You may recall the dramatic reports immediately after the Boston Marathon in April. The massive police search for suspects in the area resulted in some media outlets falsely reporting arrests had been made.
Two months later, a libel lawsuit has been filed against the New York Post, which published a photo of a young man and teenager at the marathon under the headline, "Bag Men." At the time, no one had been arrested, but the general public knew about the pressure-cooker bombs placed in duffel bags.
Two weeks ago, 16-year-old Salaheddin Barhoum and 24-year-old Yassine Zaimi filed the lawsuit, claiming libel, emotional distress and invasion of privacy.
Here are two articles that give more background.
Read this one first:
http://news.findlaw.com/apnews-lp/fc1dd2e442014beaaba555a2d6fa3cea
Here's another which provides more detail, some commentary and an image of the New York Post front cover with the photo and headline in question in this case:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/06/new-york-post-sued-for-libel-over-bag-men-story/
The second news article provides a link to the complaint. If you are curious what a complaint in a libel case looks like, click here.
We will talk about the emotional distress claim next week when we discuss Chapter 7. For now, feel free to use the comments to respond to the two articles posted above. What do you think? Do you think their reputations have been harmed by the publication? Walk through the elements of libel and consider what you've learned about libel defenses. Who do you think will prevail? Remember to support your answer as best as you can.
And, remember, when you leave a comment, please include your first name and last name initial.
19 comments:
After reading the two articles and the complaint, I'm leaning toward the plaintiffs' side. I don't think a newspaper should be overzealous to publish a story that it doesn't double check the facts first. The articles state that the plaintiffs weren't suspects. The FBI even issued a warning that media outlets should be cautious with their reporting. The New York Post article is defamatory and false. The plaintiffs were identified. The defamatory statement was published. The New York Post was negligent. The only one I'm not sure about is how the plaintiffs will show that the statement hurt their reputations. Everyone knows who was responsible for the bombings, and it wasn't the plaintiffs. I wasn't even aware of the New York Post article until this assignment, and I keep up with the news pretty well. The plaintiffs will have to show that people actually thought they were involved in the bombings or people think that they are/were connected with the bombings. Either way, I don't think the New York Post should write an article about people just because they had duffel bags (which I'm sure a lot of other people did too) or because of their ethnicity.
(Judy D.)
I believe the headline makes all the difference. If it wasn't for the headline, then the plaintiff's wouldn't really have an argument. Even though they weren't specifically named on the cover of the NYP or in the article, it was implied that they were the two being accused as the culprits in the Boston Marathon bombings. Zaimi's boss even knew it was him on the cover. Barhoum's home was bombarded with reporters asking his family questions. With that said, identification, in my opinion, does take place. Defamation is there because the NYP is alleging that they are the two responsible for this tragedy. The NYP is published and circulated to thousands of people so dissemination does take place as well. Since the plaintiffs would be considered private persons they would have to prove negligence and I believe this is the furthest step the plaintiffs will prevail in. What I mean is that they can prove negligence because the NYP didn't check any reliable sources before implying that these two were the ones responsible. As a matter of fact, the federal authorities were looking at two other suspects having to do nothing with the plaintiffs. The media, in this case NYP, was just throwing stories out their to feed the people lies and profit off of it. The NYP had no right to jump to conclusions and targeting these two innocent young men. But as much as I would like to say I believe the plaintiffs will win this case, I don't. I don't believe they will because I don't see how this publication has harmed their reputation to the extent of receiving damages for it. Yes, at the beginning when this first circulated people thought they could be the ones responsible and Zaimi's boss presented this upon him maybe thinking it was him but he didn't lose his job over it. The legal authorities weren't even looking for them and as a matter of fact, the legal authorities told them they didn't consider them suspects. Libel is about proving damage to reputation and in this case I don't think any damage, to the extent of receiving monetary compensation, was done because we all know now who the ones responsible for this tragedy are and it's not the two plaintiffs. It's unfortunate that the plaintiffs had to go through this just because the NYP saw this as an opportunity to make money and not take into consideration how this could of affected these two innocent men.
--Stephanie G.
