Terrist??

August 28, 2005 11:39 PM

Since Fox News wrongly identified a La Habra home as that of a terrorist, its five- member family has faced an angry backlash. A FOX correspondent named an alleged terrorist connected with the July London bombings, and went so far as to provide the man's address (deep in the heart of the O.C.) "to help local police". Unfortunately, the address was three years out of date, and the current residents who have no connection whatsoever with the former occupant are being threatened, harassed by people driving by & yelling threats at them, and have had their home vandalized by a spectacular moron with a spray can. Full story here (LA Times, use bugmenot).
posted by jonson (141 comments total)

Look on the bright side:

After this family sues the ever-loving shit out of Faux News, they'll be able to afford a new house somewhere else.
posted by Mikey-San at 11:43 PM on August 28, 2005

Ohhh, so that's what "Fair and Balanced" means. (Sorry, someone had to say it.)

I would like to think that this finally offers blatant and undeniable proof that people shouldn't really go by anything they hear on Fox News.
posted by deusdiabolus at 11:54 PM on August 28, 2005

Did they also say how to tie a noose and what kind of rope is best for a lynching?
posted by Citizen Premier at 11:54 PM on August 28, 2005

CP, what they DID say, when confronted with the facts, was my second favorite part of the article ("Terrist" being the overall winner): "Mistakes happen". Way to take responsibility.
posted by jonson at 11:57 PM on August 28, 2005

"The Voricks say they have yet to see or hear a correction."

What's the holdup? Or does Fox News not do corrections?
posted by Potsy at 12:03 AM on August 29, 2005

SUE! SUE! SUE! SUE!
posted by wilful at 12:08 AM on August 29, 2005

What's the holdup? Or does Fox News not do corrections?

But... Fox News is always correct! Why should they issue a correction? Mistakes happen...
posted by slater at 12:09 AM on August 29, 2005

They did issue a one-line press release as a "correction". Apparently they did not believe that actual terror being experienced by American citizens was worthy of airtime. Funny, that.
posted by dhartung at 12:16 AM on August 29, 2005

I loved how the bumwad that gave out the address said how he was just "helping out the police."

Ever hear of the fucking telephone, asshole?
posted by Vidiot at 12:22 AM on August 29, 2005

And Fox News will issue a correction the first time President Bush admits a mistake, or Benedict XVI joins the Nation of Islam.
posted by Vidiot at 12:24 AM on August 29, 2005

Much as we're overeager to leap on Fox News at any chance possible, this is a horrible mistake that clearly poses threat to the well-being of citizens. I'd dare say they owe say... Five minutes of prime air time in an apology and correction. Even two minutes, with a clear apology directly from the correspondent, admission of being at fault, and a clear and easily understood correction. Also, for throwing out an address as if wanting vigilante justice, perhaps the resignation of this so-called "journalist"

Same as I'd think is right from any news source, far more than I'd expect from any for-profit entity.

Sue the crap out of them. Not for the people, but because money is the only language a corporation understands.
posted by Saydur at 12:25 AM on August 29, 2005

Well, Roger Ailes just doesn't retract stories, that's all. For what it's worth though (i.e. nothing,) Fox did send their one-line apology to the LA Times, because you know, 1) that makes it all better, and 2) it's the Times' job to fix Fox's "mistake".

Supposedly Loftus has been fired (from the comments here, but I haven't seen that confirmed anywhere.) As an aside, I love how Boing Boing has a comments section now. Wait, where am I?
posted by sysinfo at 12:51 AM on August 29, 2005

a (perhaps very) minor note - La Habra is located at Orange County's northernmost corner, as opposed to deep inside any part of it.
posted by PY at 1:05 AM on August 29, 2005

A good, smart Fox News would run an hourly apology on the local Fox affiliates and send someone to the house to apologize in person, deliver gifts to the children, and repaint the house. (Maybe Loftus should be the one with the paint brush.) It would be a good thing to do and it would make them look good.

An evil, stupid Fox News would do exactly what it is doing.
posted by pracowity at 1:25 AM on August 29, 2005

I don't know too much about these things, but couldn't the police charge Fox News for wasting police time?

I mean, seeing as how this whole situation is making more work for them (aside from the bullshit the family has to go through), hasn't this Fox moron done enough to get thrown in the clink for something?
posted by macdara at 2:43 AM on August 29, 2005

I smell a lawsuit.
posted by grouse at 3:50 AM on August 29, 2005

So hell yes, what a bout a goooood bunch of correction?

