Written defamation is called "libel," and spoken defamation is called "slander." Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort" (a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong). A person who has been defamed can sue the person who did the defaming. (For in-depth information on defamation claims, check out Nolo's Defamation, Libel & Slander section.)
Defamation law tries to balance competing interests: On the one hand, people should not ruin others' lives by telling lies about them; but on the other hand, people should be able to speak freely without fear of litigation over every insult, disagreement, or mistake. Political and social disagreement is important in a free society, and we obviously don't all share the same opinions or beliefs. For instance, political opponents often reach opposite conclusions from the same facts, and editorial cartoonists often exaggerate facts to make their point.
What the victim must prove to establish that defamation occurred
The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show there's been a statement that is all of the following:
published
false
injurious
unprivileged
Let's look at each of these elements in detail.
1. First, the "statement" can be spoken, written, pictured, or even gestured. Because written statements last longer than spoken statements, most courts, juries, and insurance companies consider libel more harmful than slander.
2. "Published" means that a third party heard or saw the statement -- that is, someone other than the person who made the statement or the person the statement was about. "Published" doesn't necessarily mean that the statement was printed in a book -- it just needs to have been made public through television, radio, speeches, gossip, or even loud conversation. Of course, it could also have been written in magazines, books, newspapers, leaflets, or on picket signs.
3. A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false.
4. The statement must be "injurious." Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement -- for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit.
5. Finally, to qualify as a defamatory statement, the offending statement must be "unprivileged." Under some circumstances, you cannot sue someone for defamation even if they make a statement that can be proved false. For example, witnesses who testify falsely in court or at a deposition can't be sued. (Although witnesses who testify to something they know is false could theoretically be prosecuted for perjury.) Lawmakers have decided that in these and other situations, which are considered "privileged," free speech is so important that the speakers should not be constrained by worries that they will be sued for defamation. Lawmakers themsleves also enjoy this privilege: They aren't liable for statements made in the legislative chamber or in official materials, even if they say or write things that would otherwise be defamatory.
Public officials and figures have a harder time proving defamation
The public has a right to criticize the people who govern them, so the least protection from defamation is given to public officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice." (For a definition of actual malice, see the "History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.")
People who aren't elected but who are still public figures because they are influential or famous -- like movie stars -- also have to prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice, in most cases.​
 
I think other the authorities I'd like to make pay, it would be the Daily Mail.

What would be your top three items you would have them sued for?

The single most damaging item IMO was the bloody bathroom picture. I don't have it bookmarked and don't remember how they captioned it, but I don't remember them saying it was post spraying of the protein reactive chemical.

I'd be interested in people's ideas on top defamation candidates, of course with cites when possible :p

ETA - I'm generally very concerned about stopping the media from reporting even if they aren't totally sure of the facts. The photo should have been vetted and the source disclosed.
 
Last edited:
What would be your top three items you would have them sued for?

The single most damaging item IMO was the bloody bathroom picture. I don't have it bookmarked and don't remember how they captioned it, but I don't remember them saying it was post spraying of the protein reactive chemical.

I'd be interested in people's ideas on top defamation candidates, of course with cites when possible :p

ETA - I'm generally very concerned about stopping the media from reporting even if they aren't totally sure of the facts. The photo should have been vetted and the source disclosed.

From my perspective the Daily Mail engaged in a pattern of defamation and malice toward Amanda..aka Foxy Knox that was damaging to Amanda's character. That said, I think suing them is probably a fool's errand.
 
How about the publication of Amanda's list of people who might have given her HIV?

I'm sure there's no way to punish any of the people involved in that viciousness. The person whose idea it was, the person who pretended to be a doctor, the person who leaked the list to a journalist, the editor who thought it was a good story . . . a whole line of turgid little fools, quivering with cruelty.

I guess being that disgusting will have to be its own punishment.
 
How about the publication of Amanda's list of people who might have given her HIV?
I'm sure there's no way to punish any of the people involved in that viciousness. The person whose idea it was, the person who pretended to be a doctor, the person who leaked the list to a journalist, the editor who thought it was a good story . . . a whole line of turgid little fools, quivering with cruelty.
I guess being that disgusting will have to be its own punishment.

Wouldn't that be a fraudulent conduct on a prisoner that an Italian investigator with investigatory authority could get to the bottom of? Suppose during an investigation of how local authorites mishandled this case a judge, court, parliamentary inquiry, or ministry wanted to identify what was done to the prisoner in their custody and care at Capanne prison. Couldn't they likely get tips or testimony from other staff members in Capanne or in the police or prosecutor's office about what they knew?

I believe someone - perhaps a magazine or attorney for one of the harmed parties - could offer a Euro 20,000 reward for information with a promise of confidentiality and likely obtain insider information on many aspects of this troubling case. Wouldn't there be prison staff, police officers, prosecution staff, or scientific police staff who disagree with what went on with various aspects of this case and wish to see the warden, Napoleoni, Mignini and Comodi, Stefanoni investigated and sanctioned?
 
Last edited:
I saw that empty post
Maybe I have not been following closely, but are they really that close to ending?
I read it as a farewell from thoughtful, a theory which can be disproved at any moment. I don't think the site will close till the judges' report however.
Generally it is like HAL from 2001.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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