Seismologists Tried For Manslaughter For Not Predicting Earthquake 154
mcgrew writes "From LiveScience: 'Earthquake prediction can be a grave, and faulty science, and in the case of Italian seismologists who are being tried for the manslaughter of the people who died in the 2009 L'Aquila quake, it can have legal consequences.' A group of seven, including six seismologists and a government official, reportedly didn't alert the public ahead of time of the risk of the L'Aquila earthquake, which occurred on April 6 of that year, killing around 300 people, according to the US Geological Survey."
More Details (Score:5, Informative)
Following a committee meeting just a week before the quake, some members of the group assured the public that they were in no danger.
If this is true, this is decidedly different from telling the public that they don't know whether there is any danger. Saying "I can't predict earthquakes" is fine. Saying "You are in no danger" would probably be interpreted differently than "We have no indications that you are at an elevated risk."
In the aftermath of the quake, which killed 309 people, many citizens said that these reassurances were the reason they did not take precautionary measures, such as leaving their homes.
More specifically, the accusation focuses on a statement made at a press conference on 31 March 2009 by Bernardo De Bernardinis, who was then deputy technical head of Italy's Civil Protection Agency and is now president of the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research in Rome. "The scientific community tells me there is no danger," he said, "because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favourable".
Hasn't it been established that movement of GPS ground stations (slippage) indicates increased risk of earthquakes [slashdot.org]? That was the basis for claims that the New Madrid fault line is overestimated ... and the above quote employs the exact opposite logic.
It appears that the crux of this case rests upon "he told me to say" versus "it's not our job to tell the public." But the civil servant who "summed" up the scientist's summary appears to have fallen victim to treating this like a forecasting of the weather. He will probably regret maintaining a neutral report and should have just said "inconclusive" instead of "looks good."
Vincenzo Vittorini, a physician in L'Aquila whose wife and daughter were killed in the earthquake and who is now president of the local victims' association '309 Martiri' (309 Martyrs), hopes the trial will lead to a thorough investigation into what went wrong in those days. "Nobody here wants to put science in the dock," he says. "We all know that the earthquake could not be predicted, and that evacuation was not an option. All we wanted was clearer information on risks in order to make our choices".
He says that the committee had precious information that was not passed on to citizens, for example on which buildings were most likely to collapse in the event of a strong earthquake. Vittorini thinks that those charged are not the only ones to blame, and that further investigations might eventually place greater responsibilities on politicians at the local and national level.
Indeed, this sounds to me more like a case against Italy's Civil Protection Agency instead of scientists and seismologists. Not that they couldn't predict the quake but general failure to provide earthquake plans and proper materials/handouts/PSAs to the public.
"I Thought They Were Suing SCIENTOLOGISTS" (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, well... Never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what it was. I immediately thought seismology was a harebrained cult, but I couldn't remember what I was confusing it with.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for digging up more information. The headline made is VERY misleading. Telling people these is no danger is worlds away from not saying/predicting anything. This situtation is more like a MD telling you there is no risk for the surgery.
Re: (Score:2)
It completely depends on context.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I was given to think about the 2 choices you offered : "Go back to your homes, everything is fine" vrs. "At this point in time we simply don't know"
I would have to think that statement 1 is factual and certain, while the second statement tells me that nobody knows anything and I am at my own risk.
it comes down to the lack of common sense from the announcer.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really a choice between constant warnings and people coming to ignore them and assurances of no danger to prevent panics.
There is not a winning option until earthquake prediction is reliable.
I really salute that scientist who took his own time to try to warn people and was suppressed. However, if you allow it, then nutcases would be driving around with loudspeakers 24/7. Difficult situation. Difficult call.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the movie Dante's Peak.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap, that was a terrible movie. I wonder if Brosnan regrets taking that job, which seemed to be the death knell for his career.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So the very person filing this lawsuit has publicly acknowledged that the earthquake could not have been predicted and that the people could not have been evacuated?
I don't know how Italy's legal system works, but it would be laughed out of court at this point in the US. They've already admitted that even if the scientists and politicians did something horribly wrong, that their doing so was not the proximate cause of the damages. Case dismissed.