I think... things like this CAN happen. They shouldn't though.
The sad thing is, that if things like this happen these days, you cannot have a normal life afterwards when you got thet correction from fox, because the media have had you in all their frontpages.

Media is a sad thing sometimes...
By the way: Does anyone know a good (Web)TV station exept ARTE, 3SAT and NTV in germany???
posted by seitensprung at 4:27 AM on August 29, 2005

Novak didn't get canned. Why should this guy? These guys - corperations et al. - are just living in a figgin dream world where they are just so pathetically pleased with themselves. Logic just does not apply let alone common sence or, for that matter, real justice.

F@#K em all and sue them into oblivion!

/angry rant
posted by johnj at 4:32 AM on August 29, 2005

After just watching Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War On Journalism this is just yet another angering, ridiculous, pathetic, and terrible (yet not surprising, sadly) example of non-journalism from this shameful organization.

ugh
posted by tpl1212 at 5:37 AM on August 29, 2005

Someone oughta tip off the DEA that this guy's got a meth lab / grow room in his house or something. See how he likes being on the other end of a mistake.
posted by beth at 6:16 AM on August 29, 2005

Fox News: scum for and by scumbags.
posted by clevershark at 6:39 AM on August 29, 2005

The first place I heard about this story was my local fox affiliate. They mentioned that fox news was the source of the misinformation and then went on with the story. It was a strange little moment.
posted by rdr at 6:45 AM on August 29, 2005

So when will Fox hire Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson, et al?
posted by nofundy at 7:09 AM on August 29, 2005

How do I get in the betting pool on how much money they will get back from Fox?
posted by Kickstart70 at 8:24 AM on August 29, 2005

So when will Fox hire Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson, et al?
posted by nofundy at 7:09 AM PST on August 29 [!]


Because Clear Channel and the 700 club are 'working for the same side'.
They want to expand and dominate the media arena, not consolidate into one single channel.

A many headed beast is harder to kill than one with a single large head.
posted by Balisong at 8:25 AM on August 29, 2005

Of course, you can send comments to [e-mail]. I did.

My favorite part is the "oops, shit happens" aspect. That means they think that if there were terrorists living at that address everything would be A-OK. Furthermore, it means they'd be OK with other consequences, like the terrorists being killed by vigilantes... because that is a very short hop and a skip from where they started this whole thing.
posted by e40 at 8:28 AM on August 29, 2005

Here's the really pathetic part. From the top of his own site:

As a former Justice Department prosecutor, John Loftus once held some of the highest security clearances in the world, with special access to NATO Cosmic, CIA codeword, and Top Secret Nuclear files.

Wow. Just. Wow.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:30 AM on August 29, 2005

Or just email him your thoughts at: [e-mail]
posted by NationalKato at 8:37 AM on August 29, 2005

We report, you vandalize.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:41 AM on August 29, 2005

Fox can start by buying their home for double the going market rate, and helping them buy a new home that isn't known as a terrorist haven.

They can follow up by paying each and every member of the family -- including the housesitter -- for their trouble. I suggest a 6 figure amount. That will make a nice college fund for the kids.
posted by ilsa at 8:48 AM on August 29, 2005

Hey, come on, Loftus was just trying to help out the po-leese. The fact they need to have a cop car out there all the time to protect the home from vandals is a non-issue.
posted by delmoi at 9:09 AM on August 29, 2005

some good suggestions in this thread...

alternately, fox can issue a one-line correction through the la times, and then pay their lawyers to tell these guys to fuck off if they get sued.

seriously, how are loyal fox news viewers going to find out this happened?
posted by mosch at 9:13 AM on August 29, 2005

This is yet another example of what would be considered a kick-in-the-balls offense under the Chasing Legal Reform Act (CLRA). If found guilty, Loftus would receive one strong kick in the nuts by each family member (in addition to whatever penalties he might otherwise receive).

Another example would be Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, who would have received additional penalties of one kick in the balls by each person directly harmed by their crimes. At which point their jail terms would commence.

America would be a better place.

Vote Chasing 2008.
posted by chasing at 9:22 AM on August 29, 2005

I agree that Fox News ought to be excoriated for its faux news, but why isn't anyone condemning the behaviour of the residents of La Habra? Are we resigned to or endorsing their jingoistic bigotry? I thought we were more "civilized" than those dark-skinned people on far away continents.
posted by randomstriker at 9:23 AM on August 29, 2005

I'm not sure if I have this completely correct, but this is my understanding of the story:

1. A newscaster got the name of someone who may or may not be associated with terroist acts.
2. The newscaster announced the name and address.
3. The address was right at some point in time, but isn't anymore.
4. The people who now occupy the address got some grief and threats.

