Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
This business about Google pulling a blog because some Italian judge didn't like the content ought to have it's own thread.
 
Dan O. said:
This business about Google pulling a blog because some Italian judge didn't like the content ought to have it's own thread.
Click to expand...


True, Dan. Candace Dempsey covered it too, BTW: http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/
(ETA: Oops, I see Draca already mentioned that.)

There is speculation about whether Mignini did it in response to the judge's orders to stop withholding evidence, or because of how he was portrayed as a buffoon on the CNN special.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/05/10/news/google-shuts-down-site-run-italian-blogger-critic

Tell your friends, especially if they are EU journalists.
Click to expand...


Well, well, well.

Now, unless Frank Sfarzo and Chris Mellas have both told direct lies to the WSH, it seems that Mignini is teetering on the brink of losing everything. From what I can recall of all Frank's posts concerning Mignini, I'd deem that the content was highly critical of Mignini, for sure. But I can't remember any potentially defamatory statements having been written, which might constitute any basis for a libel action. I can't, for example, remember Frank ever directly accusing Mignini of lying, abuse of power (other than that with which he's already been charged, that is...) or any other practices that might be potentially libellous.

Developments in this sideshow to the main event (not a sideshow to Sfarzo, of course) might now become extremely interesting. At this point, I've got to think that these recent developments tell us more about the professional and personal position of Mignini than anything else.
 
Mary_H said:
True, Dan. Candace Dempsey covered it too, BTW: http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/
(ETA: Oops, I see Draca already mentioned that.)

There is speculation about whether Mignini did it in response to the judge's orders to stop withholding evidence, or because of how he was portrayed as a buffoon on the CNN special.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by the highlighted part? What would Perugia Shock have to do with a note Hellmann might have written to Stefanoni? Or do you mean that Sfarzo wrote about this note shortly before the blog was pulled down?

If you did mean the latter, then to my mind things would have had to happen too quickly. It would have taken Mignini a fair amount of time to sort this blog removal out, so my take on it would be that Mignini instigated the action on either Monday or Tuesday morning (at which time there was definitely no post on Perugia Shock about the Stefanoni/data issue).
 
Oh, and two more things: firstly, even if Sfarzo were due in court on a totally unrelated criminal issue (which appears to be no more than hearsay anyhow), that would have nothing whatsoever to do with the judicially-enforced removal of his blog on the Kercher case. And secondly, this has nothing to do with where Google (which owns Blogspot) is HQ'd. An Italian court injunction would essentially force Google to comply, whether it had local offices in Italy or not.

And incidentally, the parallel situation regarding Twitter and the breaches of various UK super-injunctions is nothing to do with Twitter being US-based either. It's entirely to do with the viral nature of re-tweeting - meaning that the lawyers acting for those who have obtained the super-injunctions know they have no way of stopping the exponential spread of tweets. Had a US online publication (say The Huffington Post) broken one or more of the super-injunctions and named names (as the Twitter poster did), UK-based lawyers would have the authority to demand that the information was removed. One of the debating points about super-injunctions is that only rich people can afford to take them out and maintain them. And this expense is almost all due to the time and money necessary to scour the entire internet for references on an hour-by-hour basis, and to then obtain court orders to remove those references.
 
Interesting that Mignini can act through the courts at Italy's expense to stop the press from writing anything he feels may insult his delicate sensibilities. Personally I think Frank glad handed him more often than not.

The guy is a convicted abuser of office and power. Every time he files new slander charges he proves that the original conviction against him was correct and it further shows he intends to continue his crime no matter what.

You wont find me slandering this guy....no way.

If my opinion of a guy like this is a dangerous, moronic, criminal who is most likely insane... well then maybe I’m right. It seems unbelievable that any court would allow this behavior from one of its officers.

Some one must have forgot to cc Mignini on the CPJ letter.
 
LondonJohn said:
What do you mean by the highlighted part? What would Perugia Shock have to do with a note Hellmann might have written to Stefanoni? Or do you mean that Sfarzo wrote about this note shortly before the blog was pulled down?

