RoseMontague
Published Author
Interesting and hard to get the other page here/might be my computer.
http://www.personaedanno.it/cms/data/articoli/021013.aspx?catalog=2
Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Justinian2
- Start date
- Status
Interesting and hard to get the other page here/might be my computer.
http://www.personaedanno.it/cms/data/articoli/021013.aspx?catalog=2
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
I see that even "Maundy Gregory" is tiring of the ludicrous conspiracy theories being promoted by some of the more rabid pro-guilt commentators.......
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
By the way, I don't think that comparing the actions of Google in this case in Italy with the situation in China is relevant or helpful. In any country (including the UK and US), if a person or publication writes something (either in print or online) that someone else construes as being defamatory towards them, then the potential victim can apply to the courts for the article to be removed from public access pending a legal case. If a judge agrees that there is a case to answer for defamation, that judge can issue a court order to remove the article pending a legal case.
And that's exactly what appears to have happened in this case. It appears that Mignini has persuaded a Florentine judge that there's a prima facie case of defamation, and that he (Mignini) intends to take appropriate legal action over it. The judge has therefore apparently agreed to issue an injunction ordering the website's owner to take down the blog pending further legal process.
I'm guessing that what will happen now is that either Mignini will continue to pursue those who post Sfarzo's allegedly-defamatory words, or that Frank (or his representatives) will try to get the court order overturned by arguing that there is nothing defamatory in his writings. What seems clear to me is that Google has done nothing wrong in removing Frank's blog - it would do exactly the same in response to a similar court order in London or New York. This is not an argument about freedom of speech per se, but rather an argument about whether courts correctly interpret defamation in any given jurisdiction.
And that's exactly what appears to have happened in this case. It appears that Mignini has persuaded a Florentine judge that there's a prima facie case of defamation, and that he (Mignini) intends to take appropriate legal action over it. The judge has therefore apparently agreed to issue an injunction ordering the website's owner to take down the blog pending further legal process.
I'm guessing that what will happen now is that either Mignini will continue to pursue those who post Sfarzo's allegedly-defamatory words, or that Frank (or his representatives) will try to get the court order overturned by arguing that there is nothing defamatory in his writings. What seems clear to me is that Google has done nothing wrong in removing Frank's blog - it would do exactly the same in response to a similar court order in London or New York. This is not an argument about freedom of speech per se, but rather an argument about whether courts correctly interpret defamation in any given jurisdiction.
pipelineaudio
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
Its exactly about free speech, and no it wouldn't happen if it were in new york.
If the very threat of a lawsuit can cause media to be removed (censored) before the case is settled, then there is no free speech at all
If the very threat of a lawsuit can cause media to be removed (censored) before the case is settled, then there is no free speech at all
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
No. You're making the mistake of thinking that anyone can get any content removed if they don't like it, simply by saying that they intend to being a libel lawsuit. It's not just the threat of a lawsuit that causes such court-ordered removal of content. The plaintiff would have to convince a judge that there is prima facie evidence of libel before a judge would grant a court order for removal of the material pending a full legal action. It would and could happen in New York, and it frequently happens in London.
The issue at stake is the judgement of a judge in determining that a prima facie libel has been committed. If somebody wrote (for example) that Vanessa Hudgens stole a necklace from Tiffany on Rodeo drive, then Vanessa Hudgens could apply for a court injunction to remove that information pending a libel action. But in order to get that injunction granted, she'd have to convince a judge that the allegation was prima facie libellous - for example, she'd need to get a statement from Tiffany that they had no suspicion of her stealing a bracelet. She couldn't just go to the judge (unless the judge was unlawfully pliant) and say something like: "I didn't steal a necklace, take my word for it. But grant me an order to remove the allegation until I pursue a libel claim". If she tried to obtain an injunction without decent accompanying evidence, then any decent judge should refuse to grant such an injunction, and the content would remain in place.
The oft-mentioned First Amendment is no defence whatsoever against defamation. And ex-ante actions such as injunctions to remove potentially libellous material in advance of a legal case are seen as fair and just: the risk of curtailing fair comment or free speech (if the case has no merit) are outweighed by the risk of defaming someone unlawfully. But - I reiterate - such ex-ante injunctions cannot (or, more accurately, should not) be granted on a whim - they ought to only be granted if a judge is convinced that a prima facie libel has occurred.