If those are the facts, I'm not sure how the family could sue the news agency. The people weren't identified as terrorists. A specific person was. The addresss was correctly indentified as associated with the person. Saying that he lived there now, if it was said, was wrong. But that doesn't make a lawsuit. The peope living there weren't defamed; an untrue statement was not made against them. So, I don't really see a lawsuit there.

I think legal action should be taken against the people threatening this family though. They are clearly in the wrong to threaten people, even if it was the alleged suspect living there.

So, I don't think this family has a legal right to turn a misstatement into a large payday. There was no defamation by the agency.. No threat by the news agency. That the family has to deal with it is unfortunate, but not something that calls for justice.

That being said, I think the reporter who announced a person's address is bad journalism. There is no value to announcing the address. I could see the value in announcing the city, the neighborhood, or even the street. People should know if there is a danger near their house. But the specific house address is not helpful. It shouldn't have been disclosed. But if the reporter is going to do the extra-ordinary and incorrect move of releasing the address, they better make damn sure it is correct.

The News Agency should publically apologize for releasing an address that isn't correct and reprimand the reporter for even reporting it. They should probably offer some money as an apology for the sake of PR, though I don't think they have a legal obligation too.
posted by dios at 9:26 AM on August 29, 2005

Nice try dios.
posted by jonson at 9:38 AM on August 29, 2005

I could see the value in announcing the city, the neighborhood, or even the street. People should know if there is a danger near their house

Because, of course, terrorists always attack locations close to where they live?!?

dios, you seem to be in somewhat of an apologist role. Before you bend over backwards too far, you might want to think of a point made elsewhere: if Fox News knows of a terrorist, why not just inform the police, or the FBI, or the Department of Homeland Security? (And if there isn't adequate evidence to arrest someone, then why is the story newsworthy?)

Fox Faux News, reporting live - we've discovered the home address of a notorious abortion-clinic bomber on the FBI top-ten list, so, as part of our public duty, we're going to broadcast the name of the street so that neighbors can know that there is a danger near their homes ...
posted by WestCoaster at 9:40 AM on August 29, 2005

Ooops, but I'm sure they'll keep on keeping on and keep fighting the dirty, filthy fight they've been long fighting for their leaders.

Its pretty incredibly stupid that Fox gave away the wrong people's house as a terrorist HQ. Or, the cynical small sided of me says, maybe someone at Fox had a personal greivance with the people in the house and knew that this was a pretty low risk (for them) way of getting back at them? Yeah, I'll only have one bowl of Cynical Flakes for breakfast tomorrow.
posted by fenriq at 9:45 AM on August 29, 2005

Clearly Fox News is not a very good thing.
posted by wfrgms at 9:47 AM on August 29, 2005

Wonder what happens when there are photogenic missing white women at your home address?
Misspelled love letters from Faux fans?
Stalking by big beer bellied troglodytes with "I support President Bush and the troops" bumper stickers?
posted by nofundy at 9:49 AM on August 29, 2005

isn't announcing a private citizen's address on-air an FCC violation? I vaguely recall a local (Los Angeles) DJ got canned a while back for just such an action.
posted by killy willy at 9:53 AM on August 29, 2005

Well dios, let me spell it out for you.

As a result of actions taken by a Fox News employee while on the air, an innocent family has been threatened, harassed, and had their home vandalized. Fox News has not disciplined the employee, nor disavowed his actions, thereby creating tacit approval. Fox claims to have made a brief "correction" concerning the matter.

If you were to do something that had the direct and predictable result of a crime being committed against another person, I imagine the cops would want to talk to you.

This is not to imply any kind of innocence on the part of the people who actually did the deed. You are right that those people can and should be prosecuted. But I don't see this as being much different from a mob boss saying to his loyal retainers "A certain gentleman owes me some money. I would hate for something bad to happen to him before he can pay up."
posted by ilsa at 9:59 AM on August 29, 2005

isn't announcing a private citizen's address on-air an FCC violation? I vaguely recall a local (Los Angeles) DJ got canned a while back for just such an action.
posted by killy willy at 9:53 AM PST on August 29

If is isn't, it should be. If it is, the network should be appropriately fined.

Nice try dios.
posted by jonson at 9:38 AM PST on August 29

Was that a retort?

Before you bend over backwards too far, you might want to think of a point made elsewhere: if Fox News knows of a terrorist, why not just inform the police, or the FBI, or the Department of Homeland Security?
posted by WestCoaster at 9:40 AM PST on August 29
I'm certain that if former federal prosecutor knew enough about this story to do this report, then all of those agencies were already well aware of the story.

