Who Owns My Name?
amandamarieknox.medium.com
amandamarieknox.medium.com
It’s clear that the filmmakers have no legal obligation to Knox (and she acknowledges as much in the article), but I think it is equally clear that they have a moral obligation to not slander her using a thinly veiled fictional character.
It’s a shame too, because the real “Amanda Knox saga” would make for a much more interesting movie: what is it like to have your roomate murdered, your life destroyed, and your identity robbed from you by the global tabloid press? That’s the real Amanda Knox story.
I think you and she are being generous. Amanda 'jokingly' floats the idea of defaming and slandering Matt Damon under the guise of fictionalization. She makes an excellent point-- Matt wouldn't put up with that. The only plausible distinction he can make is that his movie is not a gross distortion of the moral character of a living person, which seems like the sort of thing courts can and do sort between litigants who cannot agree.
But it seems like Matt Damon would have to put up with it. What could Matt realistically do? Filing a lawsuit would probably go nowhere. See the informal "small penis" rule by fiction writers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_penis_rule
The 2010 film "The Social Network" didn't even bother with fictionalized names and made Mark Zuckerberg look bad but he didn't sue. One legal opinion thinks MZ didn't have an easy case of defamation which would make the lawsuit a waste of time: https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/07/articles/the-law/...
The biggest problem, to me, was suggesting that Mark basically stole the concept from the Winklevoss twins. The book traces the origins of the idea and clarifies the context. Things like: there are many other similar social networks, a boy at Mark's previous school had created and shared a "Facebook" project, the Harvard school newspaper was explicitly calling for the creation of a school wide Facebook (and that call inspired Mark to try and create one first), etc. It's less like he stole the idea from the Winklevoss twins and more like the idea was out there in many ways. What he did to the Winklevoss twins was tell them he was working on their project while working on his own intentionally trying to derail them.
I don't think the film suggests that at all. It says the Winklevoss think this, of course. But it doesn't agree with them.
> What he did to the Winklevoss twins was tell them he was working on their project while working on his own intentionally trying to derail them.
That's also exactly what the movie says. The film is on the Winklevoss's side at all - it makes them look ridiculous for thinking their "innovative" idea is that a harvard.edu address is exclusive. They're douchebags who want to make a website to put on the internet what is already happening at the Finals clubs (buses bringing in hot women to party with harvard legacies).
The part of the film that I thought was the biggest problem was that it framed the whole Facebook project as Mark's way to deal with loneliness. The film starts with him being dumped by Erica. The film ends with him refreshing (pathetically) the pending friend request to her on Facebook.
In reality he had a long term girlfriend when he started developing Facebook and she is now his wife.
Mark maybe a socially awkward human who doesn't quite understand that Facebook has become a weird perversion of actual social interaction, but he is not alone the way the film constantly repeats (Eduardo: "I was your only friend")
When I saw the film I did get the impression that it supported the "Mark stole the idea from Winklevoss twins" narrative. Granted, I saw it years ago and I may be remembering things incorrectly, but that's what I (remember that I) took away from it.
A big concept that I think the movie "gets wrong" (scare quotes because the movie successfully tells an entertaining story and isn't trying to be a faithful history, so the movie isn't exactly wrong, just not reflective of reality) is the focus on the drama with the twins, Saverin, and Mark. The book spends much more time with Facebook design decisions and a broader cast.
The movie's narrower focus on a few main characters and their drama makes it seem like the consequential moments of Facebook's history are things like getting the idea from the Winklevoss twins. The movie thinks more about a spark of an idea - Facebook, whereas the book thinks more about taking a prototype and turning it into a big business. I think the latter is more of what is important about Facebook.
It depicts that he did steal the idea from the Winklevoss brothers. It also painted a picture that he directly conspired with his investors to screw Eduardo Saverin.
I suspect that's all at least partially true, but perhaps not as clear cut as the film shows.
Movies tend to make us identify with the main character, maybe that's why I saw his actions as adequate to the throat-cutting environment.
"I read over all the stuff you sent me re: Harvard Connection and it seems like it shouldn't take too long to implement, so we can talk about it after I get all the basic functionality up tomorrow night."
