Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

diabeticman

(3,121 posts)
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:22 AM Apr 2013

Can the innocent people being called suspects in the NEW YORK POST sue the newspaper?

I just heard the 17 year old talking. What if this kid is beat up or worse by people who haven't been told the truth. Shouldn't the Post be held responsible for any injury?

Murdock papers shouldn't be allowed to carry the word NEWS

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Can the innocent people being called suspects in the NEW YORK POST sue the newspaper? (Original Post) diabeticman Apr 2013 OP
I hope so... snacker Apr 2013 #1
I fear for his life. diabeticman Apr 2013 #2
I don't. Enough information is out now to prove that he is innocent. I don't see him getting bluestate10 Apr 2013 #12
me too democratXX Apr 2013 #3
Probably not. elleng Apr 2013 #4
Not defamation Summer Hathaway Apr 2013 #8
Defamation = both libel and slander. elleng Apr 2013 #10
The definition of libel is defined as ... Summer Hathaway Apr 2013 #16
Defamation = elleng Apr 2013 #17
Defamation Summer Hathaway Apr 2013 #20
Sure, but probably won't get that far, elleng Apr 2013 #22
Yes, it may be Summer Hathaway Apr 2013 #23
Could = 'wreckless disregard for the truth.' elleng Apr 2013 #24
Oh, I agree with you Summer Hathaway Apr 2013 #27
What's the case, Summer? elleng Apr 2013 #28
The case would be Summer Hathaway Apr 2013 #29
I understand the premise, Summer. elleng Apr 2013 #30
I said it could be a precedent-setting case Summer Hathaway Apr 2013 #31
Gotcha. elleng Apr 2013 #32
For a time, the Post endangered the kid's life. I think he is out of danger now. nt bluestate10 Apr 2013 #13
Hope so. elleng Apr 2013 #14
No olddots Apr 2013 #5
I should think so. Summer Hathaway Apr 2013 #6
Yes, they can get sued and yes New York Post can lose. Lady Freedom Returns Apr 2013 #7
If I were that kid and his family, I'd sue the Post for enough money to put the two of those MADem Apr 2013 #9
Richard Jewell sued several News Organizations... PoliticAverse Apr 2013 #11
Was thinking the same thing. Separation Apr 2013 #26
Probably not... TreasonousBastard Apr 2013 #15
richard jewell sued multiple news orgs, & won. no, they can't show someone's picture and imply HiPointDem Apr 2013 #19
Richard Jewell was falsely accused in a major... TreasonousBastard Apr 2013 #21
because he died. he won multiple cases. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #25
Once again-- settlement is not necessarily winning... TreasonousBastard Apr 2013 #33
i wish they would & i wish some bigshot lawyer would take the case. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #18

bluestate10

(10,942 posts)
12. I don't. Enough information is out now to prove that he is innocent. I don't see him getting
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:49 AM
Apr 2013

beaten up or killed because of the widespread distribution of news about the Post's moronic action. He should sue the NY Post.

elleng

(130,133 posts)
4. Probably not.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:27 AM
Apr 2013

Defamation = publication 'in wreckless disregard of the truth,' a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions.

As no one knows 'truth' at the moment, difficult to hold them for this.
AGREE that shouldn't carry word NEWS.

Summer Hathaway

(2,770 posts)
8. Not defamation
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:43 AM
Apr 2013

but libel:

Defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures ... the act or crime of publishing it.

Anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.


Summer Hathaway

(2,770 posts)
16. The definition of libel is defined as ...
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 01:01 AM
Apr 2013
defamation by written or printed words, pictures ...

Fits the bill perfectly here. And in this instance, there is also a the factor of endangering someone's personal safety by publishing those pics as they did.

elleng

(130,133 posts)
17. Defamation =
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 01:05 AM
Apr 2013

'a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions,'

so it must be KNOWN to be FALSE or malicious. Such can't be known at the moment, does NOT fit the bill perfectly.

As to endangering, yes, that's probably a different offense, but its not defamation, imo.

Summer Hathaway

(2,770 posts)
20. Defamation
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 01:23 AM
Apr 2013
"the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel."

Libel is a charge on its own, but "defamation" can include libel.

"Defamation" is usually pursued by public figures (politicians, celebrities, etc.) who have established a certain reputation in the public's eye, and can demonstrate how that public perception has been altered to their detriment, and the detriment of their careers.

A charge of libel better suits the private citizen, who has no "public reputation" that could be shown to have been damaged, but can show that their personal lives have been negatively affected.

The fact that this young man's life has been placed in jeopardy, having been identified by as a Boston Bomber at a time when emotions are running high and everyone has a desire to "get" the guilty parties, speaks for itself. The plaintiff's attorney's closing argument to the judge/jury practically writes itself.


elleng

(130,133 posts)
22. Sure, but probably won't get that far,
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 01:28 AM
Apr 2013

as accusation must be 'false,' so one who says/publishes it must know it is false, and hard to know that at this time.

Defamation includes libel (written) and slander (spoken).

'a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions'

May be public or private figures/victims.

Summer Hathaway

(2,770 posts)
23. Yes, it may be
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 01:48 AM
Apr 2013

public or private victims - but 'public' victims have a much easier time proving damages to their reputations/careers/earning potential than do private citizens.

There are always legal loopholes which the defence, in a case like this, could try to wriggle through.

However, given the particular circumstances here - the public outrage, the opportunity for an enraged citizen 'taking things into their own hands', etc. - the libel led to demonstrable potential harm.