Re:More Details (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the earthquake was predicted and the warnings were ignored. Italy 'Dismissed Expert's Quake Warning [sky.com] Sky News / 9:06pm UK, Monday April 06, 2009 / Nick Pisa in Rome :
That's the point (Score:2)
I am sure seismologists are like other scientists and talk in terms of the probability of an event happening - thus no scientist is every certain of something, they merely talk of most likely outcomes and most likely explanations based on current information and models. However, when the media and other public sources get their hands on the information, they like to turn them into absolutes - and thus if a scientist says "there is an 80% chance of such-and-such happening" and it causes a panic, they are li
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually the earthquake was predicted
If by predicted an earthquake, you mean he predicted the wrong time and the wrong place, then yes, he predicted an earthquake. And this is not the first time he has predicted an earthquake, this is just the first time his prediction was within a week of an earthquake actually occurring.
Giuliani uses radon as a measure of earths movement, and tries to use increased radon levels as a sign of an impending earthquake. This method has never been found to predict earthquakes, but even a broken clock is corr
Re: (Score:2)
How do I know when to worry about these things? Seriously, I got a Radon detector in my house because the sensor was cheap and people said it can kill. If that thing went off, all I would do is go to an apartment till someone figures out whats going on.
Hell, if someone started driving around with loud speakers saying there was an earthquake coming I would think he was a nut too. There are SO many nuts out there, its why we have the damn Darwin Award. If he started shouting out his webpage for "proof" I
Re: (Score:3)
If a seismologist states categorically that an earthquake is not going to happen, they are stating categorically that they CAN predict earthquakes (or at least their absence).
In the US, I seriously doubt that this would be laughed out of court. I doubt manslaughter would hold up, but judges would probably rule that the complainant had a right to their day in court precisely because the experts grievously abused their position of trust by telling a falsehood to placate them.
(FWIW, I'll link this in with TEPC
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that in the US it would be civil suit which would go forward. Criminal charges would certainly never stick.
Depending on the court, I don't think I would like to be a defendant in a civil case in the US. Scientists are held in especially low regard by most of the population and anything that can be done to "get 'em" or to serve up a (supposedly) well-deserved cumuppance would certainly be favored by many, many people. Certainly you wouldn't want a jury to get anywhere near this.
All I can
Re: (Score:2)
In the US the USGS responds to questions about earthquake probabilities with "We can't predict earthquakes".
No one can, anyone that claims they can is a liar. Anyone that claims knowledge either way (for or against earthquakes) is lying. We have the barest grasp of plate tectonics and what causes earthquakes. Science indicates the events are entirely random but even if they weren't we simply don't understand the system well enough to make predictions. We're talking stress/strain situations over thousands of
Re: (Score:2)
No seismologist made any such statement. A bureaucrat did.
Re: (Score:2)
Not by me, but then I know that earthquakes do occur from time to time and we can't as yet predict when.
So I'd interpret them to mean exactly the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
How about: "We don't know how to predict earthquakes, the science doesn't exist, so to make predictions would be to lie."
Re: (Score:2)
That would frighten the sheeple. And anyone who believes there is such a thing as zero risk has the brains of a farm animal, and I don't mean the smarter kind.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Hasn't it been established that movement of GPS ground stations (slippage) indicates increased risk of earthquakes [slashdot.org]?"
No. Not really. Deformation is ongoing and varies over time and location in tectonically-active areas. Figuring out that a particular motion is a precursor to a major earthquake versus ordinary, smaller-scale earthquakes that happen all the time is extraordinarily difficult, and can usually only be done after the fact. You can notice that there might be an increase in small
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that telescopes observing Japan detected some abnormalities immediately prior to the earthquake, but one observation isn't enough to tell you much about how often those abnormalities occur without earthquakes, how many earthquakes occur without those specific abormalities or whether in the Italian case even if a suitable telescope had made the observation whether there'd be enough time from it being detected, confirmed and relayed over there to make any difference in evacuation. Or, for that matte
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, I'll check my credentials ... yes, still a professional geologist, as I have been for the last 24 years. I'll check my knowledge of Mediterranean geology ... not terribly extensive - probably in the top 0.01% of the general population and top couple of percent of geologists (because I've worked in and holidayed in various parts of the Mediterranean basin in the last decade, so I've read up).