Marla E.--I am somewhat torn. The first article makes me feel that the plaintiffs will lose. There isn't enough pertinent information to make me believe they'd win because there's no photo, no excepts from the FBI and no excitement in the content that would make me pay attention to the situation. However, the Erik Wemple article immediately grabbed my attention and made me turn my focus to the photo, and the article that followed. Clearly, it's an opinion article, but a very good one! The perspective from this article makes me feel that the plaintiffs have a chance to win. First, these are private citizens who weren't looking for attention--they were just minding their business and having a chat hours before the blasts. Secondly, the caption accompanying the photo would lead someone to believe the plaintiffs were suspects, even though the continuing article said no one had been arrested. Thirdly, the NY Post published their information even after the press was warned to be cautious about what they reported in light of the bombing. These people are private citizens, and only have to prove negligence in their case to win. Yes, the NY Post was negligent in their reporting. I don't think they'll be able to prove malice, so I don't think any damages will be awarded.
I agree with the two plaintiffs. The post made a huge mistake in posting such allegations without having any real proof. Just because the image was floating around on the internet does not mean it has any real worth. Especially, since the FBI had to release a statement correcting the reports claiming the two boys as suspects. I do believe the statements (disseminated) were/are defamatory, but as to whether the Post had the intention of ruining their reputation, I'm not sure. It is their job to inform the public. but they jumped the gun before waiting for solid information.
It will be interesting to see where this case ends up.
I'm confused on why the Post would stand by their article. They clearly pointed the finger at two people who had no tie in the Boston Marathon Massacre. I kept a close eye on the news when this happened, and there was a lot of speculation, a lot of confusion and not enough facts. We all know in journalism you're pressured to get stories out quickly to the public. I just believe this was their way to put something on stands quick to grab the attention of their audience. The Post were not aiming to harm these two men's reputation which is where this case may get lost. It did on the other hand hurt their reputation. If I was in their position and I read an article about me being a suspect for something so horrible, I don't know what I'd do. The headline alone says it all. I wave my white flag on this case; although, I believe the Post should lose.
I agree with the plaintiffs as well. In the scramble to be the first to publish the angle, the Post made a huge(and most likely expensive) mistake. There is really no excuse for sloppy journalism, even with the pressure to get the story out first. It looks like negligence to me.
Jordan McMinn
Of course, their reputations have been harmed. The New York Post was beyond negligent in pasting the men’s faces all over the cover, and then sending them out without having the slightest bit of proof they were the actual suspects. Not to sound prejudice, but with names such as theirs, this could seriously kill their reputation. So many ignorant people are out there ever since 9/11. I think the plaintiffs will have no problem in the libel case, due to the New York Post’s reckless disregard for the truth. I believe they can win based on actual malice. I seriously hope the plaintiffs win in this case.
Casey L. Carroll
Their reputations has obviously been harmed. They were recognized by reporters who encircled his home, the other's manager recognized him. The entire country saw this publication and it heavily implies that the plaintiff's were involved in the bombing.This is clearly a negligent infliction of emotional distress. Any normal person would be completely horrified to hear that the entire country thinks you're a suspect to a bombing. The media was already warned to take extreme caution when writing on the bombing, and this reporter found an easy way to get a lot of readers by acting as though he had an official lead on who did it. The plaintiffs better win because it is easy to prove severe emotional distress in this case and that the defendant clearly breached their duty to use due care.
Madison K.
Carlos Garcia - I don't think haste ought to be considered a defense to libel. I think what the Post did was inexcusable.
I agree with the plaintiffs 100%. They are private figures so all they have to prove is negligence, which the newspaper was negligent in publishing that article because the article is proven to be false. There is no doubt in my mind and it’s as simple as that. The newspaper should have been more professional and made sure their facts were accurate before they published anything.
-Brittany V.
I agree with the plaintiffs and if I were them I would sue too. I mean clearly the newspaper didn't look into the details that good. The two guys went to the police station and the police told them they weren't even thought of as suspects so why would the New York Post blast them like that. If I were on the cover of a newspaper labeled as I terroist I can't even imagine how I would feel, the poor 16-year-old was probably having a good day at his track meet then comes home to reports pin-pointing him as a bomber. I would feel sick also. Then to have people look at you and taunt you for something you didn't even do. That has to be highly emotional. I hope they win this case against the Post. Clearly the Post needed to check their facts.
-Montreal W.
I'm shocked the NY post would consider supporting their article even for an instant. There is obvious harm to the reputations of both "suspects" and they are both clearly private citizens. This article strikes me as a desperate, irresponsible attempt to push any content out on a controversial issue.
(Charlie S.)
