So can Adam Lanza's brother sue?

[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.

Too funny, ok i'm done here.

[ripthekik]

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.

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]

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]

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

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.

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/Defamation

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.