One correction: I mentioned above that it was a reporter for Fox News. It was a commentator. I don't know if that commentator was an employee or not, but if he was not, it would make an already weak case weaker.
posted by dios at 10:01 AM on August 29, 2005

dios, there is a legal basis.

Possible charges include incitement to harassment, incitement to threats, careless reporting, etc. The last one in this case means releasing information to the general public that should have been reported to police instead, not the accuracy of the end reporting.

All of those can be levied against the individual reporter AND the agency, because there are supposed to be copy editors and fact checkers. The agency's insurance would cover both, as issues dealing with a reporter in the course of their duties will fall under the appropriate protections.

I would sue them, adding on the emotional distress and property repair costs, and I would also demand a 2 minute apology every few hours during the day for one day (to get maximum coverage) as part of the suit.

Oh, and before you say that they can't get sued for the repair costs because someone else committed it, yes they can as an offshoot of the incitement charges.
posted by mystyk at 10:02 AM on August 29, 2005

lisa, what did you spell out for me? That is, what did you say that was inconsistent or in refutation to my earlier post?

Yes, it was a bad move. Yes, if the station was smart it would publically apologize and maybe make a grant of money for PR purposes. Yes, if there is a FCC regulation against it, the station should be fined (if it was an employee). But there is not a legal issue here. These people have no lawsuit agains the news station. There was no defamation; there was not encitemeny of riot. These legal issues have very specific elements, which are not present here. This family was not identified as a terrorist. The other guy was. That a former address was wrong stated to be a current address does not create a tort, nor should it be a way for the family to try to hit the jackpot and make some money.

Why do I get the impression that the analysis would be vastly different if it were PBS that did this?
posted by dios at 10:05 AM on August 29, 2005

Because your analysis would be vastly different if it were PBS that did this.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:07 AM on August 29, 2005

Possible charges include incitement to harassment, incitement to threats, careless reporting.

Granted, I don't live in California, but none of those are a cause of action I have ever heard of. So your assertion that there is a legal basis: if that based in some knowledge you have of special California torts? Or are you merely speculating here? From the verbage of the rest of your post, it seems you are stating facts as if you are a lawyer in California. Are you? Because I can say, your analysis would be completely wrong if this occurred in Texas. Perhaps California has torts we don't have. But I have never heard of any of the legal theories you are mentioning.

There is a criminal action for incitement to riot. There may be a fine for reporting addresses on air from the FCC. There is no tort of "incitement to harrassment" or "threats" and especially no tort for "careless reporting." The closest thing to that would be a general negligence claim. Now perhaps you could try to nail them on an accomplice liability/civil conspiracy plea after suing the people actually are commiting the threats and harassment. But from the facts as presented here, there is no direct legal basis for suing the news network merely because they incorrectly stated that someone's former address was their current one.
posted by dios at 10:12 AM on August 29, 2005

Because your analysis would be vastly different if it were PBS that did this.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:07 AM PST on August 29

No it wouldn't.

(I say this realizing that talking to you is completely pointless because all you do is follow around my comments and offer non-responseive insults.)
posted by dios at 10:13 AM on August 29, 2005

deep in the heart of the OC?

it's la habra (home of the first krispy kreme west of the mississippi). locally, we call it guadalahabra. it is way out on the edge of the OC, right next to whittier (a part of LA AND the home of nixon).

this is ridiculous. i'm sure they will get their retribution and fox will get a small share of their comeuppins.
posted by bryak at 10:15 AM on August 29, 2005

Ok, you're mistaking legal action by the state against said reporter/commentator and news agency versus legal action by the individuals. I'm talking about a personal law suit, not a federal prosecution. If they broke a federal or state statute, they should get hit with that for sure, but I'm saying the family should go after them. There is a rather strong legal basis for this.
posted by mystyk at 10:16 AM on August 29, 2005

One further point: as a general negligence claim would be, in my opinion, the only cause of action that would survive even a facial challenge, a hurdle would ultimately make it fail. In a negligence claim, the elements are duty, breach, causation and damages. Perhaps one could envision a duty that was breached and they certainly can plea for their damages, but the causation element would be too attenuated. One would have intervening causes. The criminal acts of third parties making the threats and harrassment would be an intervening and superceding cause of the damages suffered by this family. Then the remaining (and very difficult) analysis would rest solely on foreseeability down the causal chain and transferred intent analysis.
posted by dios at 10:19 AM on August 29, 2005

but I'm saying the family should go after them. There is a rather strong legal basis for this.
posted by mystyk at 10:16 AM PST on August 29

That is precisely what I am saying doesn't exist, as I explained above.
posted by dios at 10:20 AM on August 29, 2005

Foreseeability could be argued by their insistence on going full-public with information of an inflammatory nature, rather than informing the appropriate government policing agencies.
posted by mystyk at 10:22 AM on August 29, 2005

Here's civil law in a nutshell:

Anyone can be sued anytime for any reason.