HumanityBlues
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,741
I have a hard time believing that a US court would exercise prior restraint in an online defamation action by way of a preliminary injunction before a case had been fully adjudicated. You should be able to cite some authority for that.
Justinian2
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,804
That's like being sued for having a blog critical of Bin Laden!
In what country was the site hosted?
Am I being ignored by everybody? I thought Guede, Mignini, the PMF and TJMK were the bad (and boring) guys.
Another travel day for me.
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
The situation regarding prior restraint is undergoing a sea change across the world, in the light of the digital revolution. Until the internet age, information was disseminated in a serial, linear fashion. A newspaper or book published words on paper, and TV or radio broadcast words via the airwaves. In both instances, publication/broadcast was one-time and contemporaneous, and a pure "single-push" system to consumers of that information (i.e. it wasn't demand-led and it wasn't redistributable with any ease).
But the internet has completely changed the dynamic of the relationship between information providers and consumers. Anyone can now pull up information - whether contemporaneous or archived - published or broadcast from information providers across the world. And they can redistribute or link that information with extraordinary speed and reach.
Of course, "prior restraint" has - until very recently - meant exactly that: restraint on disseminating particular information in the first place. It has taken on a wider, expanded meaning in the digital age: whether to let information that's already in the public domain remain in place. US courts have traditionally held prior restraint to be unconstitutional, but chiefly based on the narrower definition of preventing dissemination in the first place.
In one of the first internet-based tests - US v Carmichael (2004), a district federal court ruled against prior restraint. But, since then, US courts have begun shifting their position on prior restraint, in the light of the new paradigm of the internet age. In December 2009, a New Jersey court ordered three blogs that were publishing allegedly defamatory information to be taken offline:
http://www.internetecommercelaw.com...own-an-allegedly-defamatory-third-party-post/
And there appears to be a healthy debate ongoing in the US as to whether constitutional protection of free speech may now be outweighed by the potential damage (whether through defamation or copyright infringement) that can now be caused by the massive and far-reaching power of the internet to disseminate information.
UK courts now recognise that prior restraint is acceptable if the defendant in a potential libel case has a low chance of winning. This is essentially a repeal of the Bonnard v Perryman precedent (1891) which had established that if a potential defendant says that (s)he can justify the allegations, then the written material should be allowed to stand unless a subsequent legal case finds it to be libellous.
http://www.olswang.com/newsarticle.asp?sid=125&aid=1885&de=&mid=
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,614
video of the giftwrapped mop
Watching this video, I found myself grateful that they filmed as much of this as they did.
Justinian2,
Watching this video, I found myself grateful that they filmed as much of this as they did.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,614
whole history of the files
This made me laugh. I hope that the press will eventually tell the whole history about the files, beginning in 2008, when Pascali was refused access (according to Raffaele's appeal). It is a much more important story than toy vibrators or guitar strumming. MOO.
This made me laugh. I hope that the press will eventually tell the whole history about the files, beginning in 2008, when Pascali was refused access (according to Raffaele's appeal). It is a much more important story than toy vibrators or guitar strumming. MOO.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
Google's terms of service say they will take a blog down if so ordered by a court. I would like to see the court order posted where the blog used to be but this action would probably raise it's own privacy issues.
I believe blogger was located on the west coast of the US. A note in the April 1 announcement was that the severs might move closer to Google.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
It would be laughable if it didn't have such potentially-serious ramifications. And it raises further questions about just who was doing the forensics collection in that cottage in the crucial hours and days after the murder, and why.
I still can't find a satisfactory explanation as to why Stefanoni was even anywhere near the cottage in Perugia in early November, far less why she was actually participating in evidence collection. She's a forensic analyst who works in a laboratory in Rome. Her first contact with the evidence should have been when she was sent it for testing. The evidence at the cottage should have been collected and evaluated by specifically-trained scene of crime police, whose sole job is to investigate crime scenes and discover, identify and collect forensic evidence. There's simply no way that properly-trained personnel would have been wrapping that mop handle (which might have been extremely important evidence in the case, let's not forget) using wrapping paper found in a cupboard in the crime scene house!