I wouldn't make a statement like that without doing a lot more research.
Re: (Score:1)
Not that they couldn't predict the quake but general failure to provide earthquake plans and proper materials/handouts/PSAs to the public.
Even so, I don't see how that constitutes the level of negligence to be considered criminal. The prosecutors are going to have to prove that the statements and actions/inactions of the people involved were so reckless that they should have anticipated the resulting consequences of the earthquake, a natural disaster which is considered to be an "act of God". It's absurd, a
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but can we get Harold Camping in Jail?
Re: (Score:2)
First: Agreed.
Second: No one died, but that doesn't make Harold Camping less culpable for intentionally sowing fear and panic based on bullshit numbers pulled from thin air pointing to a made-up date for his prophecy. The seismologists were acting on good faith in accordance with their training and experience. That's a huge difference, and one that does carry a lot of weight.
Third: Off-topic it may be, but it does make for an interesting comparison.
Fourth: I'm sure there's a lot of people who agree th
Who can we sue? (Score:1)
Maybe the public safety authorities should all be fired for failing to regularly consult the seismologists regarding possible upcoming earthquakes.
Maybe all psychics in the country should be arrested and arraigned for murder, for not predicting the deadly temblor.
Or, maybe the Italians should just accept that n
Re:Who can we sue? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes but members of the committee specifically said that the people were "in no danger". That's a rather bold statement to make and I see no reason why they shouldn't be held accountable for it. It's no different from a drug company telling people a drug is safe that isn't or a bridge inspector telling people a bridge is safe and it collapses days later.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a difference between being held accountable for a wrong statement, and being held for manslaughter. I'd much rather have no charges than levy a manslaughter charge.
I'm not sure if they should be held accountable at all. While they should have worded it better, everyone was safe as far as they could tell. If they had stated the risk properly, it wouldn't have mattered, I really doubt it would have saved lives to properly state the risks.
All I really see is a possible chilling effect which will ha
Re: (Score:2)
All I really see is a possible chilling effect which will have the opposite of the desired effect, you'll see students enter other fields than risk a charge that doesn't fit the actual error.
Actually, what will probably happen is that all future forecasts will be useless, because they'll all just say some variation of, "yes it's possible, but we're not sure; take precautions." People will stop taking them seriously, and be just as unprepared.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes but members of the committee specifically said that the people were "in no danger". That's a rather bold statement to make and I see no reason why they shouldn't be held accountable for it. It's no different from a drug company telling people a drug is safe that isn't or a bridge inspector telling people a bridge is safe and it collapses days later.
The fallacy here is that the seismologists aren't in the business of creating earthquakes to make money. Drug companies are. The seismologists also aren't in real-estate. From a scientific perspective they could have worded it differently, but that wouldn't have changed anyone's behaviour. Do I know this for a fact? No. But people do and believe as the please, and if the scientists had said "we can't see the danger" people would still have heard "there isn't any danger". Hell, for so long now people have be
Re: (Score:2)
And neither did the bridge inspector who told you that an unsafe bridge is safe to drive on, but they should still be held accountable for misleading people when the bridge collapses and kills people. Whether or not they should have gotten this particular charge against them I would be open to debate on but they should definitely be held accountable in some way for making a statement to the public that was not true.
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy doesn't work here. It's not like the seismologists actually caused the earthquake. They merely examined the evidence and concluded that there should not have been any danger. Occasionally they get it wrong (besides, the circumstances may well have changed after they said there was no danger).
In other news, yesterday a severe thunderstorm hit nearby, and the criminals at the National Weather Service didn't even issue a severe thunderstorm watch! I could have gotten struck by lightning! Wh
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Who can we sue? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is the municipality is at fault for failing to require regionally adequate building design including existing structures. People were killed by buildings that lacked effective structural design to cope with that regions earthquakes, that lack of proper design was driven by nothing more than greed, a unwillingness on the part of property owners to properly reinforce their structures in light of historical risk.
