BREAKING NEWS - Goncalo loses libel/damages trial and must pay damages

Resistor wrote:Liverpool is famous for women with "camel toe" syndrome, but here's the whole thing.



Just so that there is no confusion, Antonella is the one in the pink shirt.

Bampots wrote:You do not need PayPal on the official link. On the PJ thread on this site, just go and process a donation if you at any time have a doubt abort said donation, but cards and PayPal are accepted. Go on.....


http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/

mabossa ritchie wrote:

Bampots wrote:You do not need PayPal on the official link. On the PJ thread on this site, just go and process a donation if you at any time have a doubt abort said donation, but cards and PayPal are accepted. Go on.....


http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/

Now over £6,000.[/quote]

.

crabbit wrote:Myself and three friends just donated £12 each to the "gofundme" site.
That's a pound for every question a mother refused to answer to help in the search for her daughter.

chilli wrote:Posted by Astro on the PJGA webpage (google translation):

The free communication of ideas is one of the most precious rights of man. All the Portuguese can conseguintemente, without the need for prior censorship, their views on any matter, provided that there to answer for abuse d'this liberty in cases and in the manner determined by law "in Clause 7 policy Constitution the Portuguese monarchy, September 23, 1822

We, Citizens for Defense of Rights and Freedoms - Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral, according to what is provided for in Article 52 of the Portuguese Constitution and Law No. 43/90, of August 10, amended by Law No 6/93 1 March and by Law No. 15 / 20:03, 4 June and Law No. 45/07, of August 24, we hereby declare our indignation over the attack on the right to freedom of expression of Citizen Gonçalo Sousa Amaral, who saw be censored not only a book but also any expression, oral or written, about the thesis defending.

Indeed, the recent decision to prohibit, more than the sale of a text, an entire reasoning behind it - that this reasoning is proven, Express, founded and granted, at the heart of a criminal investigation process - It is, in our opinion, a serious and worrying precedent.

Never since the Revolution of April 25, 1974 has witnessed in this country that fought so valiantly in defense of responsible citizenship and free, the size attack on freedom of expression, a fundamental right enshrined in Article 37 of our Constitution and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

An attack aggravated by the fact that the argument put forward by Dr. Gonçalo Amaral rigorously reflects the facts of an investigation already out of secrecy and already made public, a logical and reasoned argument. Concorde up, or not, with the conclusions reached by an entire police investigation is untenable prohibit its reproduction and discussion.

The Freedom of Expression, exercised with responsibility, is an inalienable right of every citizen Portuguese, and we can not accept without protest turns to lose something that worked so hard to win.

In this way, we request the immediate return of Expression of Right to Citizen Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral, under the Portuguese Constitution, and respect for human rights universally established.



If it's Citizen Portuguese and agree, please sign the petition here: Public Petition.
Thank you.

chilli wrote:The free communication of ideas is one of the most precious rights of man

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:

chilli wrote:The free communication of ideas is one of the most precious rights of man

But that doesn't include accusing people of doing terrible things without being able to prove it. That's why there are defamation laws.
This petition is nonsense

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:

chilli wrote:The free communication of ideas is one of the most precious rights of man

But that doesn't include accusing people of doing terrible things without being able to prove it. That's why there are defamation laws.
This petition is nonsense

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:I wasn't referring to this trial or the other one, candy. It's morally wrong (and would be indisputably unlawful in the UK) to publish a book accusing anybody of committing a criminal act if you can't prove it. GA decided to proceed, but it was the wrong way of presenting his case, and a court has now decided he must pay a penalty for that. It seems fair enough to me

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:I wasn't referring to this court case or the other one, candy. It's morally wrong (and would be indisputably unlawful in the UK) to publish a book accusing anybody of committing a criminal act if you can't prove it. GA decided to proceed, but it was the wrong way of presenting his case, and a court has now (for whatever reason) decided he must pay a penalty for that. It seems fair enough to me

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:I don't know anything about Portuguese law, candy, so I can't give you a definitive answer. But a book written for entertainment and profit isn't the same thing as the official files of a police investigation. Moreover, as far as I can see, GA has been ordered to pay damages that may well be less than his profit from the book and other activities, so you could argue that he has still made money from his campaign

Regarding the difference between defamation and hurt feelings, if you somehow avoid the former but achieve the latter, it may still be a fact that you have upset someone without proving the point that you have accused them of. And when that point is a serious one, compensation makes sense to me (though I admit I have no idea how the sum was reached)

I suppose my main argument is that there has been much uncritical support for GA's book on this forum and, while I admire his attempt to find a solution, in my opinion a book (particularly one that made money for him) wasn't the appropriate medium

Before leaping to defend the book, maybe others should ask themselves how they would feel if someone wrote a book, without proof, claiming that they had committed a criminal act

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:I don't know anything about Portuguese law, candy, so I can't give you a definitive answer. But a book written for entertainment and profit isn't the same thing as the official files of a police investigation. Moreover, as far as I can see, GA has been ordered to pay damages that may well be less than his profit from the book and other activities, so you could argue that he has still made money from his campaign

Regarding the difference between defamation and hurt feelings, if you somehow avoid the former but achieve the latter, it may still be a fact that you have upset someone without proving the point that you have accused them of. And when that point is a serious one, compensation makes sense to me (though I admit I have no idea how the sum was reached)

I suppose my main argument is that there has been much uncritical support for GA's book on this forum and, while I admire his attempt to find a solution, in my opinion a book (particularly one that made money for him) wasn't the appropriate medium

Before leaping to defend the book, maybe others should ask themselves how they would feel if someone wrote a book, without proof, claiming that they had committed a criminal act

After weighing all the law points and jurisprudence regarding the “conflict” of rights the judge states that Gonçalo Amaral was the coordinator of the case, that even after retired he had a link to the public sector and his former position and this came with duties and one being the “duty of reserve” that he still had even after retirement when these are not public. However the judge considers that the defendant stresses his former position both ion the book and documentaries and that also due to the reduced time between the archival of the case and the publishing of the book (3 days) , the judge considers that he was not in possession of the totality of his right to freedom of expression.

In this case, the judge considers that it is the freedom of expression that must submit to the right to honour and good name.

She then considers the actions of the defendant illicit within the scope of article 484 of the Civil Code.

caricature wrote:Why the Judge found against Amaral.

After weighing all the law points and jurisprudence regarding the “conflict” of rights the judge states that Gonçalo Amaral was the coordinator of the case, that even after retired he had a link to the public sector and his former position and this came with duties and one being the “duty of reserve” that he still had even after retirement when these are not public. However the judge considers that the defendant stresses his former position both ion the book and documentaries and that also due to the reduced time between the archival of the case and the publishing of the book (3 days) , the judge considers that he was not in possession of the totality of his right to freedom of expression.

In this case, the judge considers that it is the freedom of expression that must submit to the right to honour and good name.

She then considers the actions of the defendant illicit within the scope of article 484 of the Civil Code.

http://forum4.aimoo.com/madeleinemccanncontroversy/WELCOME-to-HDH-Controversy-Info/McCann-v-Amaral-VERDICT-Translation-1-2313214.html

My highlighted in red,is she saying he sort of abused his postion.