So can Adam Lanza's brother sue?

[QUIZZLE]

CNN had that Ryan Lanza was the killer for multiple hours.

[L.Kizzle]

No.

[nathanjizzle]

yes he can sue.

[sunsfan1357]

Another repercussion of these news stations trying to battle with each other in getting information out first. Fact checking gets thrown out the window.

[red1]

he will get a settlement from cnn. can change his name to adam banks

[L.Kizzle]

I'm sorry, he sure can sue. I should have said he won't win.

[bagelred]

CNN had that Ryan Lanza was the killer for multiple hours.

I'm sure CNN used the word "suspect", which will negate any possible defamation. Because he probably was a suspect considering his brother used his ID, right?

And of course, typical Americans, worried about who can sue who.......

[bdreason]

Pretty sure the guy killed his brother, right? :confusedshrug:

[The Real JW]

Pretty sure the guy killed his brother, right? :confusedshrug:

No, some news outlets were falsely reporting that. The older brother (Ryan) was originally targeted as the shooter by the media, posting his name and photo. His facebook was getting bombarded. He posted something like, "IT WASN'T ME. I'M ON THE BUS COMING HOME FROM WORK. IT WASN'T ME." and eventually just closed his facebook account.

[QUIZZLE]

I'm sure CNN used the word "suspect", which will negate any possible defamation. Because he probably was a suspect considering his brother used his ID, right?

And of course, typical Americans, worried about who can sue who.......

I'm worried about it?

[L.Kizzle]

No, some news outlets were falsely reporting that. The older brother (Ryan) was originally targeted as the shooter by the media, posting his name and photo. His facebook was getting bombarded. He posted something like, "IT WASN'T ME. I'M ON THE BUS COMING HOME FROM WORK. IT WASN'T ME." and eventually just closed his facebook account.
Pretty sure they weren't falsely reporting information.

[The Real JW]

Pretty sure they weren't falsely reporting information.

They reported it and it was false, so...

[knickballer]

Of course he can.. Typical US Media journalism jumping to conclusions so one network can get a jump on the next all for $$. Nothing new.

[Rake2204]

he will get a settlement from cnn. can change his name to adam banks
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XB9gkOz-HMM/Te975wyz0-I/AAAAAAAAAE8/re9mJnBKZmg/s320/md7.jpg ?

[ripthekik]

He absolutely can. Having a profile picture on facebook is no grounds for the media to show it to the nation and label you a mass-murderer. He could talk about the psychological effect it had on him, the problems he will have to deal with from this, and he will get a big paycheck.

I don't think he'll need to go to court, as the media corporation doesn't want these type of attention. They'll gladly pay him and settle outside of court.

But again, it's not a slam dunk. The media could use public policy, as afterall, the news was generated to inform the public. It was also supplied by the police enforcement.

[knickballer]

He absolutely can. Having a profile picture on facebook is no grounds for the media to show it to the nation and label you a mass-murderer. He could talk about the psychological effect it had on him, the problems he will have to deal with from this, and he will get a big paycheck.

I don't think he'll need to go to court, as the media corporation doesn't want these type of attention. They'll gladly pay him and settle outside of court.

But again, it's not a slam dunk. The media could use public policy, as afterall, the news was generated to inform the public. It was also supplied by the police enforcement.

But that's the problem.. The media shouldn't be saying shit unless they know the info is 100%, think about the potential fear and harm they could have caused. What if his classmate or coworker(or w/e he was during the incident) saw the news and saw his name as the mass murderer? You don't think they'll be shitting bricks thinking he's going to let loose on them as well?

[ripthekik]

But that's the problem.. The media shouldn't be saying shit unless they know the info is 100%, think about the potential fear and harm they could have caused. What if his classmate or coworker(or w/e he was during the incident) saw the news and saw his name as the mass murderer? You don't think they'll be shitting bricks thinking he's going to let loose on them as well?
Yeap, but the News media will probably have this covered by using the word suspect i.e. The suspected killer (his name, his picture) was found... etc etc

In their defense, it's not like they're out to get the guy right? They're doing their duties to inform the public, they can submit evidence that they got substantial probability it was the suspect (his ID was there) before they posted it on the news. Plus, can you really sue the media for false info? During times of emergency, such as 9/11, they have a lot of information which are not yet verified, and a lot probably couldn't be verified until a few days later. However it is their duty to inform the public about ongoing investigations and the current situation. You also cant sue the media if they reported a hurricane coming, but it eventually didn't come right?