But we can add this to the long (and growing) list of the cack-handed way in which important forensic evidence has been mishandled in this case. How about the kitchen knife, which was inexplicably transferred from an envelope into a desk diary box which happened to be lying around in a policeman's office in Perugia? Or the towel which was not dried out properly, and which subsequently was destroyed as evidence by mould? Or the bra clasp, which was stored in a sealed airtight container and which consequently rusted and festered such that it's now useless as evidence?
If I were a cynic, I might suggest that the police were (and are) actually trying to degrade or destroy important evidence in this case. But I'm not a cynic, of course
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Yes - hopefully the whole sorry story about the DNA files will come out following the appeal court ruling, and the consequent enquiry.....
However, couldn't a PDF or e-mail be faked? That gives me an idea....
He could have faked it! The Daric Ritchie maneuver! All of these last three and a half years could have been part of his sinister plot! Who would ever imagine that Francesco Sforza, cunningly concealed behind the alias Frank Sfarzo, (no one would ever guess!) was really ensconcing himself in the Amanda Knox debate so he could develop his 'brand,' and one day become internationally famous like Mario Spezi by duping the Committee to Protect Journalists, the West Seattle Herald, Candace Dempsey, CBS and King 5 news! A hoax for the ages! All of us benighted Knoxies swoon over this fake 'Frank' and live vicariously through his troubles overseas, all imagined for us and transmitted via his blog so we could all feel oppressed like that unrepentant murderess Amanda Knox, who also has us totally fooled!
It's actually "Daric Richie". When you are quoting people's fake names, make sure to get it right. We already have enough troubles with the possible mispelling of the judge from Florence who ordered google to shut down the blog site.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,614
making an exception
The book Darkness Descending reported that Dr. Stefanoni had to apply for special permission to be part of the evidence-gathering team. Ordinarily those two roles (gatherer and analyst) are separated in Italy, according to this book. It makes one wonder why an exception was granted in this case.
LondonJohn and RWVBWL,
The book Darkness Descending reported that Dr. Stefanoni had to apply for special permission to be part of the evidence-gathering team. Ordinarily those two roles (gatherer and analyst) are separated in Italy, according to this book. It makes one wonder why an exception was granted in this case.
Last edited:
Libel laws are actually very different in the US and UK. The UK is actually much closer to Italy, which limits free speech. One of the biggest differences is that public figures in the US do not have the same ability to bring libel actions as non-public figures.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
LOL!
I'm just terrible with names these days, I've miffed a few with that foible. I suppose I could stop and look every one up, but by the time I found the correct spelling I'd have lost the train of thought that caused me to want to write that post. Plus each time I think I have it right! Actually in this case I didn't care all that much to be honest.
I tell you though, I'm finding this whole Frank Sfarzo incident and its...reception...in certain quarters absolutely hilarious, especially after the 'Daric Richie' display. Frank has been posting at Perugia Shock for three and a half years, he has a track record going back to when no one outside a couple were even commenting on his posts. However he still gets included in these conspiracy theories involving FOA, despite it being obvious to all but the...afflicted...he should want to associate with major players in the case, and of course when he started it didn't exist! It also shouldn't come as a big surprise he's drawn the ire of Mignini, considering all the other charges filed/investigations begun in this case.
However, all Daric Richie has to do is change his mind, cast aspersions on FOA and no matter what he says most of them lap it up, even if it's absurd. Stilicho and SA are about the only regulars who can maintain dignity about that...revealing....episode. A while back I found this video which more or less sums up how they often come across to me. It's almost like whoever made it was aware of this case and the debate online and created it in satire of a certain somewhere. It even has a (nekkid!) picture of 'Amanda' at the end for them to 'admire.' Raffaele is nowhere to be seen of course, just like the 'source material.'
From either avatar resemblances during certain lines or posting attitudes I can 'see' Platonov (white knight talking backwards) in it, Stilicho,(dormouse) The Bard, (red queen) SB, (cheshire cat) Michael, (white rabbit) and it even has 'Charlie Wilkes' offering the pills to help them wake up, but none of them ever find their way out of the rabbit hole it appears.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
Do you miss your 'fan club?'