Like many of my classmates, I'm also surprised the Post is standing by its story. Publishing a headline like that with their photos before investigators could confirm they were suspects is clearly in the wrong. Especially with accusations of a mass bombing like this one, where the public wanted someone to blame. I don't doubt the plaintiffs experienced emotional distress because of this article. Even after the real suspects have been identified and charged, their reputations are tarnished. I don't doubt there are probably some people in this country who believe the plaintiffs had something to do with the bombings because of this article. I think this was a really reckless act on the part of the New York Post in order to get information out about a controversial issue before other news outlets. It seemed like during that time, that's what all the media was trying to do. -Jordana H.
After reading the articles, I think this case has all the elements of libel, but I think the defamatory statement is libel per quod. For example, in the Fellows V. National Enquirer case the statement only read "steady dating" and those words do not necessarily harm a person's reputation. The words themselves will not stand for a libel lawsuit. They may prevail with the other charges, but if they cannot win with libel then I think the other charges stand no chance. I think the identification in this case is very broad. Yes, family, co-workers and friends may have recognized them, but that is only a few compared to the mass audience that may have read it. The mass audience most likely had no idea who they were but simply two guys of that nationality with bags. Yes, the Washington Post could have taken further steps in identifying the alleged bag men, but maybe that was avoided because this story was based on speculation at the time. I think this case will be settled before trial or dismissed. I think it will be difficult to prove harm to their reputation.
-Deanndra G.
I am for the plaintiff's in this case. The New York Post, was negligent to the private persons in this article. They made a defamatory statement especially by the headline "bagmen". However, I feel the boys would have a hard time proving emotional distress or how it harmed their reputation. Although I am on the plaintiff's side that the newspaper was ethically wrong, I am not sure if they will be able to prove libel.
-Ashtin B
I feel what the New York Post did was very wrong and unethical. They made claims as soon as possible just to "get the jump on the competition" or whatever you call it. However, they were not right, and in writing those statements, they knew there was a chance they were not right. It is wrong in my eyes to assume these guys were the bombers just because they had backpacks. It is a marathon, everyone has backpacks. What I learned in previous classes was to never speculate because you better be prepared to take the heat if they come back at you. This is exactly what they are doing, they were just speculating. I feel they should be titled to some type of damages, but I think the jury is going to have a hard time voting if they cannot prove they had their reputation harmed because of this.
-Chris G.
I would have to agree with Chris on this one. What the New York Post published was wrong and unethical. It was newsworthy but in no way was it doing justice to the public. The people deserve to know the truth and this is just wrong. It led to more confusion and was unnecessary.
-Scott A.
Brittney C.....
In my opinion, I believe this article was outright wrong. All of the elements of Libel are contained in this article. 1.) Defamation-- occurred by accusing these two men as the culprits of the bombing.
2.) Identification--Although their names were not on the cover not in the story, they were still identifiable. The news outlets showed up at Barhoums house bombarding him with questions and the other "suspects" boss even recognized him from the picture on the cover of the newspaper.
3.) Dissemination-- This newspaper is HUGE and reports to thousands of people that read it every day.
4.) Fault--Since they were private persons, negligence would have to proved and since the newspaper had absolutely NO legitimate source and the investigators told them they were not considered suspects, they STILL posted the article later that day. Negligence can be proved very easily with these facts.
5.) Damages-- this is the only element of libel that would be hard to prove. Of course, as an average person, I would be on the plaintiffs side agreeing that it caused harm to my reputation but legally, its going to be hard to prove the actual damages. Since everyone does know of the real culprits who bombed the marathon, people now know that they were not the ones who committed the crime.
As for negligent infliction of emotional distress, i would say that they will win this claim. The NYP had a duty to use due care and they negligently breached that duty due to not investigating the official reports enough (that didn't even mention their name as suspects in the first place). The breach caused the plaintiff severe emotional distress bc they "suspects" became "terrified, began to shake and sweat, and felt dizzy and nauseous" after coming home and finding out about the article. The breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs emotional distress.
For the invasion of privacy-- I predict they will lose this claim. Although it was an intrusion of privacy, I don't think it was intentional on the newspapers part. The newspaper might have totally believed it was them or just tried making profit by having the first story on the bombing but its hard to prove that.
All in all, I hope they win atleast some damages, but thinking in a legal mindset...it's going to be hard to prove most of these claims!
Brittney C.
I am in favor of the plaintiff's. The New York Post should have done more to check their facts. What the Post did was unethical and wrong. Being suggest as the bombers, I think the plaintiff's should get some kind of damages.
Ashley H.
Post a Comment