Where that's happening, in the movie, well before Zuck starts working on "The Facebook". Without any other context that perhaps it wasn't Zuck's first exposure to that kind of idea.
I don't know what Saverin was actually up to in those days (reality vs the fiction of the movie), however the movie clarified that Saverin was taking the subway in New York "12 hours a day" trying to generate advertising sales for Facebook. It notes that he had taken an internship and quit the first day to direct his time in pursuit of trying to garner ad sales for Facebook. Parker insults Saverin about this in the confrontation scene at the Palo Alto house they're renting ("you're just one step away from bagging Snookies Cookies"), and then Saverin clarifies to Zuckerberg in the hallway what he's up to.
The movie makes it appear as if they decided to cut Saverin out of the company because he froze the company accounts out of spite, after Zuckerberg tells Saverin that he needs to move out to California, that he's at risk of being left behind. There's a phone call between Zuckerberg and Saverin (during which Saverin's girlfriend lights something on fire), where an upset Zuckerberg confronts Saverin about freezing the company accounts, where he rants about the risk that it posed to Facebook and its uptime.
Did Saverin actually do that, and did that play a role in why they tried to cut him out of the company? Maybe somebody else here that knows a lot more can chime in.
This story with quoted personal instant messages & emails indicates Saverin began running unauthorized ads on Facebook to promote his own thing and that there was a more elaborate decay in the relationship between the founders:
https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-movie-zuckerberg-im...
If Zuckerberg looks like a shit person, it is because he is a shit person.
I think Aaron Sorkin relishes in making people look really horrible.
(I'm not talking about Damon at all here, I don't know much of anything about him. Just pointing out that lawsuits are far from the only tools available to those with means.)
Why should Zuck care if the movie paints him in a poor light? He is an near-infinitely powerful megabillionaire before the movie, and he is one afterwards. The movie could show him eating babies for an hour and a half and it likely wouldn't budge Facebook's stock price.
If I were to name this theory, I'd call it "The Law of Larry Ellison". Because no matter what you do, you'll never be as hated as Ellison and look how much that has affected him. I don't think he's sailing is megayacht to his giant private Hawaiian island and crying himself to sleep because the world doesn't like him.
Or perhaps it’s really hard to win a defamation case against works of fiction. No matter how much money and power you have.
When there's an unflattering depiction out there of you, bringing more attention to it might be counterproductive, depending on how bad it is.
If you're worried about going to prison, all of a sudden how unflattering you're seen likely becomes secondary to that.
The small penis thing doesn't seem relevant here, and even if so, it's a strategy for making it more difficult to make what would be a valid claim.
If she does, it seems like a bunch of greedy lawyers looking for a big pay day would be willing to take her libel case on contingency which would cost her nothing. If a lawyer is willing to risk a ton of their own firm's money because they're confident of a winning big multi-million dollar judgement from the filmmaker, that would a good signal that Amanda has an excellent case.
Maybe her phone is ringing off the hook with calls from such lawyers but I doubt it because such defamations lawsuits against works of fiction have been historically hard to win.
Another aspect that's made more confusing by the various replies in this thread is that the film's official marketing (trailer, official website, posters) do not mention "Amanda Knox" or even have a tagline of "inspired by a true story". Instead, it's the various news media (such as Vanity Fair magazine article she cited) making the parallels to Amanda Knox.
Yes, the filmmakers may be sly about avoiding the mention of "Amanda Knox" while being fully aware that the media outlets will make that connection in the minds of the public for them.
>The small penis thing doesn't seem relevant here,
To clarify in case the sequence of ideas got lost in the replies... I mentioned the "small penis" informal rule was a strategy for Amanda Knox to hypothetically write a fiction story about someone named "Mack Dorkin not being well-endowed" and the real Matt Damon not pursuing a lawsuit to silence her. It wasn't about "Stillwater"'s filmmakers using that strategy to protect themselves from Amanda Knox.
I had already used the adjective "informal" to describe the so-called "rule" so there was no need to nitpick that it wasn't "legal theory".
In any case, it seems like you didn't carefully read the wikipedia article so your attempted correction is not accurate. You've got your timeline mixed up.