Those pretty historical buildings might make the tourists happy but they will kill p
Who's next, meteorologists? Stock brokers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Shenanigans!! Double shenanigans!
This is why I hate gambling!
What is the penalty if they had erred on the side of caution and had been wrong? Loss of job? Loss of reputation?
It would have cost millions to plan, evacuate, etc...
Holding people liable for an act of nature is a dangerous precedent.
Yikes!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Persecution of stock brokers would be a feature, not a bug.
Re: (Score:2)
Execution of stock brokers would be a feature, not a bug.
There. FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Political parties.
They know what they're doing to us, and, deliberately, they do it regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if you ran a red light and then claimed someone else said it was safe even though there is no evidence that anyone ever said it was safe?
Re: (Score:2)
How is that analogous though? In this situation there is record of members of the committee specifically saying that the citizens were "in no danger". Your situation doesn't even fit at all.
What if (Score:2)
What if someone made a car analogy that made no sense?
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, false predictions would also be bad. (Score:2)
Re:And yet, false predictions would also be bad. (Score:4, Interesting)
Except if you actually found out what really happened:
Following a committee meeting just a week before the quake, some members of the group assured the public that they were in no danger.
Providing such a strong affirmative statement that they were in no danger, despite the fact that it was probably a sincere statement, was not a correct thing to say and they should have realized that if something did happen it was going to open them up to issues. It's like the inspector for a bridge telling people that they are in no danger driving over it yet it collapses days later. Shouldn't they be held responsible for their statements turning out to be untrue?
Re: (Score:2)
Providing such a strong affirmative statement that they were in no danger, despite the fact that it was probably a sincere statement, was not a correct thing to say and they should have realized that if something did happen it was going to open them up to issues. It's like the inspector for a bridge telling people that they are in no danger driving over it yet it collapses days later. Shouldn't they be held responsible for their statements turning out to be untrue?
The results would have been the same either way. If the seismologists had chosen the third option and told people that 309 people would die, then there could have been a panic, and they get arrested for inciting a riot. If they chose the fourth option ("we know what will happen, but we're not telling you"), then they get arrested for some conspiracy with earthquake makers.
Re:And yet, false predictions would also be bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or we could skip all of your crappy options and picked the one that a proper scientist would say in a case where they don't know for sure either way: "we don't know" but told people to be alert in case something did happen.
Re: (Score:2)
The is no evidence that anyone ever said the public was in no danger.
The actually comment was based on the current release of energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot editorial garbage (Score:2)
Somethings are completely below acceptable standard. Like poor Slashdot editorial care.
It is completely different to "not predict a earthquake" to "predict that it will not happen".
These specialists PREDICTED that there would be no problem.
Can we get basic logic right, please?
This is a case of scientific hubris (belief in self-ability to predict things) that cost many lives. Now it has been joined by lack of basic logic and linguistics here in Slashdot.
What a dis-service to science.
Talking about proper scie
Re: (Score:2)
Many? 300 dead on a planet of over 6 billion is a rounding error. As for the Black Swan you should warn your fellow readers to prepare for many chapters of self important pseudo erudite wanking by the author. Unless you mean
Re: (Score:2)
No shit, Sherlock. Considering that the alternative is to wangst on, all day, every day for all of the Thousands upon thousands of people who die in any given 24 hour period, yeah, you kind of have to choose a cutoff that makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
It is completely different to "not predict a earthquake" to "predict that it will not happen". These specialists PREDICTED that there would be no problem. This is a case of scientific hubris (belief in self-ability to predict things) that cost many lives.
How? Did the victims take especially risky actions that day, believing earthquakes were impossible? In what way did the scientists make the damage of the earthquake worse than if they made no prediction?
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. Given that the next "big one" could've been the next day, the next year, or never, what exactly would've been different? You can't very well evacuate a town indefinitely on the basis of "there might be an increased risk of earthquakes, we're not sure". The town is in an earthquake zone, and has been leveled by quakes in the past. You'd think that people would've already taken the proper precautions.
