Two Italian Journos Jailed & Fined for Criminal Libel

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)A reporter and an editor for Alto Adige, an Italian newspaper published in Bolzano in south Tyrol, were slapped with a four-month jail sentence and fined 15,000 euros ($18, 441) for criminal libel based on a 2008 article that defamed a Bolzano provincial counselor, The Guardian reports.

Orfeo Donatini, who wrote the article, and his editor, Tiziano Marson, were convicted of criminal libel for alleging that Sven Knoll attended a neo-Nazi summit four years ago. Alto Adige based its article on a police report that also was the subject of an article in the nationwide daily L'Espresso, according to the Guardian article.

After an initial acquittal, the matter was reviewed and the defendants were found guilty by a Bolzano tribunal. A London-based human rights group, eager to challenge Italy's criminal libel penal code provisions, has taken up the cudgel on the journalists' behalf

Criminal Libel's 'Rockie' Future in Colorado

Image via Wikipedia

Politics makes for strange bedfellows as a  Colorado Republican legislator, backed by the ACLU and the state's press association, has filed a bill to eliminate the offense of criminal libel, a class 6 felony.

The Associated Press reports that Sen. Greg Brophy, who represents the Eastern Plains, wants to repeal the 19th century law that has been applied seven times over the past two years, including against Howling Pig editor Thomas Mink (see "TUOL" posts 12/15/11, 6/6/11 & 7/22/10). Critics argue the law suppresses First Amendment freedom of speech as it subjects individuals who broadcast or publish defamatory comments about another to up to 18 months in the hoosegow and a maximum $100,000 fine for a first offense.

Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18-13-105: "A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel."

The Colorado Press Association and the ACLU support Brophy's repeal effort, while the state's District Attorney's  Council has remained neutral, according to the AP account. Brophy is quoted in the wire service story as saying: “I think it tramples on the First Amendment rights of people to write and/or post online things that they want to post, and so I’m just seeking to strike the statute. Pretty plain and simple.”

UPDATE: Howling Pig Quieted by $425k Payout

Image via WikipediaFormer Univ. of Northern Colorado student Thomas Mink is $425,000 richer this week, the ACLU reports, following settlement of his 2004 claim based on a former Weld County Deputy District Attorney's approval of a search warrant of his home in connection with a criminal libel suit against The Howling Pig, an online publication of which he was the publisher (see "TUOL" posts 6/6/11, 7/22/10).

In Thomas Mink v. Susan Knox, a Deputy District Attorney Working for the 19th Judicial District Attorney's Office in Her Individual Capacity (Case No. 04-cv-00023) the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado found for Mink in his action under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by an illegal search and seizure of his home computer and written materials arising from a criminal libel probe based on comments about a professor that appeared in The Howling Pig. The Associated Press reported that Knox is no longer with the Weld County DA's office.

Trio of Italian Journalists Jailed for Criminal Libel

Image via WikipediaTwo reporters for Il Centro, an Italian daily newspaper, and the paper's former editor, were convicted of criminal libel and jailed, according to the International Press Institute (IPI).

Walter Nerone and Claudio Lattanzio each received one-year jail terms, and former editor Luigi Vicinanza eight months in jail after a court in Chieti, Italy, found the three men defamed Franco La Civita, the former Mayor of  Sulmona, by writing in 2007 that he allegedly was being investigated concerning purported overseas bank accounts in his name. The court considered the allegations unfounded and further ordered the journalists to compensate La Civita 12,000 euros ($17,253).

Journalism organizations, including the Italian National Press Federation and the Journalists' Syndicate in Abruzzo,  were quick to condemn the "chilling effect" on free speech by the jailing of the reporters.

International Court Comes to the Rescue of UK Journalists

Image via WikipediaThe always informative Web site for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (www.rcfp.org) reported last week on a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (MGN, Ltd. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 39401/04) that will shield journalists and bloggers in the U.K. who lose invasion of privacy or libel suits from onerous "success fees."

The  international court found the imposition of solicitor fees and court costs on unsuccessful media defendants a violation of their civil and political rights.  The underlying lawsuit involved volatile supermodel Naomi Campbell, who successfully sued Daily Mirror publisher MGN, Ltd. for breach of confidentiality under the Data Protection Act of 1998. Although Campbell's damages were only 3500 pounds ($5,597)--more than the combined weight of 35 supermodels--the media defendant was assessed "success fees" totaling 1.1 million pounds ($1.7 million).