The "small penis rule" was mentioned by journalist Dinitia Smith in 1998 (6 years before Michael Chrichton used it in his 2004 book) in a New York Times article. She was relaying a legal strategy told to her by attorney Leon Friedman.
Excerpt from the NY Times 1998 article:
>Leon Friedman, who was Sir Stephen's American lawyer in his dispute with Mr. Leavitt and who moderated the Authors Guild panel, observed that ''under New York State law, you cannot use a person's name, portrait or picture for purposes of trade without their permission.'' You can, however, use a person's identity if you don't use his name, he added.
>That is, unless you libel them. ''Still, for a fictional portrait to be actionable, it must be so accurate that a reader of the book would have no problem linking the two,'' said Mr. Friedman. Thus, he continued, libel lawyers have what is known as ''the small penis rule.'' One way authors can protect themselves from libel suits is to say that a character has a small penis, Mr. Friedman said. ''Now no male is going to come forward and say, 'That character with a very small penis, 'That's me!' ''
welllllll.
Besides, there is a higher level of protection from libel in the US as a private person vs a public figure.
Making a movie "based on the Amanda Knox story" and then implying she was involved in the murder is not clearly satirical. Comment higher up says she doesn't have a case, but I honestly don't understand how this wouldn't be libel/slander.
Joe Ross : Why?
Jimmy Dell : To suppress their guilt.
- The Spanish Prisoner
I think I will have to fact check on this when I have time. Seems to be off to me as the numbers and scale dont make much sense.
I might be confused but isn't that the exact plot of the movie she is referencing?
"On 27 March 2015, Italy's highest court, the Court of Cassation, ruled that Knox and Sollecito were innocent of murder, thereby definitively ending the case. Rather than merely declaring that there were errors in the earlier court cases or that there was insufficient evidence to convict, the court ruled that Knox and Sollecito had not committed the murder and were innocent of those charges..."
What are the themes of this new movie, then, if not those?
It falsely implies that Amanda is partially guilty for one (from the article):
> McCarthy told Vanity Fair that “Stillwater’s ending was inspired not by the outcome of Knox’s case, but by the demands of the script he and his collaborators had created.” Cool, so I wonder, is the character based on me actually innocent?
> Turns out, she asked the killer to help her get rid of her roommate. She didn’t mean for him to kill her, but her request indirectly led to the murder. How do you think that impacts my reputation?
“..is the character based on me actually innocent?
Turns out, she asked the killer to help her get rid of her roommate. She didn’t mean for him to kill her, but her request indirectly led to the murder. How do you think that impacts my reputation? I continue to be accused of “knowing something I’m not revealing,” of “having been involved somehow, even if I didn’t plunge the knife.” So Tom McCarthy’s fictionalized version of me is just the tabloid conspiracy guilter version of me.”
Spoiler tweet: https://twitter.com/amandaknox/status/1420872227277262852?s=...
It seems like she got judged massively simply because she was/ is a very attractive woman; media who are under instruction to capitalise on attractive females[0] had no qualms about doing so in her case either.
It's all up pretty disgusting and I'm extremely disappointed with Matt Damon for getting involved with this movie _now_ - reopening all those wounds yet again - without even checking in with her.
[0] There's evidence of this in Kevin Rudd's Royal Commission on Murdoch in Australia - https://youtu.be/X68NVLPVzuI
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-knox-court/european...
Thank you
But I don't think she has a choice. In the past, it would've been possible for someone in her shoes to choose obscurity. In the past, the real Amanda Knox and the idea of Amanda Knox that exists in the collective unconscious of the media and media consumers would've drifted apart. Now, it's hard to imagine how that could happen. Even if she invented a new identity and moved to a small town in Alaska (which would be a new kind of prison sentence in some ways), it'd be newsworthy.
Not to pick on you, but why would you reflexively think her to be exaggerating about being called a media whore? People do that with literally everyone whose public complaints become a news story. And what motive would Amanda Knox have in particular? She was labeled an actual whore for the many years when the case was still in active prosecution.
Source? I remember it being on TV and don’t remember allegations of prostitution.
Corriere della Sera, which is probably the most prestigious Italian newspaper, published this: https://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_25/amanda_cacci... ("Amanda just wanted sex"/Former partner Elis Prenga: «A hunter of men»./Lumumba: "She made sexual advances to customers").