I think it's arguable for both sides. But hey, the media corp is rich enough. I'd be happy to see another man get paid, so I hope he got a good lawyer and go gets his.

[Godzuki]

Yeap, but the News media will probably have this covered by using the word suspect i.e. The suspected killer (his name, his picture) was found... etc etc

In their defense, it's not like they're out to get the guy right? They're doing their duties to inform the public, they can submit evidence that they got substantial probability it was the suspect (his ID was there) before they posted it on the news. Plus, can you really sue the media for false info? During times of emergency, such as 9/11, they have a lot of information which are not yet verified, and a lot probably couldn't be verified until a few days later. However it is their duty to inform the public about ongoing investigations and the current situation. You also cant sue the media if they reported a hurricane coming, but it eventually didn't come right?

I think it's arguable for both sides. But hey, the media corp is rich enough. I'd be happy to see another man get paid, so I hope he got a good lawyer and go gets his.

richard jewell altho that was more of an extreme case.

[Cangri]

I heard CNN say that they first saw his picture on Fox News, and they just ran with it, don't know if it's true, but I wouldn't be surprised to know Fox News reported yet another fake news.

[ihoopallday]

Didn't his brother have his ID at the crime scene? Anyways, I'm sure the last thing on his mind is suing. Lawyers are probably lining up wanting to represent this guy in court.

[daily]

I heard CNN say that they first saw his picture on Fox News, and they just ran with it, don't know if it's true, but I wouldn't be surprised to know Fox News reported yet another fake news.CBS was the first to report the name and picture

ihoopallday, yes he had his brothers ID, that's where the name originally released by the police came from

[nathanjizzle]

jus because his brother had his id on him doesnt allow the media deflamation of character, they had the guys facebook up there for the whole country to see and judge his face.:facepalm

both him and his brother are above 18, adults, they are treated as individuals in court and would not matter if there brothers, he is not responsible for his brothers actions.

[ripthekik]

richard jewell altho that was more of an extreme case.
Yeap, they will definitely used jewell's cases in court as precedent. It seems in most of the cases the court ordered the media for a compensation payment. CNN decided to settle outside the court.

I guess it's fair for the guy the get some type of compensation. I don't think the media will have full liability though, they had grounds to believe he was the suspect.

Also, he could also get an injunction to get the media to clear his name. Along with some compensation, I think that's what the guy can get if he pursues (which he should).

[tpols]

Yeap, but the News media will probably have this covered by using the word suspect i.e. The suspected killer (his name, his picture) was found... etc etc

In their defense, it's not like they're out to get the guy right? They're doing their duties to inform the public, they can submit evidence that they got substantial probability it was the suspect (his ID was there) before they posted it on the news. Plus, can you really sue the media for false info? During times of emergency, such as 9/11, they have a lot of information which are not yet verified, and a lot probably couldn't be verified until a few days later. However it is their duty to inform the public about ongoing investigations and the current situation. You also cant sue the media if they reported a hurricane coming, but it eventually didn't come right?

I think it's arguable for both sides. But hey, the media corp is rich enough. I'd be happy to see another man get paid, so I hope he got a good lawyer and go gets his.
The guy could claim negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation and easily win a case.. He's gonna have some good lawyers jumping on this too. They'll do it for a big cut.

[Patrick Chewing]

What a sad situation for this guy. He probably thought someone with his name killed a bunch of people, only later to find out it was your brother who killed them and also killed your mother.


His face was plastered all over the net, but I'm sure this guy wants to live the rest of his life in obscurity.

[daily]

To answer the Op. no, not really. He could but it would be thrown out if he did. Better to make his money working with the media than against it in this case. He'll make more selling this story than he'd ever make trying to sue people protected by the first amendment.