Re: (Score:3)
Please provide the quote where they explicitly stated that there would *not* be a quake.
The closest it gets is:
In one now-infamous interview included in the prosecutors' case, commission member Bernardo De Bernardis of the national civil protection department responded to a question about whether residents should just sit back and relax with a glass of wine. "Absolutely, absolutely a Montepulciano doc," he responded, referring to a high-end red. "This seems important."
The odds of an earthquake, and the timing thereof, can't be predicted with any degree of accuracy. I interpret this as the guy telling people "Just go on with your lives as usual". What else are you supposed to do, when you don't know whether it will happen tomorrow, in 6 months, or in 5 years? If you were going to take precautions against earthquakes (e.g. making sure your home was structurally s
Two points (Score:2)
1. Did they know the earthquake was coming?
2. If they knew it was coming, did they tell people they would be safe?
All indications are that they knew the earthquake was coming and that they told the people they were safe. If this is true, then they should be charged. Now, if they were suppressed by someone "above them" then they need to say so. But for these people to say "We think there is an earthquake coming but it will be mild, so you can just go about your business" is irresponsible.
This is why we ha
Fun with summaries (Score:4, Funny)
Earthquake prediction can be a faulty science
I see what you did there...
Re: (Score:2)
Earthquake prediction can be a grave
At least 2 puns there ;)
If you outlaw incorrectly predicting earthquakes.. (Score:2)
Only outlaws will incorrectly predict earthquakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Only outlaws will incorrectly predict earthquakes.
More importantly, if you artificially create a liability for scientists in a certain field, there will be less scientists willing to work in said field and be held liable, and thus less research and advancements in that field. Do they want less accurate predictions of earthquakes?
Also note: sometimes mass hysteria + earthquake is less dangerous than just the earthquake... Perhaps they wanted to warn everyone, but were secretly advised not to.
Great way to increase false warnings to 99.99% (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every morning? Hell, I'd never let the siren take a break! Sure, after a day or two nobody would care about it anymore or even try to sabotage it to get a bit of sleep again, but they can't sue me for that.
April 1? (Score:1)
April Fools is over 10 months away... But this has to be a joke. I know Europe often have kangaroo courts, but this is ridiculous! Are we going to charge The Weather Channel for hurricane and tornado deaths now?
There needs to be a disclaimer on every weather and planetary report, "Warning, you could die of an 'act of god' today for no other reason that you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. This broadcast makes no guarantees of safety. Consult a doctor before taking action. No batteries included.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA has plenty of bad courts as well.
There is a major difference between staying you don't know if there will be a quake and stating there will not be a quake. The Weather Channel never says "There will be no tornadoes in Joliet today."
See the difference?
Re: (Score:3)
The USA has plenty of bad courts as well.
Didn't say the USA didn't.
There is a major difference between staying you don't know if there will be a quake and stating there will not be a quake. The Weather Channel never says "There will be no tornadoes in Joliet today."
Actually, no. If the Weather channel predicts a path for a storm on a line, and the storm changes direction unexpectedly (which does happen), it would be the same situation. There is a common sense presumption that mother nature is, by nature, unpredictable. Tornadoes can form out of clear skies and strike any time of year, even in winter. The chance of surviving a tornado on any given day might be 0.999... [wikipedia.org], but there are no guarantees, ever.
Trusting anyone, ESPECIALLY a seismo
Re: (Score:2)
The chance of surviving a tornado on any given day might be 0.999..., but there are no guarantees, ever.
Assuming you meant "probability" when you used "chance," you're contradicting yourself. What I don't get is that, since you knew enough to link the wiki page for 0.999..., you know of the "special properties" of it. a probability of 1 = a guarantee.
Another inherent contradiction, too, in the second part. By speaking in absolutes, you are essentially guaranteeing that there are no guarantees.
Have I just been whooshed?