This played into the Italian stereotype of American women, which are supposedly more sexually active than they are supposed to be, and so immoral but also easier to pick up than local women.
Of course, not everyone has the background to be able to smoothly pull that off.
Don’t underestimate how little foreigners matter to others - I suppose that goes both ways!
Is that really what a person should be forced to do in this circumstance?
Perhaps you have better solutions, in which case I’d encourage you to share them - you might save a life.
I sort of disagree though that someone like her couldn't drop out of the public eye if she wanted to. There are tradeoffs to be sure but it seems pretty possible.
10 years later most people have forgotten about Amanda Knox and what she looks like. And if someone goes "Are you Amanda Knox?" you laugh and say you get that a lot.
Again, this isn't disappearing from say law enforcement. But it's avoiding authors, reporters, "fans" of the case, from reaching out.
0) choose a new name with a common first name and a common last name in a combination with many existing people, but preferably no particularly notable celebrities. If your first name is already common, great. Start using that name in situations where you don't need to prove identity (this establishes a common law name change)
a) research name change laws in the 50 states and the territories to determine which states don't require publication or allow for a confidential name change in the relevant circumstances.
b) reside in a state chosen from that list for at least the minimum time
c) go through the procedure to change your legal name to your (new) common law name
d) establish a residency somewhere else
e) open new bank etc accounts in your new legal name and close out old ones
f) if your old name comes up again, say "yeah, people always asked me if I was the famous X, and I didn't want to deal with it"
Maybe cultivate a new style as well.
Some countries recognize a "right to be forgotten". This is a good example of where such laws can help. She doesn't currently have a choice because many Western countries don't recognize this right. This is something that could change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten#Current_...
You clearly mean worse based on your previous sentence. Mind shedding some light on those "differences" for the uninitiated?
(Also the real killer got a 1/3rd automatic reduction by accepting summary judgment instead of a full trial).
I find it interesting that they mentioned she was convicted twice in a paragraph about her legal status, with the acquitted and exonerated part relegated to a parenthetical. And to have a plug for the movie.
In that film they portray the NTSB investigators as trying to paint the pilot in a bad light during the investigation. According to the folks involved in the investigation, including the pilot, this never happened.
These are real people, they don't have the reach or voice of a movie, what happens when someone decides to portray them unfairly?
Legally I don't think there's anything to be done, there would be too many bizarre second order effects if you simply couldn't portray someone without their permission. At the same time it seems morally questionable to not involve them, specifically if their voice is so much smaller than the medium.
I'd say that's more of a conspiracy theory realm than artistic liberties realm.
"Artistic license" in historical dramas feels very Orwellian to me.
Blood on the Blackboard: The Bart Simpson Story
You don’t have blockbusters fictionalizing “the Trump saga” where he sells state secrets to Putin. Or Ruppert Murdock “Godfather” style fictional drama. Perhaps once they’re long dead, but surely not before.
It’s the Amanda Knox of the world that get the “let’s milk this while it’s fresh” treatment.
> Succession follows the Roy family, owners of media conglomerate Waystar RoyCo.
Is it based kn a true story, and does it officially name any real world character as its inspiration ?
To be clear I totally encourage creators to protect themselves and their art. I also wish they took the same care to protect their subjects when they’re in the opposite position of power.
I'm not convinced people see it that way, and as far as the director, he seemed to think his 'entertainment' was in fact accurate, or at least said so / was incentivized to do so.
Meanwhile the people who are depicted, you likely wont ever hear from.
I sat close enough to hear our teacher being interviewed, so it came as a shock when I later read the newspaper and saw my teacher being quoted as having said the exact opposite of what she actually said. And this was in one of the top three newspapers in our country.
This is just Hollywood trying to add drama for the sake of making the story more "interesting". Little thought is given to potential collateral damage to truth. All protected under the umbrella comment "based on true events".
It's strange to think that fictional characters often have more protection and control over the use of their name than real people.
Not to mention, your name is not unique. I know of at least 2 other people in the US with the same first and last name as me.