To sue he'd have to prove several things or pass several challenges the primary being did the media act with malice he'd have to prove that they went out of their way to defame or smear his good name. Nearly impossible to do when the name came from a government authority and even harder when you look at in context of a breaking news story, Once the police changed the name so did the media

Second being did the media once they realized an error had been made repair the error or did they keep with the original story for an extended period of time. Extended period being a few days not a few hours

Did the media give him a chance or did they willfully deny him a chance to clear his name. Obviously this won't stand up because any media outlet in the country would or will have loved nothing more than to have him on air in front of a camera.

Basically he has no recourse because he'd have to prove the media did it on purpose, getting a name wrong in a breaking story is not against the law nor is it considered un-journalistic, all the outlets that reported it wrong in the first place retracted and fixed the error. He can't even go after Buzzfeed for breaking his facebook page or posting his pic because it's a public site.

If it's money he want's he'll get a lot more putting his story up to the highest bidder than banging his head against the wall in a losing effort

BTW this doesn't even began to compare to the Richard Jewell case so don't even bother with that nonsense

[TheSilentKiller]

Can he not sue for defamation of character?

[Math2]

Pretty sure they weren't falsely reporting information.

No, they have just changed their story multiple times....

"It's Ryan Lanza....wait, it's his brother!"
"His dad was killed.....wait, his mom was killed"
"He drove to New Jersey before the killing....wait, no he didn't."

[Real Men Wear Green]

A libel case may have some merit. If I was him I'd be trying to disappear from the face of the earth right now. Move to Zimbabwe or something. Poor guy.

[LJJ]

Basically he has no recourse because he'd have to prove the media did it on purpose, getting a name wrong in a breaking story is not against the law nor is it considered un-journalistic, all the outlets that reported it wrong in the first place retracted and fixed the error. He can't even go after Buzzfeed for breaking his facebook page or posting his pic because it's a public site.

"Not un-journalistic" What are you talking about dude, it's a grotesque journalistic **** up of the highest order.

They take unconfirmed, unreliable information from a single, unreliable source and immediately put it on air as established news. That runs completely against good journalistic practice. As a journalist when you obtain information from an indirect, unreliable source you better be damn sure to cross-reference that shit among multiple sources before you start plastering it all over the global media.

They reported 100% false information based on essentially a rumor, and it wasn't just an honest mistake either. It's a risk they consciously take, because breaking a story first is more important to them than doing their job in a proper and ethical way. The instances when this gambling blows up in their faces they absolutely deserve to take the full responsibility for the falsehoods they publish.

[miller-time]

No, they have just changed their story multiple times....

"It's Ryan Lanza....wait, it's his brother!"
"His dad was killed.....wait, his mom was killed"
"He drove to New Jersey before the killing....wait, no he didn't."

I wonder how much money is in being first to report these kinds of details? I mean they are hardly Watergate moments. They are rudimentary details in a terrible crime that require little to no investigative journalism. Are they worth that much that it is necessary to risk reporting them even if they turn out to be wrong?

[tpols]

To sue he'd have to prove several things or pass several challenges the primary being did the media act with malice he'd have to prove that they went out of their way to defame or smear his good name. Nearly impossible to do when the name came from a government authority and even harder when you look at in context of a breaking news story, Once the police changed the name so did the media
No malice or intent needed. It's gross negligence of the highest order.



Second being did the media once they realized an error had been made repair the error or did they keep with the original story for an extended period of time. Extended period being a few days not a few hours
In the case of something like this with such huge national exposure all it took was a few hours for the misrepresntation to be spread on a massive scale. That's what matters.

[ripthekik]

To answer the Op. no, not really. He could but it would be thrown out if he did. Better to make his money working with the media than against it in this case. He'll make more selling this story than he'd ever make trying to sue people protected by the first amendment.

To sue he'd have to prove several things or pass several challenges the primary being did the media act with malice he'd have to prove that they went out of their way to defame or smear his good name. Nearly impossible to do when the name came from a government authority and even harder when you look at in context of a breaking news story, Once the police changed the name so did the media

Second being did the media once they realized an error had been made repair the error or did they keep with the original story for an extended period of time. Extended period being a few days not a few hours

Did the media give him a chance or did they willfully deny him a chance to clear his name. Obviously this won't stand up because any media outlet in the country would or will have loved nothing more than to have him on air in front of a camera.