The European Court of Human Rights found the assessment disproportionate to the damages suffered by the plaintiff and an attempt to stifle freedom of expression pursuant to Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights. The ruling may effect England's use of conditional fee agreements, which similiar to their U.S. counterpart, contingent fee agreements, enable libel plaintiffs to secure counsel willing to operate under the no-win, no-fee arrangement.

10th Circuit: Student Journo's Illegal Search Suit Against Deputy DA May Proceed

Image via Wikipedia

In a 30-page decision this week, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the trial court decision in Thomas Mink v. Susan Knox (Case No. 08-1250), holding that a former Deputy District Attorney's qualified immunity privilege did not protect her from being sued personally regarding an improper search of a student journalist's home.

Grounded on a criminal libel law claim brought against student journalist Thomas Mink's parody of Univ. of Northern Colorado Prof. Junius Peak that appeared in the Howling Pig student newspaper, Greeley, Colo., police obtained a warrant and searched Mink's home. The appellate court ruled the search violated Mink's First Amendment rights, and asserted that authorities should have known it did so.

According to the 10th Circuit decision, Knox did not personally have to participate in the abridging of Mink's civil rights to face exposure to liability, but that an "affirmative link" between the deprivation of Mink's rights and Knox's exercise of control or discretion was sufficient. The ACLU took up the cudgel, representing Mink as a means of challenging the state's criminal libel law.

Scholarly Libel Battle Waged in French Court

Image by unloveablesteve via Flickr

Authors are lovingly protective of their works and have been known to refer to books they pen as their children, but Dr. Karin Calvo-Goller is taking the protective mother cliche to new heights concerning her work, The Trial Proceedings of the International Criminal Court: ICTY and ICTR Precedents (Brill, 2006), according to a story in The Times Higher Education.

NYU law professor Dr. Joseph Weiler,  editor of the European Journal of International Law, is bearing the brunt of that defensiveness, after he published a negative book review of Dr. Calvo-Goller's work by Prof. Thomas Weigund, dean of the law faculty at the Univ. of Cologne, on Global Law Books, an associated Web site.  Dr. Calvo-Goller, a senior lecturer at the Academic Centre of Law and Business in Israel, demanded that Dr. Weiler remove the uncomplimentary review, which she claimed was defamatory and harmful to her professional reputation and academic promotion, and even provided Dr. Weiler with a positive review of her book.  Dr. Weiler refused to remove Prof. Weigund's unflattering review, but offered the disgruntled author an opportunity to publish a response to Prof. Weigund's review.

Dr. Calvo-Goller has filed a criminal libel complaint against Dr. Weiler in a French court. Dr. Weiler, faced with the substantial cost of defending the action, has asked for "moral and material assistance" from the academic community. He also has invited readers to send him examples of negative book reviews that would make Dr. Weigund's effort look like a lovefest.

The tireless staff at "TUOL" recognizes that when two legal academics go to war in a courtroom, the general public's initial reaction is similar to that of watching a  televised debate of vice-presidential candidates: "Can't they both lose?" Nevertheless, the case at issue, beyond raising issues of academic freedom and Internet free speech, gives "TUOL" the opportunity to offer in contrast, a favorite decision involving battling academics by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Dilworth v. Dudley, (75 F.3d 307 (7th Cir. 1995)).

Prof. Underwood Dudley, who taught mathematics at DePauw University, wrote a book published by the Mathematical Association of America. In the text, Prof. Dudley referred to an article entitled "A Correction in Set Theory," written by engineer William Dilworth. Prof. Dudley was critical of Dilworth's work, calling him a "crank."

Dilworth sued Dudley for defamation.  The appellate court ruled that the term "crank" was not susceptible to a defamatory meaning, and was merely an example of hyperbole.  In other words, Dudley prevailed under the libel defense of fair comment & criticism, which protects the critic provided the negative review doesn't imply the exsitence of undisclosed damaging information that formed the basis for the negative opinion.  As libel involves an action to protect one's reputation against false statements, opinions by their very nature are neither true nor false.

But that's not the reason the devoted crew at "TUOL" loves the Dilworth case.  In its opinion, the 7th Circuit offered examples of statements that could not legally be deemed libelous, including the following statement that "TUOL" has been aching for years to use in a letter, article or legal brief.  Rest assured, dear readers, that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals will protect you against a defamation claim if you call someone a "lazy, stupid, crap-shooting, chicken-stealing idiot."

Time will tell whether the French court concludes that Dr. Calvo-Goller did herself more harm than did the tandem of Drs. Weigund and Weiler.