That's a separate and interesting discussion itself, IMO. On the one hand, how do you have sympathy for someone who does what he did? On the other hand, do we not believe in rehabilitation, redemption, or anything like that? It is getting easier to believe that the mania over Brock Turner has led to a disproportionate response. And to go against the mob is to risk becoming a pariah yourself. When the mob is the size of the Internet, this seems pretty scary.
Arguably the biggest argument in support of the justice system failing in this case is that it did not deter this kind of vigilante attitude; that is an important part of why the system exists in the first place.
If Brock Turner had a trademark, he could use it to block Brock Turner: The Movie, but not us on this forum talking about Brock Turner, convicted rapist.
Other countries don't allow as much of that as the U.S. does, like the U.K. for example [0]:
> "English laws are much more favorable for someone looking to protect their reputation," says Jenny Afia, a lawyer in London who often represents people making libel and privacy claims.
> In American courts, the burden of proof rests with the person who brings a claim of libel. In British courts, the author or journalist has the burden of proof, and typically loses.
> "So you've got the rich and powerful shutting down and chilling speech which is critical of them," says Stephens.
[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...
Otherwise we quickly approach a world where we can be sued for negative product or service reviews.
In the U.K. it is. You can publish the truth, and you can publish your opinion. You can't publish lies.
For someone to sue you in the U.K. they need to prove loss, and there are two defences for libel - the truth, and what the solicitors call "fair comment". You can say that your experience of XXX was poor. You can't say XXX is an idiot.
> Otherwise we quickly approach a world where we can be sued for negative product or service reviews.
I grant that is a definitely problem. This gets talked about in the U.K. I can't say I've heard about it as much in the U.S., and to be frank I am a little surprised, as often those with money use the courts to get bully people. Just brainstorming, but maybe that's a big chunk of the problem?
But I can't help thinking about how much the internet has changed everything. Our laws were designed when people actually interacted with each other face to face and there were a handful of printing presses per town. Now everyone has a worldwide printing press in their pocket, and it's all archived on the wayback machine, etc. High stakes stuff, especially if you get on the wrong side of it. Anybody can be arrested, or have the bad luck to be harassed, and that follows you for years on the internet, looking for dates, looking for work, apartments, people at church, your kids friends, etc.
Maybe we could discuss not only what constitutes libel and the burden of proof, but also where we draw the line on private vs public speech. You can say anything to your family and friends in your house, but maybe you shouldn't be allowed to post lies to the global internet. Maybe those are the rules while talking about a normal person who doesn't have a national or global internet presence, but the rules are different talking about a large company who does. Maybe publications are held to higher standards than individuals - they can play by the rules or don't play. Maybe something like dcma take-down notices for libel, so nobody is surprised with a lawsuit. These are just some ideas, more brainstorming.
Admittedly I don't know the judicial history behind lies being defended as free speech in the U.S., but it seems to me there are some interesting things to think about here.
Changing someone's name just a bit or creating fictional characters you can copyright that everyone knows is a substitution or can find the substitution if they're interested in linking the fictional depiction to the real depiction is just a loophole around slander and libel, which the author points out with Damien Matthews or whatever in the example. Completely legal and now you have artistic freedom to reshape the story however you want. The person with the most resources to fight legally typically wind here.
Throwing some disclaimer line in like "this is no based on actual people or events" or whatever seems to give far too much of a liability waiver. It's really just plain wrong and the author makes a great point about naming an event and agency. Branding is very powerful and can create subconscious links that otherwise shouldn't exist. Naming is a bit tricky though because you often pick an easy memorable name to associate with something. Naming sort of act like a hash map with collision handling in my brain.
When I see Bill Clinton's name or "Clinton" a whole slew of thoughts and memories link to that name or phrase and it can be difficult to determine what someone says. When you say Monica Lewenski's name on the other hand, she acts as a memorable unique identifier to the event, unfairly to her. I know exactly what you're talking about and I know about Bill, power differentials at play, and so on but the name needs to be unique and memorable in language. As the author points out, this naming convenience comes at a cost to those who might get improper associations for responsibility, so it's complicated. I think we should strive for branding that leaves out names where possible. Watergate seems like a great branding job, I immediately know it's Nixon and it doesn't dissolve him of any responsibility. Should the facts change and I read about Watergate later, say it was Deepthroat actually responsible somehow, the name Watergate name still exists and associations of responsibility in the future can change. Abstract your branding to avoid finger pointing.