If you did mean the latter, then to my mind things would have had to happen too quickly. It would have taken Mignini a fair amount of time to sort this blog removal out, so my take on it would be that Mignini instigated the action on either Monday or Tuesday morning (at which time there was definitely no post on Perugia Shock about the Stefanoni/data issue).
Click to expand...


The idea is that something set Mignini off, and in an effort to regain control (of something, anything) he lashed out in anger by having the blog shut down. On the other hand, he had already filed this lawsuit against Frank, so maybe the shut-down was already in the works. It will be interesting to see exactly what in the blog he objected to, legally.
 
RandyN said:
Interesting that Mignini can act through the courts at Italy's expense to stop the press from writing anything he feels may insult his delicate sensibilities. Personally I think Frank glad handed him more often than not.

The guy is a convicted abuser of office and power. Every time he files new slander charges he proves that the original conviction against him was correct and it further shows he intends to continue his crime no matter what.

You wont find me slandering this guy....no way.

If my opinion of a guy like this is a dangerous, moronic, criminal who is most likely insane... well then maybe I’m right. It seems unbelievable that any court would allow this behavior from one of its officers.

Some one must have forgot to cc Mignini on the CPJ letter.
Click to expand...


I agree with you about the glad-handing, Randy. I think an investigation of the blog would find as many comments in support of Mignini and the police as there are against him. That's the beauty of Frank writing so inscrutably at times.

He can't be held responsible for his respondents' posts, can he?
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh, and two more things: firstly, even if Sfarzo were due in court on a totally unrelated criminal issue (which appears to be no more than hearsay anyhow), that would have nothing whatsoever to do with the judicially-enforced removal of his blog on the Kercher case. And secondly, this has nothing to do with where Google (which owns Blogspot) is HQ'd. An Italian court injunction would essentially force Google to comply, whether it had local offices in Italy or not.

And incidentally, the parallel situation regarding Twitter and the breaches of various UK super-injunctions is nothing to do with Twitter being US-based either. It's entirely to do with the viral nature of re-tweeting - meaning that the lawyers acting for those who have obtained the super-injunctions know they have no way of stopping the exponential spread of tweets. Had a US online publication (say The Huffington Post) broken one or more of the super-injunctions and named names (as the Twitter poster did), UK-based lawyers would have the authority to demand that the information was removed. One of the debating points about super-injunctions is that only rich people can afford to take them out and maintain them. And this expense is almost all due to the time and money necessary to scour the entire internet for references on an hour-by-hour basis, and to then obtain court orders to remove those references.
Click to expand...

First amendment of US constitution would allow those US based websites (Twitter or Huffington Post) to publish the names involved in the UK super injunction, UK courts have no jurisdiction to restrict them.

Google on the other hand have offices in Italy so are, and have been in the past, subject to Italian courts rulings.
 
odeed said:
First amendment of US constitution would allow those US based websites (Twitter or Huffington Post) to publish the names involved in the UK super injunction, UK courts have no jurisdiction to restrict them.

Google on the other hand have offices in Italy so are, and have been in the past, subject to Italian courts rulings.
Click to expand...


That's not correct. There are currently a number of cases in progress involving the UK High Court attempting to force US websites to comply with UK injunctions or court orders. These are likely to serve as test cases - the "first amendment" defence is not all-encompassing, and the UK courts may well be able to successfully argue that if the information published on US sites is available to be read in the UK then the content is subject to UK legislation and court rulings.

One such case in progress involves Wikipedia being forced to reveal details of certain editors who posted certain information on a Wikipedia entry concerning a particular individual. And the gossip site TMZ deliberately made itself unavailable to all UK IP addresses recently (although it's available again now), owing to potential legal action through UK courts - even though it's published and hosted in the US.

I happen to think that the UK laws relating to injunctions, and the way they are applied by the courts, are way over the top, and are ultimately likely to be unenforceable in any jurisdiction - including the UK itself. I believe that UK judges will rein themselves in (or be reined in), and that the UK parliament will subsequently legislate more clearly in this area.

