I actually believe more and more that Fox news needs to be sued by victims of hate

[HEyHEY]

The kind of bullshit they stoke up has resulted in so much terrible shit, now even book burning! Then you hear of this 24-year-old stabbing a Muslim today. This is scary shit. And right-wing radio talk has helped perpetuate it, much like the Rwandan genocide.

As I mentioned the other day, I had a j-school instructor who used to go to volatile nations and teach their media how NOT to inflame the situation. It appears he should be going to Washington to teach. If media actually HAS that kind of power then something needs to be done.

I'm not from the USA, but in Canada you can launch a "private prosecution" meaning that you can take someone or something to court on criminal charges when the cops haven't laid any. If you prove your case, the guilty party is subject to penalties. It's rarely done, the last time was a local environmental group charging, and winning, against the regional district.

Anything like that in the USA that could be used?

[tinymontgomery]

1. Well it throttle them back

a little. It my run up against 1st amendment rights. I'm no lawyer so i don't know,

[tinymontgomery]

2. Well it throttle them back

a little. It my run up against 1st amendment rights. I'm no lawyer so i don't know,

Edit: darn this double post, Need a remove button.

[Rochester]

3. Re: Fox

I don't think there is. Too bad, I'd be overjoyed to see Faux News get shut down.

[pinboy3niner]

4. No

Here, for a charge of incitement to violence, someone has to pretty much tell someone to commit specific acts against a specific person or people in a specific place. Demonizing some person or group, generally, is not a crime. I think a major reason for that is to prevent malicious, partisan prosecutions, which is really a good thing.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. That's just because you watch them. Me? I wouldn't know, actually. I find them annoying.

[HEyHEY]

7. I don't watch them, I don't even get them.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. Well good on you, mate! Who needs 'em? Not i that's for sure.

[jberryhill]

6. Two answers..

Our equivalent of "private prosecution" (ex rel suits) is very narrow, but it is not at all clear what "crime" you are alleging here.

As far as a victim v. Fox suit, there is also no cause of action. Stirring up generalized passions is not the legal cause of any particular assault.

[HEyHEY]

8. Oh

Here you can be charged if your literature stirs up violence against a group of people based on race, gender...etc.

[jberryhill]

10. Yes - there is NOTHING like that in the US

[Bluerthanblue]

16. not 'defamation of character'?

Is there a reason that this action couldn't be taken against a 'corporation'?

:hi:

[seattleblue]

20. Defamation of character may be used when an individual is the target.

Not a group.

[depakid]

40. A bit of a correction there

Any non profit group or organisation that has a recognised legal status can sue and be sued for defamation.

Think ACORN or the NAACP (to use but two examples).

[Cleita]

9. Something needs to be done.

They can't just get away with what they do with impunity. Maybe civil suits are the way to go. We used to have laws against slander and libel but apparently they have disappeared. I think this man that got stabbed might have a case if he hooks up with the right lawyers. I'm thinking of Mike Pappantonio and Bobby Kennedy.

[Bluerthanblue]

14. I agree-

if nothing is done, they have no reason to stop doing what they're doing.

:hi:

[seattleblue]

21. Anyone can sue civilly when you are a victim of a crime.

The taxi driver can certainly sue the guy who stabbed him. The only question is whether he has any assets. If no assets then no lawyer will sue.

[OneGrassRoot]

34. Agreed. n/t

[totodeinhere]

37. Someone needs to start a progressive cable news network that can answer Fox and fight back.

Right now all we have is corporate outlets. Fox is the worst, but the others are Fox lite. Yes, I know that MSNBC has a couple of progressive on, but even that is in question now that Comcast bought them out.

[Bitwit1234]

12. The people who sue might not win BUT

if this is an ongoing situation maybe it will bring to light the lies and the manufacturing of conflict etc that Fox does. It won't change the opinion of the stupid and ignorant that watch Fox, the salivate at the hate, but it might change the mind of those who still have some brains. They would then see that they were being led down a path of hate and violence to build up Fox's ratings and raking in more money.

[closeupready]

13. Lots of stuff you could bring out in depositions, which is public record.

If a sufficient number of people did it, eventually, they'd have to moderate.

[Bluerthanblue]

15. "defamation of character"?