Basically he has no recourse because he'd have to prove the media did it on purpose, getting a name wrong in a breaking story is not against the law nor is it considered un-journalistic, all the outlets that reported it wrong in the first place retracted and fixed the error. He can't even go after Buzzfeed for breaking his facebook page or posting his pic because it's a public site.

If it's money he want's he'll get a lot more putting his story up to the highest bidder than banging his head against the wall in a losing effort

BTW this doesn't even began to compare to the Richard Jewell case so don't even bother with that nonsense
You're not suing the Media for a crime here. You're suing in tort.
I'm sorry to say, but a lot of that is wrong.

[Draz]

You can sue for practically anything. Winning is the problem. However, I do think he has a case of defamation.

[daily]

No malice or intent needed. It's gross negligence of the highest order. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Too funny, ok i'm done here.

[ripthekik]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Too funny, ok i'm done here.
Not sure what's funny. He's right and you're wrong. The whole paragraph you wrote up there was wrong.

When you sue in tort in you don't need malice intent. If I accidently hit you with my shopping cart and you fell and broke your hand, can you sue me? Sure. There's no criminal liability here, but you can sue me for negligence, duty of care. Did I intend to hurt you? Absolutely not, but was I careless? Yes, and that's why you can sue me for COMPENSATION, not criminal liability. In criminal liability you need malice intent, mens rea. Not here.

What the guy is asking for is compensation. Does it really matter it was only a few hours and not days? The amount of people reached by the news in the time of internet today was probably millions. He definitely has a case, like I said, all he needs is a good lawyer. He might not get anything big, but he'll get compensated alright.

[tpols]

Not sure what's funny. He's right and you're wrong. The whole paragraph you wrote up there was wrong.

When you sue in tort in you don't need malice intent. If I accidently hit you with my shopping cart and you fell and broke your hand, can you sue me? Sure. There's no criminal liability here, but you can sue me for negligence, duty of care. Did I intend to hurt you? Absolutely not, but was I careless? Yes, and that's why you can sue me for COMPENSATION, not criminal liability. In criminal liability you need malice intent, mens rea. Not here.

What the guy is asking for is compensation. Does it really matter it was only a few hours and not days? The amount of people reached by the news in the time of internet today was probably millions. He definitely has a case, like I said, all he needs is a good lawyer. He might not get anything big, but he'll get compensated alright.
Pretty much..

[KevinNYC]

Are there any lawyers on this board.

I don't think he has much of a case at all.

A. The damage he suffered only lasted for a couple of hours.
B. If the media were saying "According to police, the suspect is......" then that is an absolutely factual statement and no media company would lose that case... The question may become can he sue the police? Still probably not a winnable case since if the killer stole his ID, the cops had a justifiable reason to believe it was him.

This does not at all seem to be a case of jumping the gun or acting out of malice. Yes, they communicated false information but they had valid reasons for saying what they said.

C. And this point is the biggest. How much has reputation suffered from being known as a heinous killer of children for a few hours, compared to being known as the brother a heinous killer of children? The cops and the media didn't cause this, his brother did, even if there was confusion about the facts in the beginning.

It was his brother who turned his life upside down, regardless of what the cops or the media did. It's not like without the early erroneous reports, this guy is sitting pretty. His family has still been torn apart.

I don't see him having any winnable case.

[D.J.]

He most certainly has a case. Even if he wasn't intentionally slandered, it's still considered slander because by putting his picture online and on TV, you're hurting his reputation and can cause him problems down the road. Slander doesn't have to have intent behind it. When your working for a media outlet and your job is to report information, it is your duty to make sure the information is accurate before you make it public. One piece of inaccurate information can ruin a person's life. When people thought he was the killer, someone could have attempted to harm him. It's still consider slander and it affected his reputation and his safety.

[daily]

Not sure what's funny. He's right and you're wrong. The whole paragraph you wrote up there was wrong.

When you sue in tort in you don't need malice intent. If I accidently hit you with my shopping cart and you fell and broke your hand, can you sue me? Sure. There's no criminal liability here, but you can sue me for negligence, duty of care. Did I intend to hurt you? Absolutely not, but was I careless? Yes, and that's why you can sue me for COMPENSATION, not criminal liability. In criminal liability you need malice intent, mens rea. Not here.