> "English laws are much more favorable for someone looking to protect their reputation," says Jenny Afia, a lawyer in London who often represents people making libel and privacy claims.
> In American courts, the burden of proof rests with the person who brings a claim of libel. In British courts, the author or journalist has the burden of proof, and typically loses.
> "So you've got the rich and powerful shutting down and chilling speech which is critical of them," says Stephens.
[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...
That doesn’t make it right or excuse the dreadful treatment though. I can’t see how using her name to promote the film isn’t slanderous/libellous.
Maybe sometimes, but Knox's name makes up the vast majority of headlines. Here are just three major UK publications, and see how little Kercher is mentioned in her own search results...
The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/meredith-kercher
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/meredithkercher
The Metro: https://metro.co.uk/tag/meredith-kercher/
That must be very hard for Amanda to deal with, her article was surprisingly calm despite the many reasons to be angry about this continued media hype.
But those articles seem to prove my point - the stories with 'Amanda Knox' in the heading are about Amanda Knox not Meredith Kercher, her murder, or her murderer. The articles in the UK about the Meredith Kercher case don't refer to her has Amanda Knox roommate.
> This new film by director Tom McCarthy, starring Matt Damon, is “loosely based” or “directly inspired by” the “Amanda Knox saga,” as Vanity Fair put it in a for-profit article promoting a for-profit film, neither of which I am affiliated with
There is clearly precedence for this type of lawsuit because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclai...
In the end, you're right. It's a sad story, but she doesn't appear to have legal protection from libel law. The filmmakers should probably be ashamed of themselves, but you don't make a Matt Damon movie without a go-ahead from some high-priced lawyers who know they're in the clear from a liability standpoint. Though, ethics perhaps weren't considered...
You might own your likeness, but you don't own your life story.
I also suspect Dreamworks' lawyers would have briefed the director on what he could and couldn't say in an interview if there was any danger of them getting sued.
That dude, Patrick Lumumba, lost his bar and eventually moved to Poland. He was unhappy about the whole thing since he was only her employer.
She got 3 years for slandering him but says she was pressured into it.
Bloody hell. That’s a warning to not talk during an investigation. Looks like they were going to pin something on her.
That's assuming the authorities respect your right to do so. It's not even that clear cut a right in England for example, in that there are cases where not talking to the police can be held against you. Also while the right to an attorney and against self-incrimination is enshrined in the European declaration of Human Rights and enforced by the ECHR, it took dozens of that court's decisions for France to start implementing it in earnest. I don't know about the situation in Italy in that respect but their justice system is usually a fucking mess, like their bridges.
How many of the myths that I believe in, and interpret the world by, have been distorted by market forces? It's a really scary question if I'm honest.
Because, hypothetical thought experiment here:
---
Let's say Tom McCarthy had the idea for a screenplay while watching the Amanda Knox trial. He doesn't know, at that point, whether she is guilty or innocent, and it really doesn't matter—the case is just inspiration for a fictional story, which can play out however the author wishes.
So he makes that movie, and it's in production, and one day in an interview a reporter asks "Where did you get the idea for this movie?" Maybe they even ask "This story seems kind of similar to the Amanda Knox case, was that an inspiration?"
At this point, does Tom McCarthy need to lie, or decline to answer? Should he not be allowed to share his creative process with the world?
Or, perhaps he just never should have made the movie in the first place... but that seems wrong, doesn't it? Creatives get inspiration from all sorts of odd places, and I don't want to limit them!
---
Again, I have no idea if the real situation played out like this at all, and in fact, I'm just going to guess that it was far more egregious. But it's what I was thinking about when reading this piece.
I thing the point of this article is no, that's not wrong. The story was clearly based on Amanda Knox, and making this movie perpetuates the harm that has been done to her. This isn't an exercise of creative freedom, it's an exploitive cash grab.
So there is a lot in what you are saying.
They have not shut the idea down though, because they know it means a lot of money. Just like the people asking know it means money for their ratings.