I think "we didn't KNOW it was false at the time" would be an unacceptably weak defence. That would mean that the NY Post (or any other publication) is free to publish anyone's pic from any source, anytime, anywhere, and identify them as as the guilty parties in any crime, without legal consequence.

I don't think any judge/jury anywhere would see that as a non-malicious, simple mistake.



elleng

(130,133 posts)
24. Could = 'wreckless disregard for the truth.'
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 01:53 AM
Apr 2013

but post/murdoch has SUCH deep pockets, 1 'little' individual trying to make the case has a hard row to hoe, imo.

Summer Hathaway

(2,770 posts)
27. Oh, I agree with you
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 02:15 AM
Apr 2013

about 'deep pockets' and a 'tough row to hoe' - absolutely!

But I do believe that thanks to the publicity around this incident - ironically, the very publicity that put this young man's life in danger - it works to the plaintiff's advantage, should a suit be filed.

There is a precedent-setting judicial decision that could be at play here. Should a judge/jury decide that anyone's photograph can be published on the front page of a 'newspaper' (!) with a caption identifying them as the perpetrator of a crime, and condone that action on the basis that "the accusation was not proven to be false at the time", it would mean that the NY Times could capture your photo from your FB account, and publish it in connection with any crime committed anywhere, without legal consequence.

I don't think US jurisprudence wants to go there.

And I don't think the NY Post wants to go there either.

I suspect there will be a generous out-of-court settlement, with the usual caveat of not disclosing the details of same by either side, in the months to come.

Summer Hathaway

(2,770 posts)
29. The case would be
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 02:25 AM
Apr 2013

whether it is allowable, under present law, to publish the photograph of any private citizen and say, "We don't KNOW that this person is NOT guilty of this crime, therefore we are permitted to imply that he/she might be guilty, their guilt or innocence not having been proven one way or the other at the time we published."

elleng

(130,133 posts)
30. I understand the premise, Summer.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 02:28 AM
Apr 2013

I thought you were aware of an actual case, in past. (I'm an attorney, but not specialst in defamation etc cases.)

 

olddots

(10,237 posts)
5. No
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:34 AM
Apr 2013

Rupert's set up is a flawless chain of command .In a world where corporations have been given human status the word News is entertainment ---the department of war is now the defense department and Us magazine is literature.

England started to take on Murdoch but only wrists were slapped ,I thought America would go after some of the crimes but nothing has happened .

Summer Hathaway

(2,770 posts)
6. I should think so.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:37 AM
Apr 2013

Aside from the obvious libel, the newspaper put the young man's personal safety in extreme jeopardy by identifying him as one of the Boston Bombers at a time when emotions are raw, and many average citizens are likely to take the law into their own hands, or seek revenge of their own accord.

If the young man sues, it will not go well for the NY Post. And I hope he does.

Lady Freedom Returns

(14,120 posts)
7. Yes, they can get sued and yes New York Post can lose.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:43 AM
Apr 2013

If he was never a suspect, since he is a minor, since he is not considered a person of public domain such as a politician or a star, since there is a chance of harm physically.

It is everything that they say to avoid EVER happening in Comm Law 101. Tabloid or not.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
9. If I were that kid and his family, I'd sue the Post for enough money to put the two of those
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:45 AM
Apr 2013

wrongly accused "suspects" through the best Ivy League college in the land. Comfortably. Private room. Books, fees, airfare home, spring breaks, maybe a car, spending money...the works. And a little more for the aggro, too.

Separation

(1,975 posts)
26. Was thinking the same thing.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 02:13 AM
Apr 2013

Totally wrecked his life, I would imagine it played a part on his death as well. Stress kills.

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
15. Probably not...
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:55 AM
Apr 2013

a first amendment lawyer would be best to chime in, but AFIK the press is allowed to fuck up, but it's not libel or slander unless they know it's false and they push it. A beat-the-deadline short piece falls under the "minor fuckup" provisions of the law. Plus, I think they need to show direct harm came to them.

Years ago the Enquirer called Carol Burnett an alcoholic, which was untrue, but it took Burnett years to get them to retract it and pay her for the slander. She taught the bastards a lesson, but anyone with less than Burnett's resources and popularity wouldn't stand much of a chance.

Yeah, if they suffer over this the Post should be held responsible, but it's one loophole we deal with for a free press.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
19. richard jewell sued multiple news orgs, & won. no, they can't show someone's picture and imply
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 01:08 AM
Apr 2013

they did a crime in the absence of confirmation.

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
21. Richard Jewell was falsely accused in a major...
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 01:28 AM
Apr 2013

case that received worldwide attention and was effectively tried in the press with his life ruined. Later on the Governor of Georgia and the US Attorney General praised him.

Aside from the major case aspect, not quite the same thing as one article that everyone agrees is full of shit.

Note that not everyone paid Jewell off-- one case was thrown out (not in the least because he died in the interim) and those who did settle paid small change considering what they did and never admitted guilt, or even making a mistake. It looks like the settlements were just hush money to avoid open trials and their own bad press over bashing he who tuned out to be a hero after all.




TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
33. Once again-- settlement is not necessarily winning...
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 03:35 AM
Apr 2013

it's getting you out of their hair. "Winning" is getting a jury to agree and then getting all the appeals courts to agree.

But, again, the Post's story was nothing even close to what happened to Jewell.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Can the innocent people b...