This family should have no trouble finding a lawyer to negotiate a fair settlement. Fox will then hopefully consider enrolling some of its producers in a journalism ethics class.
posted by StarForce5 at 10:22 AM on August 29, 2005

mystyk, didn't you just apologize for being very rude to someone because they made an assertion that was factually incorrect? And here you are asserting the existence of various torts and telling us there is a strong legal basis for them. So I ask you, again, as I am not a California lawyer, do you know California law to explain these legal theories which I have not heard of that you are espousing?
posted by dios at 10:23 AM on August 29, 2005

Dios, what is your address?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:24 AM on August 29, 2005

Wouldn't Fox News be responsible under negligence (no reasonable person would announce that an address contained a terrorist without confirming this information first) and liability tort laws (as actual harm was caused to them as a result of this reckless disbursement of bad information) for the repercussions of their broadcasts? Unless they followed the broadcast of this information ("a terrorists lives at the following address") with a public plea for people not to take the law into their own hands, a degree of responsibility has to fall on the station that aired the broadcast.
posted by aburd at 10:27 AM on August 29, 2005

dios, whether you think it is right or not, under the law Fox News gave an incorrect statement (whether they thought it was true or not is irrelevant) on air resulting in the disgrace (being labeled a terrorist) of a private citizen. All a private citizen needs to do is claim negligence. There are six points that need to be fufilled and any lawyer out of law school will be able to successfully argue them. How good a lawyer is will determine how much in damages the family gets.

You don't seem to think Fox News getting punished is important. What if CNN said a racist lived at your house, gave your address, all with false information. Your family would be labeled as such and most certainly disrupted if not put in physical danger. What CNN did was negligent. If you go around pointing fingers at people or houses then you end up like that scene from Pink Floyd's The Wall.
posted by geoff. at 10:27 AM on August 29, 2005

As I said, general negligence fails on causation. The report didn't bring about the harm. There are intervening and superceding causes of the harm. Criminal acts of third parties breaks the causal chain.

There are six points
Six? Duty, breach, causation and damages. What are the other two?
posted by dios at 10:30 AM on August 29, 2005

Roger Ailes is the head of Faux News.
He has also served as head of the GOP.
Getting the connection?
Things will not change there so long as a nut runs the nuthouse.
Look at the White House for an example. So long as Cheney runs things, our country is f*cked.
posted by nofundy at 10:34 AM on August 29, 2005

Yes, I did, but I am not making assertions about criminal law suits, I am talking about civil law suits. Civil law requires only a convincing argument that the defendant did or did not cause the events, or even the chain of events leading to the plaintiff's troubles. In the case of only a chain connection, it usually rests on whether the defendant had a duty to try specifically mitigate the tangental damages and/or whether there is reasonable cause to suspect that the defendant knew about the likelihood of said damages. Further, willful intent may play a role, and the counter argument will probably be a case of frivolousness.

In case you're wondering, I called my dad on this one, and am paraphrasing him. (see other thread in MeTa for details.)
posted by mystyk at 10:34 AM on August 29, 2005

remoteness and defenses.
posted by geoff. at 10:35 AM on August 29, 2005

One can look back at Hadley v. Baxendale or any other classic torts case.

One has to be able to draw the causal chain so that the damage was both the proximate cause and cause in fact of the injury. Here, the injury are people who used the information to commit criminal acts. That is an intervening and superceding force that would obviate any sort of liability of the news agency for releasing the information. One cannot be held liable for the criminal acts of third parties, as a general rule.

Hypo: say they only mentioned the name and not the address, and these people went and got the address from the phone book. Are you going to then say that the publisher of the phone book is liable? Or maybe Mapsco is liable for showing people where the house is? No.

The people liable for the threats and vandals are the people who committed those. They are superceding and intervening causes which would break the causal chain for people who provided information.

Intervening causes are a killer in causation analysis.
posted by dios at 10:35 AM on August 29, 2005

As I said, general negligence fails on causation. The report didn't bring about the harm. There are intervening and superceding causes of the harm.