What the guy is asking for is compensation. Does it really matter it was only a few hours and not days? The amount of people reached by the news in the time of internet today was probably millions. He definitely has a case, like I said, all he needs is a good lawyer. He might not get anything big, but he'll get compensated alright.

:facepalm

To prove the media libeled him it must be proven they set out to do it on purpose or they did it in the face of other contrary facts related to the story.

In this case the media reported exactly what they were told by the police department. that's what you seem to have a hard time grasping here. They didn't fabricate the story and they didn't make assumptions based on rumors or innuendo they reported the news as it was told to them by a spokesman for the police. When the police rectified their error the media retracted the original name and ran the new one.

They did nothing but report the news as it was given to them by the Police.

Until you can wrap you head around that you're just talking out your ass

[KevinNYC]

Also there was a book on Columbine that came out 10 years after the event. And the story there was that virtually all the initial reporting had it wrong. Particularly with regards to "trench coat mafia" stuff.

[bmulls]

:facepalm

To prove the media libeled him it must be proven they set out to do it on purpose or they did it in the face of other contrary facts related to the story.

In this case the media reported exactly what they were told by the police department. that's what you seem to have a hard time grasping here. They didn't fabricate the story and they didn't make assumptions based on rumors or innuendo they reported the news as it was told to them by a spokesman for the police. When the police rectified their error the media retracted the original name and ran the new one.

They did nothing but report the news as it was given to them by the Police.

Until you can wrap you head around that you're just talking out your ass

You're straight up wrong man. Ripthekik has it correct.


How to prove libel
There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, first, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm. Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or a public official, the person must prove the first three steps and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth.[citation needed] Usually specifically referred to as "proving malice".[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

[D.J.]

A. The damage he suffered only lasted for a couple of hours.


We live in a society with high speed internet and people often use the internet as part of their living. A couple of hours is WAYYY more than enough time to make this kid famous. It's called the WORLD wide web for a reason.



B. If the media were saying "According to police, the suspect is......" then that is an absolutely factual statement and no media company would lose that case... The question may become can he sue the police? Still probably not a winnable case since if the killer stole his ID, the cops had a justifiable reason to believe it was him.


The media can say whatever they want. When your job is to report accurate information, you can't just take any information given to you at face value.



This does not at all seem to be a case of jumping the gun or acting out of malice. Yes, they communicated false information but they had valid reasons for saying what they said.


Back to slander as I mentioned in my last post. There doesn't have to be any malice in order to slander someone.



C. And this point is the biggest. How much has reputation suffered from being known as a heinous killer of children for a few hours, compared to being known as the brother a heinous killer of children? The cops and the media didn't cause this, his brother did, even if there was confusion about the facts in the beginning.


You do realize pretty much anyone can go online and read about him in a second, right? Even if it was up for only an hour, that's way more than enough time for millions to read and assume he was the killer. There's also nutjobs who may have planned to get revenge for the murders. With modern technology, it only takes seconds to spread a rumor and ruin someone's life.



It was his brother who turned his life upside down, regardless of what the cops or the media did. It's not like without the early erroneous reports, this guy is sitting pretty. His family has still been torn apart.


And his brother is dead. No doubt the family has been torn apart, but the brother is innocent.



I don't see him having any winnable case.


He may not win umpteen million, but he can win a piece of change.

[ripthekik]

:facepalm

To prove the media libeled him it must be proven they set out to do it on purpose or they did it in the face of other contrary facts related to the story.

In this case the media reported exactly what they were told by the police department. that's what you seem to have a hard time grasping here. They didn't fabricate the story and they didn't make assumptions based on rumors or innuendo they reported the news as it was told to them by a spokesman for the police. When the police rectified their error the media retracted the original name and ran the new one.

They did nothing but report the news as it was given to them by the Police.

Until you can wrap you head around that you're just talking out your ass
:facepalm :facepalm

All you need to do is prove in court that the defendant said or wrote the statements against you; the statements are not true; the statements caused harm to you, by damaging your reputation; other people heard or read the statements made against you.