Amanda Knox has made them a lot of money with this article which has blown it up more.
She has also gotten her blog out and now I'm listening to her podcast. It's her only way to profit on all this.
The movie maker is not in wrong. The movie is about a violent Dad as far as I can see. It's the media who's been here the whole time.
Who had the power in the relationship between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? The president or the intern? It matters what you call a thing. Calling that event the “Lewinsky Scandal” fails to acknowledge the vast power differential, and I’m glad that more people are now referring to it as “the Clinton Affair” which names it after the person with the most agency in that series of events.
There are multiple Clinton affairs and multiple scandals so any headline using those terms wouldn’t make sense. “Clinton/Lewinsky Scandal” would make more sense and be clear.
"she was his intern" does not mean "was abused".
"he was the President" does not mean "was abused".
"he shouldn't have done it given his position of power over her future" does not mean "was abused".
If you have a specific claim as to why you think Lewinsky was abused, perhaps you should state that claim. (Of course, you don't actually have one.)
Morally, it is fairly unambiguous. If the unmarried partner knew they were banging a married person, they are just as responsible.
Perhaps that's your moral view, but it does not represent everyone else's morals, so I don't know why you're claiming it to be "unambiguous". There's plenty of people who would say that the unmarried person in an affair shares less of the blame than the married person in the affair. For starters, the married person breaks a contract, whereas the unmarried person does not have a contract to break.
Yes, I'm sure you can find at least one person who doesn't agree. Maybe yourself. But how much do you want to bet that if you asked this question to 100 people, better than 90 of them would agree?
> For starters, the married person breaks a contract, whereas the unmarried person does not have a contract to break
I said moral, not legal. A few people only define right & wrong based on what they can legally get away with, I understand.
I would guess that more than 50 of those 100 people would agree with me that the married person shares more of the blame than the unmarried person.
Anyway, even if you're somehow better than me at guessing what other people think about moral questions, to the point where so much as 90% of people agree with you on this one, is that "unambiguous" in your mind? I would think "unambiguous" is something like 99,99% or more.
> I said moral, not legal.
I was also referring to a moral contract, not a legal one. Most people who are in a marriage have an agreement between each other that they shall not mess with other people (not a legally enforceable contract, but an agreement nonetheless). If you dedicate yourself to one person, and then you go and betray them behind their back, you're breaking a certain moral code. That's my opinion. If you think that the married and the unmarried person share equal blame, I guess you don't see anything wrong with breaking that contract? If committing adultery is just as bad as committing adultery PLUS breaking a contract, then clearly in your mind breaking a contract is not bad?
Usually, when there's a fictionalized novel/film based on a real world person (well, outside of someone really famous like JFK), it's usually obvious to everyone and all the reviews will mention it but the work will often explicitly disclaim any connection to actual people and events. Not much anyone can or should be able to do about that.
I think Mitnick ultimately sued and got a settlement of some sort, FWIW.
I wonder if the news outlets doing paid promotions using her name will ever respond with an apology, or a follow up post.
There are very few similarities in their cases other than the fact that they were both tried for Murder.
- OJ was never convicted, he was acquitted outright. Amanda Knox was convicted. And only acquitted after appeals 4 years later.
- OJ did not get charged in a foreign country, in which local police and courts failed to provide due process. In fact, he received arguably the best legal defense in the country.
- OJ released a book afterwards - "if I DID IT: Confessions of the Killer" describing the murder in great detail. I mean, you've seen the book cover, right? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4f/If_I_di...
I'm really stumped by this comment. OJ got off, and essentially bragged about it. How is there any similarity here?
> why should rhetoric (or looks) be the determining factor when it comes to public empathy? #metoo and #blacklivesmatter both happened but I'm yet to see black people being judged less harshly and trusted by the public.
I think you're massively conflating these two topics. There's a real discussion to be had on race dynamics and conflict in relation to public sentiment, but it's a real stretch to say that's at play here unless you have a better example than OJ.
They get all the profits of the book, and crucially they chose the book cover and the font selection.
OJ as far as I know never bragged about getting away with murder, though I will grant the book concept is incredibly poor taste even if he was innocent.
https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights
(But since that Israeli company is selling iPhone hacking kits, locks probably don't matter anymore.)
People use words. People talk about events and other people. It's part of being alive.
Imagine if you wrote randomly to Amanda Knox vs. some other non well known person. Generally you would not expect to get a reply from Amanda (who probably has all sorts or randos and non randos (ie random person) reaching out) but a well written letter to a non famous (or notorious) person you'd probably get a reply.
Nobody owes her anything just like she is not obligated to anyone as similar to the rest of us. She doesn't get any special courtesy because of what happened to her just another regular person at this point.
This reminds me of how a good looking man or women often is. They reject people all the time but when they get rejected they get all indignant that they were not treated with respect.
Your name refers to, not your identity (whatever that is), but the idea of you in the heads of other people.
She believes it’s unfair because powerful people are able shape hers. I suppose the alternative is to have our reputation determined by unbiased Facebook factcheckers.
In this case, the name of a person is used to refer to the events which happened to that person and the related media circus. Is this confusing to anybody? No.
Either way, if Amanda had had a trademark on her name, she could have sued, I suppose.
I'm not keen on the idea of trademarking ones own name though. I don't envisage many poor people bringing suit for wrongful use of their name. It would be used by rich people to intimidate reporters, and we'd all end up worse-informed.
I think Amanda's complaint about the film and its promotion are valid, and I definitely think she should have been involved in the production. I think the producers should immediately start negotiating compensation with her, as a matter of goodwill.
Are they? As I understand it, the name was not used in marketing, only mentioned once in an interview about where the story inspiration came from.
Basically you’re just an unpronounceable identity. Other people give you names. Different people call you different things.
After all, when you’re born, you’re just given a name.
I'm surprised to read her name for the second time in two weeks, now even here on hn.
Just a week ago, out of the blue, even if people had rightfully forgotten her...
https://twitter.com/amandaknox/status/1418628570453200897
She has all the rights to tweet everything she wants, but that's not the best way to go under the radar.
I'm convinced that, when there's the will, the world is big enough for anyone to disappear and get a new life.
It's one of the points of the article. You really, really should take that into account before saying something like
> I'm convinced that, when there's the will, the world is big enough for anyone to disappear and get a new life.
and blame her tweets for the attention she gets.
But let's get back to why for me is a lost battle. Look at the replies under her tweet, most people outside the US have made up in their minds a clear idea of what she is, she's guilty, they condemn her, no matter what the final sentence stated. I respect the sentence and consider her a victim too. But life is too short to try to change people's minds, or to fight against a movie "loosely based" on your tragic past. Maybe people wouldn't even noticed the correlation with her case (but again, I haven't seen the movie, I don't know how much evident is). I'm sure it's hard to live with those memories, but she has the means for a complete exit from the scene, people will forget, and a movie based on your life won't be profitable anymore.
Assuming she wants to. She seems to want to try and profit from this as much as she can.
As such her behaviour, is complicated. Which is how all this happened.
It's unfair you're downvoted because without saying this, for her to joke about the death of her flatmate on Twitter is as immoral as what she is accusing others of.
She benefitted from the media attention to make money for herself and she is now publishing an essay she was not asked to do in which she tries to make many moral "who is the victim" points (of course claiming she is the victim).
You could argue she should have been granted anonymity but I cannot see her as a helpless victim.
From the Economist:
https://www.economist.com/europe/2015/03/28/innocente
> The Court of Cassation in Rome found Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito not guilty on the grounds that they had “not committed the act”. Italian law recognises different levels of acquittal; this is the most categorical.
Exactly. And yet she was treated as one by the media and justice system. She even spent time in prison for it. Even though there was no proof she did it.
> nor that she was innocent
There's no proof that you're innocent either, maybe you did it and should spend a few years in prison until later acquitted? Absence of proof of innocence does NOT imply guilt.
> of course claiming she is the victim
She was a victim. Not the same as the murder victim, but she got her reputation ruined, had her family go into debt trying to pay legal fees and SPENT YEARS IN PRISON. For something that there was no evidence she did, was evidence someone else did (who by the way got less time than she got, before she was acquitted), and for which she was eventually found innocent of and acquitted for.
Maybe develop some empathy.
So? Is that a bad thing?