Would this harm have come to them if this report wasn't aired?
posted by aburd at 10:35 AM on August 29, 2005

This is ridiculous. If you can't see that this is wrong with overwhelming evidence then it's impossible argue with you. You'll go so far as to debate as what exactly is meant by overwhelming. Have you ever even taken an ethics class? Let's just allow all the networks to broadcast whatever they want about whomever they want without regards to truths.
posted by geoff. at 10:38 AM on August 29, 2005

say they only mentioned the name and not the address, and these people went and got the address from the phone book.

1. They didn't do that. They did gave the address. What will you argue next? "What if they didn't give the name or the address?"? Or, taken further, "Yes, your honor, he did stab the plaintiff.... but what if he hadn't! He wouldn't be guilty, then, would he?"

2. Had they done that no harm would have come because the name in the phone book would not have led to house in question as the information was 3 years out of date!
posted by dobbs at 10:42 AM on August 29, 2005

Just my opinion.

1: It was stupid and wrong.

2: Given that FOX covered their asses with an apology and minimal retraction, I don't think there is much that can be legally done about this.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:43 AM on August 29, 2005

This hypo of your misses one thing. They did give an address, and whether wrong or right, they put forward the information as a direct link to the name for the purpose of linking an address to supposed terrorism and thus circumventing other attempts to verify. The phonebook wouldn't be explicitly trying to tie the names and addresses within to supposed actions.
posted by mystyk at 10:43 AM on August 29, 2005

aburd, you are ignoring the criminal acts of third parties. The same could be said for the phone book hypo. Would the harm not occurred if the phone book hadn't listed their address? It fails on causation analysis because intervening and superceding causes break the causal chain. The old example I remember from lawschool was a tire blowing out on a road. While the person was changing the tire, a drunk driver hit and killed him. The case failed because the interverning and superceding cause of the injury was the criminal act of the third party (the drunk driver in that example, the vandals in this). One could (and it was made in that case) the argument that if the tire hadn't blown out, then the person wouldn't have been stopped on the road. Regardless, the causal chain in that case was too attenuated as it is here. Not responsible for the criminal acts of third parties

geoff. I already said numerous times that what Fox did was stupid, if not unethical, and they should offer money for PR reasons. Re-read my initial comment. I think Fox should be fined if they did break an FCC regulation. My point was the people saying that Fox be sued and that this family should recieve some windfall have an uphill climb. There is likely no legitmate grounds upon which this family can sue. That doesn't mean they can't try to sue to extort money in form of a settlement. But lawsuits were brought up, and I have engaged in an analysis of why lawsuits should fail.
posted by dios at 10:44 AM on August 29, 2005

and also what dobbs pointed out in point #2
posted by mystyk at 10:46 AM on August 29, 2005

Dios, every time you say there is no legitimate grounds, after saying "bullshit," my next thought is the Stella Awards.
posted by mystyk at 10:48 AM on August 29, 2005

(I say this realizing that talking to you is completely pointless because all you do is follow around my comments and offer non-responseive insults.)

You caught me. It's all about you. Now why can't that banana-sharp analytical mind find the irony in that PBS scenario that was posited?
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:50 AM on August 29, 2005

Dios, what is your address? Surely if it's okay to give someone's address on the nightly news, you can release it to a medium-sized website, right? Right?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:53 AM on August 29, 2005

The old example I remember from lawschool was a tire blowing out on a road. While the person was changing the tire, a drunk driver hit and killed him.

Following this example, wouldn't the case be different if the person who sold and installed the tire didn't bother to find out that the tire sold was used and in poor condition? Thus this lack of diligence on the tire seller's part put the person into a position to be hit. Maybe Fox News didn't actual vandalize this family's house, but they were responsible for putting this family into a position where they may be harmed through their lack of close attention to the details they nationally broadcast.
posted by aburd at 10:55 AM on August 29, 2005

I don't agree with dios' politics usually, but I think he's being ganged up on here. He's offering a legal analysis of the situation, not shitting on the thread.
posted by Vidiot at 11:01 AM on August 29, 2005

dios: While the person was changing the tire, a drunk driver hit and killed him.

Your analogy avoids the fact that the vandal(s) wouldn't have hit this particular house if Fox hadn't recklessly made an erroneous public statement about its occupants. Your proximate cause argument would not likely win based on the analogy you give--you need to put a bit more effort into it before you can cast it aside like you did. A First Amendment defense would be interesting, perhaps...

On preview: everyone else is noticing the problem with your analogy, too (esp. aburd).
posted by bafflegab at 11:01 AM on August 29, 2005

Dios, what is your address? Surely if it's okay to give someone's address on the nightly news, you can release it to a medium-sized website, right? Right?

We should definitely know. After all, we need to check it to make sure that no terrorists lived there before you. If they did, your neighbors need to know the danger they were in.
posted by odinsdream at 11:06 AM on August 29, 2005

Vidiot, to the credit of everyone in the thread, I would not call this a thread shitting. I think there are a lot of people who heavily disagree with dios and want to point out why, but neither side has been spewing any particular vitrol.

Dios has maintained a strong level of restraint, and I am both surprised and pleased to see that the recent changes in his demeanor were not merely a momentary thing. I fear that in his shoes, I would have already been given a time-out for over-reacting.

This issue just has a lot more support on one side, but it's not ganging up unless we start attacking him pretty heavily too.
posted by mystyk at 11:12 AM on August 29, 2005

Correction: maybe odinsdream is pushing it a bit.
posted by mystyk at 11:13 AM on August 29, 2005

bafflegab: Your analogy avoids the fact that the vandal(s) wouldn't have hit this particular house if Fox hadn't recklessly made an erroneous public statement about its occupants. Your proximate cause argument would not likely win based on the analogy you give--you need to put a bit more effort into it before you can cast it aside like you did.

Well, just as a practical matter, this is still a tough case to make that FOX's breach of ethical responsibility (in that no one bothered to check the facts before the comment aired) rises to the level of civil liability. First Amendment protections give publishers quite a benefit of the doubt in these cases. FOX can just say "oops, we had out of date information, and we did publish a retraction when we were informed of the error."

Now it's possible that California privacy law might have some more privacy provisions that could come into play. But in general, I think dios is unfortunately right. The mumbled apology and retraction covers up a lot of sins.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:20 AM on August 29, 2005

See generally Herceg v Hustler Magazine Inc., 565 F Supp 802 (SD Tex 1983), for a discussion on negligent publication as incitement, a valid cause of action under Texas law. I don't know what kind of laws you have in Texas, but then apparently neither do you.
posted by mabelstreet at 11:23 AM on August 29, 2005

I think if it was dios who was outed as a terrorist, whose address was given out on national television and whose family was threatened, harrassed and vandalized, his tune might be different.
posted by wsg at 11:27 AM on August 29, 2005

Dios isn't saying that what Fox did was a good thing; he's saying that a lawsuit against them isn't likely to succeed. There's a difference. He did say, as he notes repeatedly, that it was A Bad Thing for Fox to have done, that they should offer some money to the family, and that they should be fined if they broke FCC regs.
posted by Vidiot at 11:34 AM on August 29, 2005

Yeah, he just said it's "not something that calls for justice."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:38 AM on August 29, 2005

It's amusing to see so many people argue over whether or not Fox can be sued for this.

The facts of the case simply do not matter. As soon as this family files a case, legitimate or not, Fox will ignore it for 90 days then make an offer to settle out of court, lawyers will take their commissions, papers will be signed, amounts undisclosed, and that's the end of that. A small case paid to go away for a small amount money.
posted by StarForce5 at 11:41 AM on August 29, 2005

lisa, what did you spell out for me?

you gotta love this guy's one trick pony: derail every thread by feigning abject stupidity.
posted by 3.2.3 at 11:57 AM on August 29, 2005

I wonder what the libel laws are like in California. Here in Michigan, I'm pretty sure that this would go through as a successful civil libel suit, noting that we've had successful suits over the printing of an out-of-date address for a sex offender. But I don't know enough about California's media laws to comment on that situation directly.
posted by klangklangston at 12:07 PM on August 29, 2005

you gotta love this guy's one trick pony: derail every thread by feigning abject stupidity.

That's such a bullshit attitude to take.

I don't see him derailing this thread at all. Somebody said the family should sue. Dios said that from a moral perspective what Fox did was wrong and stupid but that from a legal perspective the family doesn't appear to have a cause that would allow them to win a suit.

We then get a lot of people pretending to be lawyers assuring us that in fact the case is a lock because it's just so obviously wrong what Fox did.

Well yeah, what Fox did was wrong, and I'm not a lawyer, so I can't speak with authority about whether the family could prevail in a suit. But Dios sure seems persuasive to me. That persuasiveness is made more pronounced by the fact that people seem to be aruging with the personality instead of with the strength of his argument.

Most of the people dumping on Dios seem to be deliberately ignoring what he's said and jumping to conclusions about what he means.

