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

Just In: Amanda Knox Parents Must Stand Trial for Libel

Kaosium said:
Ya know, Mignini's office filed charges on two bloggers already, Joe Cottonwood and Steve Shay. You could be next! :p
Click to expand...

1) Your link is broken.
2) The facts don't support the implication of your post. Although both of those people have blogs they were accused of defamation for their comments published by newspapers.
 
WildCat said:
You can cause damages to someone without breaking the law. If you slip on my front steps because it rained and they're wet you can sue me for the injuries you suffered, but I didn't break any laws.
Click to expand...

What would you be sued for then? Usually such cases (in the UK) are based on the fact that you have a legal obligation to keep your front step in a "reasonable condition", if you don't then you may be held legally liable if you are sued.
 
brodski said:
1) Your link is broken.
2) The facts don't support the implication of your post. Although both of those people have blogs they were accused of defamation for their comments published by newspapers.
Click to expand...

Thanks, fixed it. According to that link Cottonwood had criminal defamation charges filed on him personally, though it was being reprinted in an Italian newspaper that brought it to his attention. Hadn't noticed the newspaper connection there before though, no one seems to care.

Now, back to my idea: what if this were a US court and they decided to start filing charges against those saying possibly true but unproven things about US government officials?

Then you get a Texan in the White House again....

:D
 
Darat said:
What would you be sued for then? Usually such cases (in the UK) are based on the fact that you have a legal obligation to keep your front step in a "reasonable condition", if you don't then you may be held legally liable if you are sued.
Click to expand...
Maybe I didn't have anti-slip strips on the steps, despite knowing they got slippery when wet.

But at any rate, you can get sued for pretty much anything and everything in the USA. I did repairs to a porch on an apartment building once, this was back in the 1980s. A month later a 3 year old girl fell off the 3rd floor of the porch because a picket was missing and died. The company I worked for was sued, I have no idea how it turned out. I was interviewed by a lawyer, but didn't actually have to testify at a trial. All I know is that all the pickets were in place when I left the job. We always checked for such things, even if the work order specified we were to do other repairs.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Maybe I didn't have anti-slip strips on the steps, despite knowing they got slippery when wet.

But at any rate, you can get sued for pretty much anything and everything in the USA. I did repairs to a porch on an apartment building once, this was back in the 1980s. A month later a 3 year old girl fell off the 3rd floor of the porch because a picket was missing and died. The company I worked for was sued, I have no idea how it turned out. I was interviewed by a lawyer, but didn't actually have to testify at a trial. All I know is that all the pickets were in place when I left the job. We always checked for such things, even if the work order specified we were to do other repairs.
Click to expand...

On what basis were they sued?
 
WildCat said:
You can cause damages to someone without breaking the law. If you slip on my front steps because it rained and they're wet you can sue me for the injuries you suffered, but I didn't break any laws.
Click to expand...
In the UK it is covered by Tort. Someone may correct me. I understand tort does not need to be specifically legislated, but nevertheless it acts as a law and I too can be sued if someone slips on my steps even though their is no specific written law relating to step maintenance.

However we are getting away from the point which I understand is that this case could happen in America albeit there would be a high burden on the police.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
On what basis were they sued?
Click to expand...
Apparently they claimed the picket was missing when we were there. Lawyers like to do things like this in lawsuits, they sue everyone no matter how peripherally involved or how flimsy the evidence and hope something sticks or someone settles rather than spend more money on lawyers than the settlement amount.
 
Aepervius said:
I am sorry, but if I say my brother told me Bruce Fisher is a baby-eater, in a journal, you would be in right to attack me in libel, even if I pretend my brother said it. Because i would be the one leading to the publication of the information.

And like it or not, accusing the police to abuse physically prisoner under their guard is a serious accusation and can lead to get you to court if you do it without evidence.

And by the way, accusation through media *IS* libel. You don't need to be under oath to be accused of libel or be in court.
Click to expand...

Thing is, Patrick Lumumba said the police beat him and called him a dirty black in another British rag and no defamation charge for him. That article is still in print and has not been corrected. No defamation charge for him. Interesting.
 
