can they sue FAUX news ?

[MeDeMax]

Over 1,600 of our soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Another 16,000 are coping with wounds, both physical & psychological, that may never heal.

One of the facts, among others, at the heart of this suffering, both for our men & women and the iraqis that have lost loved ones, is that journalists at FAUX news mis-represented the reality on the ground in iraq.

So, can american soldiers and their families, that have experienced untold pain and suffering, due to the aberrant and distorted news reporting by FAUX news, form a plaintiff class and file a suit against FAUX news in US courts ?

For loss of life & limb and for pain & suffering ?

If FAUX news had reported facts accurately, public opinion and therefore our war policy, would perhaps have gone a different direction saving many lives - of our own men & women and iraqi civilians. Perhaps ?

Anyone verse in legal matters care to comment ?

Anyone with an opinion, good or bad, care to comment ?

[morgan2]

1. kinda like yelling fire in a crowded theater

They're yelling terrorism, into crowded minds?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Nope.

The First Amendment is the main reason.
Also, in tort law there's the notion of superseding and intervening cause. You have to be able to prove that somebody's fault or negligence was the proximate cause of the injury -- and that no other cause intervened. Usually if there's a criminal act that intervenes, even if the original actor was negligent, they aren't liable.
Fox sucks ass, but no lawyer would touch such a case with a ten-foot pole.

[FreedomAngel82]

3. Right

I wouldn't go with it either. I'd rather work on the minutes from Blair and getting Bush's ass that way. It'd be much sweeter.

[MeDeMax]

6. that wasn't my motive...

I figured if soldiers and their families take these guys to task in court, no matter who prevails, they will start to take their job of reporting news more seriously.

And if by some miracle the plaintiff class should prevail, they really could use the cash, since congress cut their benefits.

[MeDeMax]

4. thnx but...

I presume their application to the FCC will say something to the effect of "we plan to report news in the interest of the public".

Then isn't it negligence to not report all relevant facts ?

[Karmakaze]

5. Nope - Fox has already won a lawsuit...

brought against them by a couple of their reporters. The reporters claimed they were fired because they refused to lie in a story they did. The judge ruled that there is no requirement for a news organisation to tell the truth and as such the dismissals were legitimate.

So basically Fox News has a license to lie.

[MeDeMax]

8. but this is different, wouldn't you say ?

A couple of fired reporters claiming their employer demanded that they lie

Vs

Soldiers and families that have suffered irreparable harm.

Of course the said plaintiffs would have to demonstrate the harm, which isn't likely says ocelot

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Cable news isn't regulated by the FCC.

Also, the First Amendment protects journalists, even crappy ones like the asshats at Pox News. They have to be more than merely negligent; if that were the case a newspaper or TV station theoretically could be sued every time they made a mistake. Dan Rather and Newsweek could have been sued (assuming someone could provedamages) just because they didn't verify their sources. This creates what's called a chilling effect that would deter journalists from reporting controversial stories. They are bad enough at that as it is. If the dipshits at Fox can be sued for bad journalism, then so could everybody else. The remedy for bad reporting is more and better reporting, not suppression of anybody's speech.

[lady lib]

10. Is this why Randi Rhodes is calling for specific requirements

for use of the term "news?" Just like you can't call foods "organic" unless they meet specific criteria, there would be criteria for labelling reporting as "news."

I think it's an excellent idea.

[MeDeMax]

12. great idea indeed...

establishing minimum requirements for something to qualify as news as opposed to fiction or "FAUX fantasy" :-)

I recall listening to Ahmed Rashid on fresh air, he mentioned that FAUX news couldn't get a license to broadcast from Britain since their FCC equivalent has minimum requirements that FAUX news wouldn't be able to meet.

For eg. - using "we" to interchangeably refer to their organization and the US armed forces.

[cornermouse]

9. Forget Fox.

Can they sue Bush, Cheney, and Halliburton?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. Nope as to Bush and Cheney.

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, government officials are immune from liability for acts involving policy decisions. Government contractors like Halliburton also are immune from lawsuits under a lot of circumstances. And even if any of these dirtbags could be sued -- that is, if the claims could even theoretically survive pretrial motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, what are the chances that Busholini's judges would rule in favor of a plaintiff? Roughly zero, I'd say. The remedy is political, not judicial.