Re: (Score:2)
No, just incorrect. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Nostalgia, mostly. Call it a "get off my lawn" moment but I've been reading old usenet archives and remembering when such pedantry would start vast amusing discussions about things like mathematical clarity and logic vs grammar corrections. :D
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what it is one is trying to survive.
If P(x) is the probability of surviving event x, then
P(Dodo bird attack) == 1
while
P(Zombie Apocalypse) == 0.
So,
0 < P(Zombie Dodo bird attack) < 1
I should add... (Score:2)
"might be 0.999...", but it will never be 1. In fact, it would never even reach 0.999... except on some computer statistical printout, and even then due to a math error. Survivability is never equal to 1. If you are one who believes 0.999... = 1, then survivability is never equal to 0.999... either.
The reason I use 0.999... (which you would know the contraversy around it, and would therefore know why I used it and not 1) is to point to the fallacy to say 0.999... = 1, and that is the same whereby a scien
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Please provide the quote of when they said there would be no quake before the quake?
Psychics (Score:5, Interesting)
Opps there goes science (Score:3)
Talk about a chilling effect on scientific research.. The next thing you will be doing is suing Doctors if they get a diagnosis wrong, oh wait we are doing that.
Oh please don't let this win (Score:2)
For the love of $deity, please let the judge hand out some sensible judgment. Else the only thing you'll ever get to hear from geologists is scaremongering lest they be liable should the earth tremble somewhere. How do you expect to get sensible predictions if you sue if they happen to be wrong?
Imagine you're a weatherman and get sued if it rains after you predict sunshine. So what are you going to predict? Exactly. Rain. All year long. No matter what your data says.
Stupid (Score:1)
great. (Score:3)
I'm not a qualified slashdot commenter, and in no way should this comment be taken to convey any meaning, opinion, or suggestion that could in any way harm the reader. The poster is not to be held liable for any damages incurred by, or after reading this comment. By reading this comment, the reader hereby relinquishes any right to sue, or in any other way claim damages from the poster, and any such legal proceeding shall be brought in a location of the posters choosing. The content of this post is copyright (c) 2011 the poster, all rights reserved. Any reproduction of the comment must contain this paragraph.
What a load of fucking bullshit.
I love my country (Score:2)
Idiocracy? No, Italy.
Re: (Score:2)
and the consequences are... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there's a fault line sitting right there, I think reasonable precautions are entirely necessary. If you know there's going to be an earthquake within the next fifty to one hundred years, why not prepare? Especially if lots of your buildings are old and not earthquake-ready, it seems disingenuous to tell people not to worry about them.
But the intent of this trial is not to punish scientists for their results, it is to determine who told lies to the public and whether the truth would have saved lives.
Well, this is the same country that is home to... (Score:1)
*Sigh* Italy... (Score:2)
I guess nothing has changed since the days of Gallileo.
Italian government remains corrupt top-to-bottom, its judiciary remains primitive banging-rocks-together screwheads. This isn't just one knuckle-dragging "judge"; this so-called "investigation" has been going on for over a year. Hundreds of people have had an opportunity to say "Questo è stupido, e si ferma subito." None have. Any scientists left in that pit of willful ignorance should get out, and get out now, because the tort lawyers are coming
Silliness. (Score:2)
Italian Law (Score:2)
Italian Law.
Could that be the original oxymoron?
In other news... (Score:2)
And suddenly, no more Seismologists! (Score:3)
Who's going to volunteer to be the next disaster prediction expert when you wind up imprisoned for it? Yeah, mistakes suck -- but without them, you'll NEVER have a warning.
Guess What Comes Next? (Score:2)
Sue *all* psychics! (Score:3)
Further more they are responsible for Fukushima and even for me missing my bus last thursday.
They should also make it illegal to be wrong.
That will fix all problems, even those relating to politics as then no decisions made in "the publics best interest" will be wrong and life will be perfect.
Really, everything will be peachy! Unless I am wrong ofcource...
Re: (Score:2)
If an expert gives you advice based on the best of their knowledge, they are not liable.
And is this statement actually based on statutory or case law or just your opinion on the subject? Because there are numerous cases in numerous countries to show the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)