HumanityBlues said:
Thing is, Patrick Lumumba said the police beat him and called him a dirty black in another British rag and no defamation charge for him. That article is still in print and has not been corrected. No defamation charge for him. Interesting.
Click to expand...
Libel Laws in the Uk would allow the police to sue. They currently would also put the burden on Lumumba to prove the police said that. For Libel it is guilt unless proven innocent.
Libel lawyers charge a fortune. If you lose you will get two very very large bills to pay.

I presume in the above case the policemen concerned simply decided not to seek legal redress.
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
Libel Laws in the Uk would allow the police to sue. They currently would also put the burden on Lumumba to prove the police said that. For Libel it is guilt unless proven innocent.
Libel lawyers charge a fortune. If you lose you will get two very very large bills to pay.

I presume in the above case the policemen concerned simply decided not to seek legal redress.
Click to expand...

In the Italian system, the state pays the cost when prosecutors or police sue members of the public. It's a great system for keeping the public quiet about police abuse. The kind of law needed to keep a monarchy or fascist state running smoothly.
 
HumanityBlues said:
Thing is, Patrick Lumumba said the police beat him and called him a dirty black in another British rag and no defamation charge for him. That article is still in print and has not been corrected. No defamation charge for him. Interesting.
Click to expand...

I doubt Lumumba has any money to pay off a lawsuit. His bar went belly up after the police kept it closed for months as a "crime scene".
 
Lothian said:
In the UK it is covered by Tort. Someone may correct me. I understand tort does not need to be specifically legislated, but nevertheless it acts as a law and I too can be sued if someone slips on my steps even though their is no specific written law relating to step maintenance.

However we are getting away from the point which I understand is that this case could happen in America albeit there would be a high burden on the police.
Click to expand...


The distinction is between common law and statutory law. Slip and fall and most other personal injury civil cases fall under the law of negligence, which may be subject to statutory alterations in various jurisdictions but which is at its core a common-law concept. "Breaking laws" isn't a very precise way to talk about it because even if there isn't a specific statute to cite, everyone has a general legal obligation to avoid causing harm to others through negligence, and can be sued for civil damages in the event that they breach that obligation.
 
Kestrel said:
I doubt Lumumba has any money to pay off a lawsuit. His bar went belly up after the police kept it closed for months as a "crime scene".
Click to expand...

The parents are also being charged criminally according to the reports I read. We have been spoon fed the fallacy that prosecutors have no discretion in Italy to bring charges if it's even a possibility that a crime has occurred. Yet, there is the article with Lumumba's accusation against the police, still in print for all the world to see. His is a first hand account too---not removed like Knox's parents.

It's really funny, these defamation charges. If you can't infer the great possibility of corruption in the police force from petty **** like this, you're wearing blinders.
 
Last edited:
Even if their comments weren't probably true- which common sense should tell us they are- it's somewhat frightening to think the state would be so vindictive and repressive as to go after parents who were doing nothing more than what any decent parent would have done under the same circumstances.
 
Last edited:
BobTheDonkey said:
....

While I do understand the argument that the parents shouldn't necessarily be accused of libel/defamatory speech when/if quoting their daughter - there's a point where the parents are making the accusations themselves and hiding behind "well, she said it first". IANAL, but IMO, that is not a sufficient defense.

....
Click to expand...

This point should be seared into the flesh of those thinking the lawsuit frivolous or "un-American". The news reports have indicated only the John Follain article as the source of all the problems now faced by Amanda's biological parents but this is clearly not the case. They embarked on a vigorous and international campaign intended only to discredit the professionalism of the Perugian police.

Then, after they were caught doing this, they retreated to what they apparently thought was a safe position and just blamed the whole thing on Amanda. "She told us this; she told us that."

It is indeed a very special kind of person who is caught red-handed and directly implicates their children in their own malfeasance.
 
Haha, "caught red-handed" were they? Gee, and after they'd done so much to keep their comments from the public view. Who knew there was actually film in those cameras, and tape in those recorders? NOW you tell them!

It takes a special kind of person to blame a parent for believing in and trying to defend their children.

p.s. Let's leave the flesh searing to various cult initiation rites, shall we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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