It might not be easy or successful, but if 'fox' was inundated with suits, it might at least have an effect on how the public views what they say, even on a subconscious level.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2063889_sue-defamation-character.html

I totally agree with you- something HAS to be done, the hate and misinformation they breed is helping to destroy our society, and effecting all of us even when we don't listen or watch personally.

k&r

[Blue Meany]

17. I think they could be sued for libel, in some cases...

I'm astonished at the amount of misinformation they get away with distributing. I keep thinking there ought to be a law against knowingly lying and calling it truth in the mass media. Even the National Inquirer is more careful about sourcing their stories. Certainly someone like Imam Rauf, whose reputation has been tainted by the false "facts" they have reported about him, could sue if he chose to.

[HEyHEY]

18. Does US media get tax exemptions?

Again, in Canada if something has a certain amount of news compared to ads, it gets a tax break. So, if something like fox did what it did here, in theory, it could be argued in court they are advertising for one side and lose their status.

[seattleblue]

22. You seem to forget we have a First amendment.

Canada does not. You can't compare the two countries. For all its faults in this area I will take the U.S. over a country where people can be imprisoned for their thoughts.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HEyHEY]

25. As well, you'll notice I suggested "Victims" of hate SUE fox

Not US attorneys should prosecute them.

It seems your lack of ability to comprehend what I wrote is likely equal to your lack of knowledge about your own constitution.

[seattleblue]

26. I know what you wrote and you have no understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

Now go play in the snow.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seattleblue]

29. Good luck with that theory in court.

I'm sure you will kick ass.

[HEyHEY]

30. Head in the sand, head in the sand

Don't want to listen, don't want to learn. Have fun with that.

[seattleblue]

33. Since I graduated from an U.S. law school

I won't take legal and Constitutional advice from a Canadian. But thanks.

[HEyHEY]

35. If you have a law degree, I have a pilot's license.

The internet is a fun place to lie.

[seattleblue]

36. You have proved that.

[HEyHEY]

43. Not one thing on here could even be considered a lie as it's all opion and no claims

...law degree my ass.

Done with you.

[depakid]

39. What does thought crime have to do with inciting violence against people?

or with defamation?

Plaintiff's who satisfy the Brandenburg test certainly can bring an action (and there's no reason to think that criminal sanctions that might be drafted up in accordance to the standard wouldn't pass muster in the 21st Century).

[Violet_Crumble]

42. I was wondering the same thing myself...

I've been reading this thread and find it quite bizarre that there's a poster in this thread who appears to believe that suing someone for defamation or inciting hatred is a direct attack on the First Amendment. And that they've got some strange idea that the First Amendment protects ALL speech when it most definately doesn't....

[Radical Activist]

19. I would love to see that happen.

But I don't believe they would have a chance of winning.

[BeHereNow]

23. We should set up a legal fund for people harmed by Fux hate talk hosts...

Maybe there is a law firm in Canada willing to help.
BHN

[proteus_lives]

28. No thanks, fox sucks but I'd rather keep the First Amendment intact.

[HEyHEY]

31. It's not a first amendment issue

In my opinion. You're not limiting free speech, you're suing someone whose use of their first amendment rights caused you harm. It's a less extreme example of someone encouraging a murder by spreading lies about a person.

[proteus_lives]

32. Key words: "In my opinion"

The real danger is setting a precedent to be used in other cases. All the Amendments face risk like that.

I don't like the garbage fox spews but they're within their rights. Better to let jackasses speak and then shoot down their bullshit.

"you're suing someone whose use of their first amendment rights caused you harm."

Here's the thing, you can't prove that and unless they said, "Hey, crazy NYC dude, go stab a Muslim." You have no case.

[HEyHEY]

44. Yeah, the other cases would be a worry.

It just seems to me a shame that these places can get away with stirring hatred.

[proteus_lives]

46. The way they can't get away with it is by response.

Respond to hatred and ignorance by exercising your First Amendment rights.

It's the best way to do it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

38. The billionaire racists would just fund that lawsuit all the way to the

SUPREME COURT.....which is full of more racists. They would just kiss Rupert Murdoch's ass and call it a day. We need another Liberal Justice. Until then, the Tea Klux Klanners will get away with everything they do.

[Synicus Maximus]

41. What would they be sued for?

[HEyHEY]

45. Don't know

I guess it would depend on the case. It just seems to me that a company like fox bears SOME responsiblity when it stokes the fires of hatred.

[Nye Bevan]

47. Many DUers have (justifiably) "stoked the fires of hatred"

against targets like banksters, tea-partiers and corporations like Blackwater. Under your theory, DU posters or DU itself could be sued or prosecuted for this.