But it's erroneous and fallacious to state that, as of now, all US-based companies have a blanket first-amendment defence against the enforcement of UK injunctions. I re-iterate, the ONLY reason why Twitter is unlikely to face legal action regarding the breaking of a number of super-injunctions is because of the sheer number of individuals who would be subject to such an action (owing to massive re-tweeting and following).
 
How do you suppose that UK courts would enforce injunctions on US based companies, wikipedia have said they would only comply with a US court order?

As for re-tweet argument, if Twitter was under UK jurisdiction they would have to remove any names referenced, no matter who tweetered it, just as UK websites have to remove posts on forums, or just as youtube repeatedly removes videos under copyright laws.
 
odeed said:
How do you suppose that UK courts would enforce injunctions on US based companies, wikipedia have said they would only comply with a US court order?

As for re-tweet argument, if Twitter was under UK jurisdiction they would have to remove any names referenced, no matter who tweetered it, just as UK websites have to remove posts on forums, or just as youtube repeatedly removes videos under copyright laws.
Click to expand...

Send in the SAS. :D
 
The recent months have been both truly entertaining and revealing.

The events that took place, the DNA results that made headlines, the Hellmann's notes, Stefanoni's response, Curatolo's testimony, Napoleoni's not showing up...If somehow Amanda and Raffaele will have to sit in jail after this appeal, then I'll be seriously scared of going to Perugia. And I have planned a trip already.

It's a mess. It really is.

Mignini is a joke.

I hope that Frank will regroup and re-open his blog and that he's safe.

BTW, I just saw a video where Stefanoni wraps a mop (found in the closet) in the wrapping paper and then walks in to the murder room with that mop. How professional.

This whole case is simply unbelieveable and after today's news, I can't believe someone still thinks that AK and RS had anything to do with the murder.

ps. anyone can provide an email address to Frank?
 
Last edited:
snook1 said:
The recent months have been both truly entertaining and revealing. The events that took place, the DNA results that made headlines, the Hellmann's notes, Stefanoni's response, Curatolo's testimony, Napoleoni's not showing up...If somehow Amanda and Raffaele will have to sit in jail after this appeal, then I'll be seriously scared of going to Perugia. And I have planned a trip already.
It's a mess. It really is.
Mignini is a joke. I hope that Frank will regroup and re-open his blog and that he's safe. BTW, I just saw a video where Stefanoni wraps a mop (found in the closet) in the wrapping paper and then walks in to the murder room with that mop. How professional. This whole case is simply unbelieveable and after today's news, I can't believe someone still thinks that AK and RS had anything to do with the murder.

ps. anyone can provide an email address to Frank?
Click to expand...

We should not email him as they are all being intercepted and read by the authorities. They may use them against him.
 
Is it that serious? It's ridiculous.

I would just write him that we're all supporting him and wish him a best of luck.
 
snook1 said:
Is it that serious? It's ridiculous.

I would just write him that we're all supporting him and wish him a best of luck.
Click to expand...

Apparently someone who is with him suggested we not email him. That's what I heard last night. Someone emailed it to me but I think it all started on a facebook thread.

We need to get the word out about what is happening.
 
PDiGirolamo said:
Apparently someone who is with him suggested we not email him. That's what I heard last night. Someone emailed it to me but I think it all started on a facebook thread.

We need to get the word out about what is happening.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

If only I could tell Mignini what I think of him!

Sure, he would probably lock me up, possibly with Raffaele, but that would be awesome if I could just stand face to face with that guy and tell him what a mess of a person he is.
 
Dan O. said:
This business about Google pulling a blog because some Italian judge didn't like the content ought to have it's own thread.
Click to expand...

A poster by the name of Barry T has asked Blogger this question:

"Why have you removed Perugia Shock? Was it because of fear of Prosecutor Magnini?"

Short description of problem: Blog is unavailable. Candace Dempsey indicated you pulled John's blog after pressure from Magnini, the same man convicted of abuse of powers of his office.
Click to expand...

The poster then pastes what I believe was Frank's last article. Blogger replies with a Spam/Terms of Service - Appeal Guidelines - April 2011.

http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/blogger/thread?tid=09ae99555c61f8ab&hl=en

Perhaps people could direct their questions at the above link.

(I think Barry T has confused the name of Frank with John.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom