[HN Gopher] Who Owns My Name? ___________________________________________________________________ Who Owns My Name? Author : Tomte Score : 727 points Date : 2021-07-30 13:09 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (amandamarieknox.medium.com) (TXT) w3m dump (amandamarieknox.medium.com) | spoonjim wrote: | Crazy that she cannot she the bejeezus out of Matt Damon over | this. This is awful. | seriousquestion wrote: | This is one of those cases where the news cycle and court of | public opinion spiraled out of control, never to be corrected. | Imagine how surreal and frustrating that must be? And she makes a | good point about how these things get named: | | 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. | prepend wrote: | I think saying "the Clinton Affair" is not specific enough so | the press calling it "Lewinsky Scandal" is more understandable | and has nothing to do with agency, I think. | | 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. | Alex3917 wrote: | It's named after the one who told other people about the | relationship. That's about as fair as you can get. | iratewizard wrote: | I think the big difference with the Lewinsky scandal is two | things: everyone knows who Clinton is, so "the Clinton Affair" | is not as precise; and Monica Lewinsky was not an innocent | victim. | stjohnswarts wrote: | Lewinsky was abused by a man in power. In a corporate | environment she could have easily sued. If they would have | met in a bar then the situation would have been different. | You are incorrect. | himinlomax wrote: | From what I remember about her (and that was 20 years ago), | it seems to me she wouldn't have necessarily considered | herself abused or victimized without the media and | political circus that followed. | stjohnswarts wrote: | It really doesn't matter what she thought in context of | the situation. The fact remains her boss, the President | of the United States of America, the most powerful person | on the planet, used his position on his employee to get | sex. | iratewizard wrote: | You weren't there. You can barely claim having a 3rd hand | account of the situation. You're a fool who forms strong | opinions around assumptions and political spin. You are | incorrect. | stjohnswarts wrote: | I actually can claim what I said because of the facts of | the case. No one can deny she was his intern, no one can | deny that he was the President, no one can deny that he | shouldn't have done it given his position of power over | her future. You are the one who is incorrect. | baobabKoodaa wrote: | You said: "Lewinsky was abused". | | "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.) | xivzgrev wrote: | At least could call it the Clinton Lewinsky affair. Calling | it just the Lewinsky affair puts it all on her. | bahmboo wrote: | What was she guilty of? | dylan604 wrote: | Adultery? History tends to always blame the woman and | shrugs at the man even though it takes two to tango. | horsemans wrote: | Lewinsky has never been married. Clinton was the | adulterer. | rootusrootus wrote: | Depends on who is defining the term, and in case of law, | jurisdiction. Some places define both parties as guilty | of adultery. Some only do so contingent on whether it was | the man that was married, or the woman (e.g. Utah). | | Morally, it is fairly unambiguous. If the unmarried | partner _knew_ they were banging a married person, they | are just as responsible. | baobabKoodaa wrote: | > 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. | golemotron wrote: | This falls into the same category as France asserting control | over the use of the word 'Champagne'. | | People use words. People talk about events and other people. It's | part of being alive. | kube-system wrote: | Not at all the same. Food labelling laws are a consumer | protection. | golemotron wrote: | I'm doing a search now for hospital visits by people who | accidentally drank wine that was mislabeled as champagne. | kube-system wrote: | There are plenty of consumer protections that have nothing | to do with safety. Many countries have origin labelling | requirements for a lot of goods, and they rarely were | predicated on safety. Misrepresentation doesn't have to | physically harm people to be bad. | delusional wrote: | Reading this, I can't help but ponder the role of mass media in | society. How much of our collective worldview is based on | marketability of stories in Hollywood? I don't think the writers | on Stillwater had any intrinsic interest in retelling her story | unfaithfully, but ultimately they are in the business of | modifying the story for maximum market appeal. In this case that | sucks for Amanda. An incorrect version of her story has entered | the public consciousness as myth and I, like Amanda, imagine that | this myth will stop much needed debates about the system that led | her to innocently going to prison. | | 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. | [deleted] | helsinkiandrew wrote: | The reason she's mentioned in US media now and then rather than | the victim and perpetrator is because she's American and the | public will be interested. In the U.K. newspapers talk about | Meredith Kercher. | | 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. | lvs wrote: | No, the reason was that she is very attractive. That sells | advertising. It's as simple as that. Many of the vile things we | complain about in media all come down to the business model. | pajko wrote: | From law's viewpoint, you don't own your face and your | fingerprints. The police can force you to unlock your devices via | face or fingerprint recognition, or can do it itself by force | against your will, but can't force you to unlock via passcode | (which is in your head). | SavantIdiot wrote: | Not quite, it's a little murkier: | | https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights | | (But since that Israeli company is selling iPhone hacking kits, | locks probably don't matter anymore.) | compiler-guy wrote: | Not that simple. From the law's viewpoint you own your car or | house, but there are legal ways of compelling you to do certain | things with it, or even surrendering it. | gpas wrote: | I'm italian and I remember very well the shitshow that followed | the tragedy. When a case has no clear ending, and the press has | already issued its weekly verdicts, noone comes out fully | innocent and in that moment justice has failed. | | 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. | silviot wrote: | I'm confused: are you taking into account the existence of this | movie? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stillwater_(film) | | 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. | [deleted] | GoodJokes wrote: | She has made her whole career about this event. I don't blame | her, but she is now fully in the game too. | ghaff wrote: | Is the direct connection actually explicit in the film somehow? | (e.g. "based on the Amanda Knox saga") My impression, not having | seen the film, is not. | | 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. | teddyh wrote: | The answer to the literal question is simple. Other people use | your name, not you, so the name belongs to other people. Render | unto Caesar, etc. | | Your name refers to, not your identity (whatever that is), but | _the idea of you in the heads of other people_. | pjc50 wrote: | What is Elton John's name and who owns it? | ghaff wrote: | This can actually be a somewhat complicated issue when | businesses are involved. When a family name is trademarked as | part of a business, a different family member can sometimes | be prevented from using their family name in a competing | business, e.g. | https://www.bullyhillvineyards.com/about/heritage | bahmboo wrote: | Reminds me of the artist formerly known as Prince. We need a | Prince symbol emoji. | ectospheno wrote: | I feel like your answer not only ignores the entire premise of | the article but also throws fuel on the power differential fire | discussed within. | tiahura wrote: | He's providing the unavoidable answer that the author feels | is unfair - your reputation doesn't belong to you, it belongs | to everyone else. | | 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. | adjkant wrote: | So are you against all defamation lawsuits? This is more or | less just an extension of that train of thought: people | deserve to not have their reputation ruined unfairly by | powerful structures. There's a big difference between | gossip of people you know and a Hollywood movie. | kortilla wrote: | This movie isn't defamation. It doesn't paint her as a | murderer. | oh_sigh wrote: | It paints her as dreaming of murdering her and asking a | friend to "take care of her" | olah_1 wrote: | This reminds me of identity in Secure-Scuttlebutt. It's my | favorite naming system. | | 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. | cblconfederate wrote: | By that logic trademarks should not exist | teddyh wrote: | Trademarks exist to protect against _consumer confusion_ | (intentional or not), nothing else. | | 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. | elric wrote: | Additionally, trademarked names are made up by the | trademark owner (or by people they pay). Your name is made | up by your parents/guardians, and you generally have no say | in it. | pjc50 wrote: | Your _default_ name is the one you get from your parents, | but there are all sorts of personal or professional | reasons to change it, and it used to be standard for | women to change their names at least once in a lifetime. | smeyer wrote: | I changed my last name when I got married. Does that mean | that I own my last name but not my first name (which has | been unchanged since birth)? | SuperNinKenDo wrote: | Might I suggest you make an actual attempt to wrestle with | the issues the article presents. | denton-scratch wrote: | In this case, the consumer is being confused into thinking | the film is about Amanda Knox, which it isn't (according to | the producer). So the marketing is deceptive, or the | producer is being deceitful. | | 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. | teddyh wrote: | > _In this case, the consumer is being confused into | thinking the film is about Amanda Knox_ | | 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. | moron4hire wrote: | The name of this person is being used to refer to a | fictional story. The events as depicted did not occur. It's | absolutely confusing. | OskarS wrote: | It's a really powerful article, and it's hard to argue with any | of it. What a nightmare it must be to have what happened to | Amanda Knox happen to you. A totally innocent person, who was not | only imprisoned for years for a crime she had nothing to do with, | but also had her name dragged in the mud by the global press for | years. To such an extent that most casual observers still think | she had something to do with the crime. | | 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. | kevinmchugh wrote: | Jimmy Dell : I think you'll find that if what you've done for | them is as valuable as you say it is, if they are indebted to | you morally but not legally, my experience is they will give | you nothing, and they will begin to act cruelly toward you. | | Joe Ross : Why? | | Jimmy Dell : To suppress their guilt. | | - The Spanish Prisoner | Cederfjard wrote: | > 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. | | What are the themes of this new movie, then, if not those? | ukoki wrote: | > 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? | OskarS wrote: | I haven't seen the movie so I have no idea, but I can't but | quote from the article itself: | | _"..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."_ | Cederfjard wrote: | Thanks. I can see now how the tone might appear different, | but it was a genuine question. | [deleted] | danso wrote: | Haven't read the blog post but in her tweet thread last | night, Knox spoils how the movie ends --- and also, based on | the trailer, the movie theme seems to be much more about | American-dad-out-of-America than the media and justice issues | surrounding the real case. | | Spoiler tweet: https://twitter.com/amandaknox/status/14208722 | 27277262852?s=... | sundvor wrote: | To be fair, spoiling the ending of the movie was necessary | to make her case - which also had said side benefit, giving | her the most minor of retributions. | | 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 | Taylor_OD wrote: | There is a quite interesting Amanda Knox documentary that she | was very much involved in making on Netflix. If you want the, | "saga" its worth a watch. | contravariant wrote: | > 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 might be confused but isn't that the exact plot of the movie | she is referencing? | robotresearcher wrote: | Apart from the detail where the real Knox is innocent and the | movie Knotnox conspired with the killer, as the article | explains. | prepend wrote: | The real Knox was acquitted and found not guilty. That's | different from being innocent. | oh_sigh wrote: | No, the Italian Supreme court definitively acquitted them | and explicitly ruled that they were innocent. I'm sure | that doesn't change your viewpoint on anything though. | macintux wrote: | She was explicitly declared innocent by the court system, | not merely "not guilty". | unyttigfjelltol wrote: | >It's clear that the filmmakers have no legal obligation to | Knox (and she acknowledges as much in the article) | | 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. | hprotagonist wrote: | >Matt [Damon] wouldn't put up with that. | | welllllll. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnPWJOJYVKc | nostromo wrote: | How is a silly portrayal at all equivalent to insinuating | someone murdered (or caused the death of) their friend? | | Besides, there is a higher level of protection from libel | in the US as a private person vs a public figure. | oh_sigh wrote: | Matt Damon is good friends with Trey Parker and Matt Stone, | and the only reason they made him like that is because the | doll maker messed up on Damon's doll and he looked like a | dunce. | jasode wrote: | _> 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._ | | 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/... | spoonjim wrote: | Mark Zuckerberg couldn't have sued because the media would | have spun that into a PR disaster for Facebook, and they | already have enough of those. | xofer wrote: | IANAL, but I think she absolutely has a legal case. It | costs a lot of money to make a case "go nowhere" even with | the slightest validity. | | 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. | jasode wrote: | _> IANAL, but I think she absolutely has a legal case._ | | 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. | whall6 wrote: | I laughed out loud reading the small penis wiki | srtjstjsj wrote: | "small penis" was Chrichton making a mean joke, not a legal | theory. | jasode wrote: | _> "small penis" was Chrichton making a mean joke, not a | legal theory._ | | 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!' '' | [deleted] | aenario wrote: | "The social network" does not make Mark Zuckerberg look | bad. He looks like a poor socially inept nerd who got | scammed by Parker, it makes one want to pity him. | jonathankoren wrote: | The film shows how he betrayed and stole Eduardo | Saverin's money. | | If Zuckerberg looks like a shit person, it is because he | is a shit person. | ALittleLight wrote: | I'm currently reading a book called "Facebook The Inside | Story" and while it's definitely an anti-Facebook | perspective it illustrates a number of ways the movie was | unfair to Mark. | | 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. | deanCommie wrote: | > The biggest problem, to me, was suggesting that Mark | basically stole the concept from the Winklevoss twins. | | 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") | ALittleLight wrote: | I agree with you that the film also slights Zuckerberg by | suggesting he has few or no friends and was creating | Facebook over a girl. There are a number of things I | think the film "gets wrong". The removal of Saverin made | a lot more sense to me in reading the Facebook book I | referenced above compared to when I saw the movie - where | it felt much more like betraying a 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. | fnord77 wrote: | everyone looked bad in that movie. | | I think Aaron Sorkin relishes in making people look | really horrible. | ghaff wrote: | Really? I won't say everyone in The West Wing is a saint. | But most everyone on both sides of the aisle comes across | as a lot more idealistic and principled than you're | likely to find in the real Washington DC. | tyingq wrote: | >"The social network" does not make Mark Zuckerberg look | bad | | 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. | narag wrote: | Maybe something was lost in translation, I watched the | movie dubbed to Spanish, but what I remember is that the | Winklevoss tried to exploit Zuckerberg and Saverin was | slacking after the first few months, so Zuckerberg only | responded in a crude but not totally unreasonable | fashion. | | 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. | tyingq wrote: | I meant the sort of timeline that unrolled...you see | things like this excerpt, supposedly an email between | Zuck and the Winklevosses: | | _" 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. | adventured wrote: | > but what I remember is that the Winklevoss tried to | exploit Zuckerberg and Saverin was slacking after the | first few months, so Zuckerberg only responded in a crude | but not totally unreasonable fashion. | | 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... | andi999 wrote: | Couldn't the small penis be considered part of the slander? | _jal wrote: | Money and connections open other options for applying | pressure. For instance, see the alleged behavior of Harvey | Weinstein towards Rose McGowan involving spooks for hire. | | (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.) | Jenk wrote: | And yet Zuck, a billionaire, _didn't_ do anything like | that. | kelnos wrote: | It's possible that he wanted to, but was advised that | making a big deal about it would only draw more attention | and make things worse. | prepend wrote: | So I guess he didn't have enough money and power to open | the right doors? | | Or perhaps it's really hard to win a defamation case | against works of fiction. No matter how much money and | power you have. | Nursie wrote: | It perhaps it doesn't matter and ignoring it is the best | course of action? | kelnos wrote: | Even if you win the case, you've still drawn a lot of | extra unwanted attention to it. | kbenson wrote: | Zuckerberg is, and was, especially after the movie came | out, _much_ more famous than Weinstein, and the | portrayals in question are different. One is | unflattering, the other is attempting to cover a felony. | | 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. | etothepii wrote: | I'd contribute to the Kickstarter. | [deleted] | mmarq wrote: | While Amanda Knox is not guilty of Meredith Kercher's murder, | she is guilty of accusing a random guy of being the murderer. I | think she was sentenced to 2-3 years for this false accusation. | oh_sigh wrote: | You're talking about the one where the European Court of | Human Rights condemned Italy for not giving her a fair trial? | | https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-knox- | court/european... | mmarq wrote: | I didn't know about that, but it doesn't surprise me, given | the shit show Italian courts are. | | Thank you | stjohnswarts wrote: | They really would have done her service if they would have just | left her name out entirely and just said "the movie stands on | its own merit". They could have handled this so much better if | they would have just talked to her from the start rather than | near completion/release of the movie. Particularly in promoting | it. | rchaud wrote: | They could if it was an indie movie. If Matt Damon's | starring, that's an 8-figure sum that's got to be made back | somehow. Marketing costs for movies today are as much as the | film budget itself. | ksec wrote: | >Marketing costs for movies today are as much as the film | budget itself. | | 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. | f38zf5vdt wrote: | "Capitalism" and "moral obligation" are probably mutually | exclusive, e.g. Milton Friedman's "The Social Responsibility of | Business is to Increase its Profits". [1] Friedman would argue | that the movie maker has a social responsibility to its | employees and shareholders, and that bending truth to meet | these obligations would be its moral imperative. | | https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctr... | | edit: To downvoters, I'm not agreeing with the perspective, | just saying that there is one. | robertlagrant wrote: | What's the alternative? Giving the responsibility of resource | allocation to the state? Aren't they the ones who locked her | up, which is the overwhelmingly huge original problem? | | The state locked someone up who it knew was innocent, and | years later a business badly misrepresented that person's | story. Damn it, capitalism! | f38zf5vdt wrote: | Well, if the state recognized the crime of the state and | prohibited the film from being created... then that seems | like a good alternative? | saghm wrote: | There are plenty of ways to make money that don't involve | screwing over innocent people. Maybe I'm a bleeding heart | socialist, but I think the moral imperative to blue ruin | someone's life trumps the one to make a few more dollars. | saghm wrote: | Too late to edit, but "blue" was a phone autocorrection of | "not" | tonystubblebine wrote: | Matt Damon especially has plenty of options to make money. | I can't believe this was even the most lucrative script in | his inbox when he accepted it. | [deleted] | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | > Capitalism" and "moral obligation" are probably mutually | exclusive | | How else are we supposed to read this than something you are | making the case for when you so directly say they are | probably mutually exclusive? | f38zf5vdt wrote: | I was referring to the "moral obligation" not to take | someone's story and make it a different story for the sake | of a profit, which the original poster was referring to as | a "moral obligation". An alternative perspective is the | "moral obligation" to ones employees and shareholders. What | is a "moral obligation" is a matter of perspective. | | I try to avoid a lot of documentaries and "historical" | films because of these conflicting sentiments. Going into | seeing a film, you know that profit, in most cases, is the | end goal. | Y_Y wrote: | I agree that they're mutually exclusive. It's not | necessarily a good thing. I think pretty much all | capitalists, as people, have some sense of moral | obligation. That's not to say that the two concepts | necessarily overlap, or that the world wouldn't be a better | place if they were somehow forced to. I think it isn't | controversial, as a matter of philosophy, to say that | capitalism (as distinct from its observed consequences) is | not connected to morality one way or another, any more than | bubblesort has a moral value. | dnautics wrote: | your statement is contradictory. Two things cannot be | "mutually exclusive" and "not connected". If they are | mutually exclusive, then there must be communication | between the concepts to coordinate the exclusion, the | connection suggested by the word "mutually". | f38zf5vdt wrote: | Aye, perhaps using the word "capitalism" set people off. | In capitalist terms the demand for the product by | consumers justifies the corporation creating the product | for them. It might not be "right" or "wrong", but in this | case, it does seem like people are on the side of it | being morally unjustified despite the profit incentive. | | I guess our capitalist "vote" is simply not paying to see | this film. | mikem170 wrote: | Companies are given a charter to operate and limited | liability by the government, in return for performing a | public good. At least that was how the idea of corporations | came into being. | | Capitalism is an economic system, not a system of government. | Theoretically we can change the any of the rules corporations | operate under through our government, if people cared enough | and/or weren't so distracted with other things. Other | governments hold companies in their jurisdictions to | different standards, like the Chinese, various European | countries, Cambodia, etc. All different. | | The fact that our culture values money more than many other | things, and that we allow corporations and their rich owners | to fund politicians has got us to where we are now. The | establishment is always resistant to change. | dnautics wrote: | they're not mututally exclusive, they're orthogonal. If | people want moral goods, capitalism will (imperfectly) skew | towards providing them. If the people want trash, capitalism | will (imperfectly) skew towards providing trash. | stjohnswarts wrote: | You are correct. They can definitely have an intersection. | Some companies actually do some good in the world AND make | profits. They don't have to be "mutually exclusive" | treeman79 wrote: | The primary good of capitalism is having such huge | efficiencies of resources and manufacturing. | | That we have to keep redefining poor people such that | they can have air conditioning, car, housing, fridge, be | fat as hell, and still be defined as poor. | stjohnswarts wrote: | Not all of us buy into the claims capitalism can do no | wrong and should be turned upon the world with no limits | that some libertarians seem to have. You will never hear | me say capitalism is in essence a bad thing, but like | most concepts it has to have limits. Otherwise you get | fascism, J.P. Morgan, Epstein, etc. | moron4hire wrote: | I disagree that the concept that "Capitalism and moral | obligation are mutually exclusive" is a valid concept to even | consider. They are certainly orthogonal, but do not exclude | each other. | | Capitalism isn't a philosophy for living life, or if it can | be considered as such, it's definitely not a complete one. In | contrast, Communism is a philosophy for life, as it extends | beyond the economic sphere and into the political and social. | | How you organize work and trade is not the complete picture. | The continued assertions that "Capitalism is immoral" as a | valid viewpoint, versus just being ammoral, are part of why | both corporations have been allowed to run amock and why | dangerous philsophies like Communism have been on the rise | again. | tacitusarc wrote: | Given that capitalism is underpinned by the right to own | property, it would seem the more accurate argument is that | this particular immorality stems from an imperfect | capitalism, that is: one with incomplete property rights. It | is not at all obvious to me that capitalism and morality are | in someway orthogonal let alone mutually exclusive. | amadeuspagel wrote: | > That responsibility is to conduct the business in | accordance with their desires, which generally will be to | make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic | rules of the society, both those embodied in law _and those | embodied in ethical custom_. | | Emphasis mine. Surely it's against ethical custom to "bend | the truth", to destroy someone's reputation, framing them as | somehow involved in a murder. | duxup wrote: | I had similar questions when it came to the film Sully. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sully_(film) | | 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. | georgeecollins wrote: | There is a Richard III society, dedicated to rehabilitating the | king after his unfortunate portrayal by Shakespeare. | throwaway81523 wrote: | Antonio Salieri should also get one of those. He was a pretty | good composer in the scheme of things, and there is no | evidence that he ever had anything against Mozart, much less | did anything bad to him. | bravo22 wrote: | I don't know if this is true but I really want it to be. | [deleted] | jfk13 wrote: | http://www.richardiii.net | ghaff wrote: | Pretty much every film based on real people and events takes | liberties in service of narrative flow and drama. Sometimes one | or more of the original parties are involved. Often they're | not. | cwkoss wrote: | I can't stand historical dramas, because I feel like watching | them is likely to make me less informed about the events they | attempt to portray. | | "Artistic license" in historical dramas feels very Orwellian | to me. | makeitdouble wrote: | Except they almost never "punch up". | | 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. | nonameiguess wrote: | You're not aware of Succession? | cwkoss wrote: | Is Succession supposed to be based on a true story? | kevinmchugh wrote: | Citizen Kane | Igelau wrote: | Like GP said: "almost never" | makeitdouble wrote: | It craftly avoids naming the media barrons though. I | completely understand why, but it should be noted. | assface wrote: | > Pretty much every film based on real people and events | takes liberties in service of narrative flow and drama. | | Blood on the Blackboard: The Bart Simpson Story | | https://youtu.be/02-U9fHefPI | input_sh wrote: | It's one thing to take some liberties to draw the plot | forward (like Alan Turing's brother "dying on a ship" in The | Imitation Game), it's a whole other thing to portray someone | that's alive and young as (at least partially) responsible | for a crime they were fully acquitted of. | | I'd say that's more of a conspiracy theory realm than | artistic liberties realm. | neaden wrote: | Well the Imitation Game also erased the work of Polish | codebreakers, falsely made it so Turing knew Cairncross was | a Soviet spy when in real life they probably never even | met, and made Denniston into a villain who wanted to | destroy Turing's life work when in real life they had a | good relationship, made Turing seem like he had Autism, and | made up a plot about Clarke getting recruited by being good | at crossword puzzles when in reality she got the job from | by having excellent references. So I would say there is | plenty to criticize at how it misrepresented people. | dylan604 wrote: | >this never happened. | | 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". | kortilla wrote: | At least that's just entertainment. Journalism frequently | mischaracterizes people and events just to paint a narrative. | ghaff wrote: | Well, and facts aren't always known with certainty (as in | this case) and their interpretation will vary based on who's | interpreting. | magicalhippo wrote: | Fortunately I learned this rather early, as in 6th grade some | journalist came to our classroom to interview our teacher and | us for some story. | | 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. | andi999 wrote: | Probably because of this behavior it was in the top three. | duxup wrote: | >At least that's just entertainment | | 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. | BitwiseFool wrote: | I'd argue that entertainment is much more likely to leave a | lasting impression on people. Storytelling is far more | effective at making people remember something than a well | written article. If you were to quiz people about the life of | Alexander Hamilton I suspect most people would give answers | congruent to the musical and not what actually happened in | the history books. | [deleted] | gist wrote: | Terrible what happened to her but truth is she is a public figure | and has not avoided the limelight either. (Not that that matters | with my argument but will mention). She is fair game for any | creative pursuit (song, movie, book, news article, blog post) and | nobody owes her any courtesy to reach out they can if they want. | | 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. | villgax wrote: | Good luck Mikrowe | sharikous wrote: | Oh please, she was an accused murderer. There was no sure proof | she did it, nor that she was innocent, so she was cleared. | Notably she lied in court several times. | | 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. | dkersten wrote: | > There was no sure proof she did it | | 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. | danso wrote: | > _Oh please, she was an accused murderer. There was no sure | proof she did it, nor that she was innocent, so she was | cleared_ | | 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._ | Twixes wrote: | She was accused of murder, but in the end explicitly cleared by | the Supreme Court as innocent. | duxup wrote: | >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) | | So? Is that a bad thing? | stjohnswarts wrote: | I think some people believe you shouldn't fight back when | you're tried and convicted in the court of public opinion | even if you are proven innocent in actual court. That you | should just roll over and die so their suppositions aren't | challenged. It reflects and extremely weak stance and lack of | confidence in your own take on the situation. | [deleted] | [deleted] | jeezzbo wrote: | A recursive signatory deriving root ID Rights + data use under | control of people directly fixes this.. a process that repeats is | a requirement to prevent second-class process from deriving | system outcomes no longer produced "of, by, for" people, | Individuals All, as root dependency of accurate governance in a | civil Society. Recursive Signatory: | https://www.moxytongue.com/2021/07/recursive-signatory.html | ekster wrote: | This reads like some kind of Sovereign Citizen / Time Cube | babble. | jeezzbo wrote: | Then you didn't read, and/or don't understand recursive | idea.. a process that repeats. CS didn't come into existence | until 1950's, so lack of process integrity for digital | ID/Data Rights shouldn't be surprising, but structure yields | results, not literature. Might want to get out of mass media | rags too.. "Sovereign Citizen" is anarchistic, this is about | structural integrity of a civil Society using accurate | administrative precedence. Functional literacy required.. | research "Self-Sovereign Identity" for more.. | ekster wrote: | Yes I live in the EU where we have SSI, I was more | referring to all the magical and fuzzy thinking surrounding | it on that page. | jeezzbo wrote: | Ah, EU.. SSI is American concept.. recursive signatory is | too, represents data structure "of, by, for" people. | Foreign concepts in EU don't quite translate same in that | admin context. Regardless EU efforts remain in tact, as | Human Rights don't come from database.. thus EU chasing | SSI accuracy. | ekster wrote: | Mmkay | jeezzbo wrote: | Also, no "we" in SSI.. only people, Individuals all. "We" | is a literary concept that doesn't exist in nature, | regardless of legal abstractions, lazy thinking, and data | aggregation. I realize EU brains struggle with that. | mcguire wrote: | Note, from Deadline (): " _UPDATE 7 /30/21: To Clarify Legal | Status Of Amanda Knox. The 2007 case of Amanda Knox, the American | convicted in an Italian court of murdering her roommate (after | being convicted and spending four years in jail Knox was | acquitted and freed in 2011. She was later definitively | exonerated by the Italian Supreme Court Of Cassation in March | 2015), was the impetus for writer-director Tom McCarthy's | Stillwater, but in the 10 years since beginning, abandoning and | starting over, it has evolved into something much more - and much | better._" | | 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. | Wowfunhappy wrote: | I wasn't familiar with this movie until now. How much does | official marketing material mention Amanda Knox? From a quick | look up, she doesn't appear to be in the official synopsis on | e.g. Rotten Tomatoes. | | 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. | aaron695 wrote: | Matt Damon kinda panics when asked (3:00 mark) - | https://twitter.com/TODAYshow/status/1392101154650271749 | | 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. | dml2135 wrote: | > 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! | | 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. | Wowfunhappy wrote: | But it's hard to _not_ get inspiration from the real world, | isn 't it? How much would the writers have to change before | the movie was no longer about Amanda Knox? Would it be | sufficient to change her gender? What if it took place in the | nineteenth century, or in a Game of Thrones-esque fantasy | universe? Or would it all be for naught as soon as a reporter | asked the right interview question? | ghaff wrote: | One of the most successful franchises on TV, "Law and | Order," at least used to frequently advertise episodes as | "ripped from the headlines." | dkersten wrote: | The article explains this, that Tom McCarthy mentioned her in a | Vanity Fair promotional interview. Nobody said they put it on | posters or anything. | Wowfunhappy wrote: | But was that the first time Amanda Knox's name had been | mentioned in connection with this movie? I guess what I'm | wondering is, how did we get to the point where she was | mentioned in seemingly every critical review of the film? Is | Amanda Knox's name really _that_ powerful? | mindcrime wrote: | This reminds me of the situation with Takedown / Track Down[1]. | That movie was riddled with factual inaccuracies, especially ones | slanted towards making Kevin Mitnick look bad and ones meant to | glorify Tsutomu Shimomura. As I recall, there was a scene that | featured a chase through the streets of Seattle between the two | men, it may have even featured a physical tussle between them, | but my memory is a bit fuzzy now. Anyway, in reality, at the | point in time depicted there, the two had never even met, much | less participated in a foot chase / scuffle on the streets of | Seattle. | | I think Mitnick ultimately sued and got a settlement of some | sort, FWIW. | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_Down | kortilla wrote: | > The New York Times did in profiling Matt Damon, "the sordid | Amanda Knox saga." Sordid: morally vile. Not a great adjective to | have placed next to your name. Repeat something often enough, and | people believe it. | | This is pretty stupid. When you read, "sordid Jewish genocide" do | you think "sordid" is describing "Jewish"? | | There is quite a bit of bullshit in the article about power | imbalances that isn't coherent either. Both her and the murder | victim had no power yet she is fine with putting the murder | victim's name up for an alternate headline. | | There may have been a point in there somewhere, but it got buried | by a cheap attempt to ride the #metoo zeitgeist. | PavleMiha wrote: | I don't think anyone has, or would ever, use the expression you | created, but the article describes why this bothers her: "Not a | great adjective to have placed next to your name. Repeat | something often enough, and people believe it." | | I for one wouldn't like something to be described as "the | sordid <my name> saga" if I was innocent. | kortilla wrote: | http://www.albionmonitor.com/0403a/copyright/rs- | bush911scam.... | | What do you think Sordid describes in that title? If you | thought "9/11", you thought wrong. | | Let's try this a different way. If you read "the unjust | Amanda Knox scandal", would you think Amanda Knox is unjust? | rideontime wrote: | > This is pretty stupid. When you read, "sordid Jewish | genocide" do you think "sordid" is describing "Jewish"? | | Of course not, it should read "sordid Israeli genocide." Or are | you saying it should be "sordid Palestinian genocide"? | hnthrowaway8493 wrote: | Wow. Phrase above was almost certainly talking about the | Holocaust. | rideontime wrote: | Oh? Without any context to suggest that, I guess my mind | went to the currently ongoing genocide instead. | Supermancho wrote: | This is so poorly written, I'm not even sure what it's trying to | communicate. This seems to be a bunch of ideas, events, and | themes thrown together to try and elucidate some sort of response | regarding a travesty of justice and a movie. I fail to see how | this is worth reading, by anyone. | kortilla wrote: | Note that she is mad she is not making money from the movie, not | that her name is associated with the event: | https://twitter.com/amandaknox/status/1418628570453200897 | mkl wrote: | I see no indication of what you're claiming in that tweet or | her replies to it. | renewiltord wrote: | Made me go look up the tale. I recall part of why the whole thing | looked weird was that she said that the owner of the bar where | she worked was there when the body was discovered. | | 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. | himinlomax wrote: | > That's a warning to not talk during an investigation | | 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. | renewiltord wrote: | Yeah, I believe it. I don't trust any results from them. It's | not all Inspector Montalbano there. | rootusrootus wrote: | It's interesting to me how the truth got lost, and how | uninterested people are in the aftermath. The real killer ended | up with a sentence almost half the length of what Amanda Knox | got. And he is already out of prison. Italy's justice system is | very different from the US's, for better or worse. | soheil wrote: | > Italy's justice system is very different from the US's, for | better or worse. | | You clearly mean worse based on your previous sentence. Mind | shedding some light on those "differences" for the uninitiated? | rootusrootus wrote: | I do not mean worse. I mean different, with 'better' and | 'worse' being subjective. Rudy Guede is 34 years old, out of | prison with decades more life to look forward to. After | cutting short the life of Meredith Kercher at 21, some people | would argue that he should pay with more of his own life, | maybe all of it. In the US, obviously, there's a good chance | he'd never get out of prison. | throwamanda wrote: | This instantly reminded me of OJ Simpson's trials and acquittal. | What makes this so believable, at least here on HN? Because she's | a young beautiful woman and not a scary black man? I hope people | here , which is one of the more rational communities out there, | would stop applying double standards. Maybe she is an eloquent | writer, but 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. | kortilla wrote: | Perhaps because she didn't lose a civil case on the same manner | and they actually caught the real killer? OJ probably would | have gotten more sympathy if there was some kind of viable | alternative story. | Atreiden wrote: | Is this comment in good faith, or are you needlessly playing | Devil's Advocate? | | 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. | deanCommie wrote: | One nuanced clarification: OJ didn't pick the title of the | book. His murdered wife's family sued him claiming that the | outcome of the civil lawsuit he previously lost prevents him | from profiting from the case, won, and took over release of | the book. | | 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. | ineptech wrote: | Fascinating article. I thought she was exaggerating when she | complained about people accusing her of being a media whore, | until I scrolled down to the [flagged] [dead] and saw someone | doing just that. | | 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. | danso wrote: | > _I thought she was exaggerating when she complained about | people accusing her of being a media whore_ | | 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. | ineptech wrote: | It's not a boolean, it's a threshold. I'm not surprised that | anyone ever made that accusation, but I was surprised that it | was among the first few comments on HN. | kortilla wrote: | > 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. | mmarq wrote: | She was definitely accused of being a "whore", as in a | woman who is not, say, as chaste as people expect her to | be. All Italian media informed us that Knox's motive was | sex, whatever that is supposed to mean, because she was a | maniac with a sex addiction. If I remember correctly, and I | may not, the prosecur made some appalling comments about | Knox's sexual promiscuity when interviewed for the Netflix | documentary. | | 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. | x0x0 wrote: | I suspect @danso is just mentioning the -- breathlessly | repeated by the italian press -- allegations that Amanda | purchased condoms, had sex and -- omg -- had a _vibrator_. | danso wrote: | That's right, I shouldn't have used "actual" (at least I | didn't say "literally") -- I mean in the colloquial sense | of "non-married woman engaging in purportedly non- | traditional sexual activity" | sombremesa wrote: | Moving from a Western to an Eastern country or vice versa (and | using a pseudonym on top) is actually a pretty good way to | become near-anonymous, unless you're a Michael Jackson level of | celebrity. | | Of course, not everyone has the background to be able to | smoothly pull that off. | CobrastanJorji wrote: | If I were in Amanda Knox's shoes, I would probably be very | reluctant to move to any foreign country, especially a | foreign country with a judicial system substantially | different from the US one. | ludocode wrote: | > But I don't think she has a choice. | | 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. | danso wrote: | Huh? The "right to be forgotten", as it exists in the EU, is | specifically about search engine indexing. That would not | meaningfully affect someone who would have been an infamous | celebrity with or without the Internet. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten#Current_. | .. | mikem170 wrote: | I wonder if a country with different libel laws would help | her? For example, I've heard it's easier to sue for libel | in the UK than in the US. | ghaff wrote: | Arguably, at some point in the past, this would have been an | obscure story and she'd still be in an Italian jail cell. | | 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. | notquitehuman wrote: | How? Please outline in detail how she should disappear so | that I may share this information with the person who needs | it. | ghaff wrote: | I didn't say disappear. But if someone only middling well | known changes their name and appearance eg hair, moves, | doesn't go out of their way to call attention to themselves | that would put their photo online, stays off social media, | etc. they can almost certainly mostly fly under the radar. | | 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. | toast0 wrote: | For a US citizen, the process would be roughly | | 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. | podric wrote: | Should there be a way to trademark your own name in order to | prevent its misuse in creative works? That way, film studios | should have to pay a licensing fee to have your name anywhere in | the film or its marketing material. | | It's strange to think that fictional characters often have more | protection and control over the use of their name than real | people. | stjohnswarts wrote: | This can't happen. An option like that would conflict directly | with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. As much as I | hate what happens to people like her, there are far more cases | like Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin that need to be put under | the spotlight. Don't get me wrong, I hate what happens to | people like here that get caught in the crosshairs. This | director and company making the movie should be ashamed of | themselves for either not dissociating themselves from her | story or at the very least working with her and reaching some | understanding where they have respect for her story. A lot of | people know she was innocent but I would say the majority don't | and only followed the story in the beginning. | Frost1x wrote: | We probably just need to fix loopholes in slander and libel | laws and give common people more power to enforce them without | making it a huge financial risk. People realized many many | years ago how people's names come be abused and drug through | the mud and created a recourse for it. | | 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. | mikem170 wrote: | The libel and slander laws in the U.K. different than in the | U.S. [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/2015/03/21/3942739 | 02/... | briffle wrote: | That would quickly be abused to silence critics as well. | Imagine if Brock Turner trademarked his name, and went after | anyone discussing his story. | | 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. | rootusrootus wrote: | > Imagine if Brock Turner trademarked his name | | 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. | wonderwonder wrote: | I agree with this. I have no idea if the guy was a terrible | person or made a terrible decision in the moment and did | what he did. Either way he deserved a punishment greater | than he received. With that said he is portrayed in the | media and social media as if he is the second coming of | Hitler. A ton of people do far worse things and are allowed | to continue with their lives after serving their time. If | people are not allowed a chance at rehabilitation (within | reason, I think some crimes are unforgivable, but not his) | then we are a lesser society. | handelaar wrote: | "Rehabilitation" usually comes after an appropriate | criminal punishment being issued and received, not before. | That reasonable people think that getting just twelve weeks | in jail for his crimes -- which he at no point admitted -- | is an offensive undersentencing in no way justifies their | description as a "mob". | rootusrootus wrote: | That is a bit disingenuous. This isn't people thinking | that the justice system should have slapped him down | harder. This is people who drop into every thread where | his name comes up and insist that it should never just be | "Brock Turner", but rather "The Convicted Rapist Brock | Turner." | | 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. | hannasanarion wrote: | Trademarks can't be used to go after people who mention your | mark, only people who use it to promote their own commercial | endeavors (and even then, subtle mentions like "compare to X" | are generally ok). | | 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. | roflc0ptic wrote: | For a laugh, I set my name as a google alert. I get stories | about a meteorologist, a guy who woke up and had lost 20 | years of memory, a CEO of a sports media company, some random | person with the same name who works as a dog groomer friended | me on FB. Really not sure how trademarking that would work | out. | dooglius wrote: | I didn't get the impression the film used her name | [deleted] | madaxe_again wrote: | No. See: | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_discl... | sneak wrote: | You don't own your reputation. That's out of your hands. You | can not and should not be able to control what other people | think and say about you. | mikem170 wrote: | Not even if they are causing you real harm by lying? | | 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/2015/03/21/3942739 | 02/... | jimhefferon wrote: | Non-sarcastic question: suppose I trademark my name and then | someone with my name opens an account on a web site, or a | resturant, or writes a script. Are they in violation? (It is | strange to me that, say, Twitter is a worldwide namespace. We | had a resturant in our East Coast US town that had to change | its totally-boring name because they were threatened by a West | Coast resturant with that name.) | kube-system wrote: | Trademarks are narrow in scope to a particular line of | business. If you trademark a restaurant named "Jim's", that | means other people cannot open other _restaurants_ named | "Jim's", but they could open any other kind of business under | the same name. | kortilla wrote: | It's even stricter than that. Getting a trademark on | something as simple as "Jim's" for a restaurant is near | impossible because there are already thousands of | restaurants and bars that use that name. | kube-system wrote: | We're saying the same thing. Just swap "you" and "other | people" in my comment. The law works the same for | everyone. | theqult wrote: | Thanks for your opinion fucking fuggitive bitch. Now please, take | a plane and come for your sentence. | octopoc wrote: | Can't she sue the movie producers of Stillwater? Even if the | movie producers didn't officially acknowledge inspiration, Vanity | Fair mentions it: | | > 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... | karaterobot wrote: | The court case is in the public record, they don't use any real | names, and they made it clear that it is not meant to be her | story, so I would assume they are covered. | | 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. | stjohnswarts wrote: | No she can't, the story is far too different. It only touches | on a few major points of her story but is 90% different, it | would never hold up in court and she would be out court costs | and probably financially ruined after the trial was over. | ghaff wrote: | Your link explains _why_ that disclaimer is now routinely used. | gumby wrote: | I think she became a public figure (through no fault of her | own, as far as I can tell) and thus would unfortunately likely | not be afforded the libel protections of a private citizen. | mitchellst wrote: | Not a lawyer, but from my understanding of libel law, the | "public figure" thing isn't the problem. Merely being famous | (and famous for being falsely accused!) won't necessarily | make you a public figure for libel purposes. But there's | another part of the standard: a defendant must knowingly say | things that are substantially false. Referring to Ms. Knox as | a "convicted murderer" in a news article, for example, is | deceptive in context but it is technically correct. She was | convicted. And then on the movie side, it's explicitly | fiction, and the character does not share her name. So they | can claim the defense that any "false" claim is about their | invented character, not about her... and by the way, they | have lots of first amendment juice for artistic expression. | | 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... | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | It's horrible that you can't choose not to become a public | figure. You have rights which someone else can get rid of by | giving you enough attention. | stjohnswarts wrote: | It's a balance with freedom of press/speech and like most | things there are casualties. | rootusrootus wrote: | It seems like it shouldn't be so hard to solve, either. | Someone should not become a public figure without | demonstrating some kind of intent. If they are not pushing | a narrative, trying to influence public opinion, etc, then | they do not lose protection. We cannot let the defamers be | the ones controlling the definition. | kortilla wrote: | So when some CEO decides they don't want to be a public | figure? | ghaff wrote: | As I understand it, a CEO would generally be a public | figure within the scope of what he does as a CEO. Note, | though, that in the US, most of what being a public | figure affects is the standard for libel (NYT v. | Sullivan). Even if you're not a public figure, there's | mostly nothing preventing me from writing about you if I | want to and truth is pretty much a defense against libel. | [deleted] | jnwatson wrote: | Law and Order would have been sued out of business. The "ripped | from the headlines" mechanism is a tried and true method for TV | procedurals. | | You might own your likeness, but you don't own your life story. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-30 23:00 UTC)