For a while there you were the most 'popular' poster on the board in certain quarters, you couldn't fail to provoke outrage in some with every post!
I replied to your post on the other thread hoping you would tell me which little piggy needed to become bacon the most, but you didn't volunteer any names! I thought that would be an interesting topic for you to expound upon, but perhaps you couldn't make up your mind?
Or did the Snow White and the Seven Dwarves episode drive that thread from your mind? I found that very interesting, especially considering your experience with cops on the other end of the dealings, now that you might want a hard-ass copper they're acting like the police in Perugia dealing with Rudy Guede pre-murder. There's delicious irony in that somewhere, but I can't blame you for not appreciating it.
LOL!
I'm just terrible with names these days, I've miffed a few with that foible. I suppose I could stop and look every one up, but by the time I found the correct spelling I'd have lost the train of thought that caused me to want to write that post. Plus each time I think I have it right! Actually in this case I didn't care all that much to be honest.
I tell you though, I'm finding this whole Frank Sfarzo incident and its...reception...in certain quarters absolutely hilarious, especially after the 'Daric Richie' display. Frank has been posting at Perugia Shock for three and a half years, he has a track record going back to when no one outside a couple were even commenting on his posts. However he still gets included in these conspiracy theories involving FOA, despite it being obvious to all but the...afflicted...he should want to associate with major players in the case, and of course when he started it didn't exist! It also shouldn't come as a big surprise he's drawn the ire of Mignini, considering all the other charges filed/investigations begun in this case.
However, all Daric Richie has to do is change his mind, cast aspersions on FOA and no matter what he says most of them lap it up, even if it's absurd. Stilicho and SA are about the only regulars who can maintain dignity about that...revealing....episode. A while back I found this video which more or less sums up how they often come across to me. It's almost like whoever made it was aware of this case and the debate online and created it in satire of a certain somewhere. It even has a (nekkid!) picture of 'Amanda' at the end for them to 'admire.' Raffaele is nowhere to be seen of course, just like the 'source material.'
From either avatar resemblances during certain lines or posting attitudes I can 'see' Platonov (white knight talking backwards) in it, Stilicho,(dormouse) The Bard, (red queen) SB, (cheshire cat) Michael, (white rabbit) and it even has 'Charlie Wilkes' offering the pills to help them wake up, but none of them ever find their way out of the rabbit hole it appears.
Actually, after writing a fake article about how all the teens had celebrated the fact that he had publicly apologized for the fact that he had lied about having a fake boyfriend who killed himself and lied about reading the Massei Report and changing his mind about the innocence of Amanda Knox, Daric retreated to an obscure thread where he carried on a conversation with a stoned monkey and an anthropomorphic duck, demanding "links" to corroborate everything they said about the Amanda Knox case.
RWVBWL
Master Poster
Londonjohn said:
Hi Halides1,
Thanks for pointing out what I hilited above.
LondonJohn,
I don't know about everyone else, but this has always seemed fishy business to me.
In the video that Draca had linked, I had noticed that Doctor Stefanoni had gift wrapped the handle of the mop, but did not wrap the head of it. I thought that odd, but remember seeing other videos of her work habits. And then I recalled it being mentioned here on JREF that the good Doctor needed special permission to gather evidence that she herself would later test in her lab, which is, as LJ points out, in Rome. Does this happen often?
The driving distance from Rome to Perugia is 118 miles or 190 KM. Now why would the good Doctor want to drive all that way just to collect evidence that she will soon examine in her lab? Just because a young, foreign woman was murdered while attending school in a college town? Was any pressure applied to have this Doctor drive out and work on this particular case becuase it is a college town?
Has Doctor Stefanoni collected evidence in any other murders before, tested the same evidence she collected as she did in the Meredith Kercher case and testified in court about the results?
If so, did Antonio Curatolo testify in the same murder trial(s)?
I wonder...
RW
PS-Though Frank Sfarzo had been recently defending Doctor Stefanoni on his Perugia Shock site, I don't think the good Doctor should have made the 118 mile/190 KM drive to Perugia to collect evidence in Meredith Kercher's murder. As her gift wrapping skills show, she didn't do a great job, for as Chris C pointed out, she didn't even wrap the mop head!
- Status