You are asking for compensation here for damage, not that they did a crime. :facepalm

Anyways, I'm not even going to bother. No one's paying me for this.

[daily]

You're straight up wrong man. Ripthekik has it correct.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DefamationYou're missing the point also

The media reported what was told to them by the police. end of story

You cannot sue the media for relaying information from a public official in an effort to inform the public. It's not the media fault, it's the police departments fault.

if the police said it's Homer Simpson and they report it's Ryan Lanza then that's different story, BUT in this case the police told the media and not just one outlet but several that the shooters name was Ryan Lanza.

[bmulls]

You're missing the point also

The media reported what was told to them by the police. end of story

You cannot sue the media for relaying information from a public official in an effort to inform the public. It's not the media fault, it's the police departments fault.

if the police said it's Homer Simpson and they report it's Ryan Lanza then that's different story, BUT in this case the police told the media and not just one outlet but several that the shooters name was Ryan Lanza.

The police didn't officially report that, CNN asked some cop at the scene who spilled the beans. The police chief's official statement did not name a suspect. This distinction is important.

[Flagrant 2]

Not sure why they handcuffed him ... if I was the brother I would be pissed.

[shlver]

The police didn't officially report that, CNN asked some cop at the scene who spilled the beans. The police chief's official statement did not name a suspect. This distinction is important.
I'm not a lawyer but this detail seems pretty significant as to whether there is a case or not.

[L.Kizzle]

He most certainly has a case. Even if he wasn't intentionally slandered, it's still considered slander because by putting his picture online and on TV, you're hurting his reputation and can cause him problems down the road. Slander doesn't have to have intent behind it. When your working for a media outlet and your job is to report information, it is your duty to make sure the information is accurate before you make it public. One piece of inaccurate information can ruin a person's life. When people thought he was the killer, someone could have attempted to harm him. It's still consider slander and it affected his reputation and his safety.
What problem will this cause him down the road?

It's not like CNN has been reporting this for 7 weeks that he was the guy behind the mass murder and than all of a sudden say "my bad, it was his brother who did it."

It was probably reported for no more than 30 minutes (as this even was basically still goin on as they try to get the details, ect.)

I don't see this goin anywhere.

[KevinNYC]

Here's an article from a press watchdog on the Ryan Lizza angle. They don't mention the possibility of a lawsuit.

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/media-lab/social-media/198262/news-orgs-circulate-facebook-profile-of-the-wrong-ryan-lanza/

[Rubio2Gasol]

He will sue and he will never even need to enter a courtroom. He'll get a fair but not exorbitant settlement.

He can claim a bunch of things , but that's not really the point. Media outlets don't want to go through another circus that will isolate and highlight their incompetence and lack of credibility when those are the institutions they're based on.

[bdreason]

So who was the person they claimed he killed in an apartment in Jersey? Or was that all just mis-information?

[D.J.]

What problem will this cause him down the road?


You don't know. Could have caused a nut job to kill him thinking he committed the crime. Future employment. You don't know.



It's not like CNN has been reporting this for 7 weeks that he was the guy behind the mass murder and than all of a sudden say "my bad, it was his brother who did it."


We live in an age of computers and high speed Internet. It only takes seconds to spread a nasty rumor or false information and ruin a person's life.



It was probably reported for no more than 30 minutes (as this even was basically still goin on as they try to get the details, ect.)


That's way more than enough time.

[gts]

Are there any lawyers on this board.


My father is a Superior Court Judge. I'll ask him tonight when I meet up for dinner

[outbreak]

There's apparently a crap load of hate pages set up for him already and he received threats. Even a blogger who passed on private posts of his stating he wasn't the killer was receiving threads from people.

[ripthekik]

the fact that we, a basketball forum, have a topic dedicated to him, and that probably every big time forum will have a topic on him too, tells you enough about the situation.

For the guys that said it's different because it was pulled off in a few hours and not days, well guess what, the damage is already done!

Want to put a celebrity's nude photos online and take it off in 5 minutes? Think it's not problem because you pulled it off so fast? Tell that to the judge, because it'll be all over the world in hours, and the damage is unrecoverable.

Dude should sue for compensation, and an injunction for the news to clear his name.