It makes for a really shitting thread, but is sure as hell isn't Dios' fault.

Look in a mirror, and stop with all the knee-jerk bullshit.
posted by willnot at 12:12 PM on August 29, 2005

Let me summarize for people who have decided to skip to the end of this thread: Booooo!!! Fox is bad!!! People should sue Fox because they are bad!!! Booo!!!
posted by esquire at 12:21 PM on August 29, 2005

dios, could it not be argued that Fox News should have known that the reporting of the address, whether correct or not, would have had a reasonable chance of sparking violence against the residents? Would that not supersede any intervening causes from this specific case?
posted by mzanatta at 12:35 PM on August 29, 2005

Um, willnot is saying what I wanted to say, but better.
posted by Vidiot at 3:20 PM on August 29, 2005

Question for Dios or other lawyers.

I was thinking about Dios' hypothetical about a flat tire and the drunk driver. Aren't there cases where bartenders have been held to be negligent for serving drunk drivers? I could be remembering wrong, but I'd almost swear.

Much like with the defective flat tire hypothetical, here we have a negligent act that leads to an unlawful act. However, one seems to be directly influencing the unlawful behavior (serving a drunk leads to drunk driving or yelling terrorist to a bunch of vigilantes leads to vigilantism), where as the flat tire seems to be only very remotely connected to the drunk driver.

So, if I'm remembering correctly, why does the illegal act of drunk driving not cancel out the negligence of the bartender, but the illegal act of vigilantism does cancel out the negligence of the reporter pointing to somebody and saying evil killers live there.
posted by willnot at 3:23 PM on August 29, 2005

Everyone ganging up on dios in this thread seem not to be able to read very well. As has already been pointed out, dios said he thought it was morally wrong, but that the family had no legal basis to sue Fox News.

While I do not think that causation is so easily dismissed in this case (due to the commentator's actions being so egregious and the flexibility found in proximate cause analysis), dios makes a well reasoned argument about why there would be no tort (which is civil, not criminal, for all the psuedo-lawyers who think they have spotted a chink in dios' armor).

Furthermore, when the possibility of an FCC fine was brought up, dios acknowledged that there may be such a fine and if there wasn't there should be. For everyone who would rather foam at the mouth every time a hated poster makes a comment, please take a step back and look at what is being said and not who is saying it.

I have yet to see a single person lay out what theory the family could sue on and why that theory would be likely to succeed.
posted by Falconetti at 3:35 PM on August 29, 2005

I was thinking about Dios' hypothetical about a flat tire and the drunk driver. Aren't there cases where bartenders have been held to be negligent for serving drunk drivers? I could be remembering wrong, but I'd almost swear.

When you hold your business open to the public and invite them in, you take on some degree of duty to care for that person. Courts have routinely found that bartenders (but interestingly not social hosts at private parties) owe a duty of care to not let their customers drive home drunk. Policy decisions seem like they would factor into this equation (although I am not sure how this idea developed, so I may be wrong).
posted by Falconetti at 3:39 PM on August 29, 2005

To put the argument for libel up again, the excuse that it was a commentor and not a reporter doesn't fly, and neither does the fact that it was live TV. They reported information that was damaging to the reputations of the people living in the house, they could have removed the information (there's nothing on TV that doesn't have a swear delay anymore), and the people have been harrassed. That, combined with the fact that the people living in the house are not public figures makes for a pretty decent libel case (again, at least here in my state).
posted by klangklangston at 3:55 PM on August 29, 2005

It's kind of disturbing that this thread has turned into whether or not it's legally possible to sue fox news. Possible or not, the point is, should fox news be publically punished. And I, for one, find it hard to believe any American would think otherwise.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe fox news should publish the address of suspected terrorists every friday. That way, people wanting to help the community out with some late night vigilateism won't have to be sleepy at work the next day.

I think the reason people are getting upset with dios is that his defenses feel like the same level of weaselness that fox news is indulging in here. "Oh, sure, it's wrong. But not that wrong. Come on, mistakes happen. Let's just let it go. I'm sure nothing like that will happen again if we let it go." Is it wrong or not? Does it deserve to be made an example of so we don't let it happen again?

Go ahead, just say it, you'll feel better.
posted by lumpenprole at 4:29 PM on August 29, 2005

Law is one thing, 12 jurors is another. This family is going to get a nice settlement.
posted by bardic at 4:45 PM on August 29, 2005

Law is one thing, 12 jurors is another. This family is going to get a nice settlement.

Jury trials are not required in civil cases (usually, I do not know California law at all).

lumpenprole, Fox News is clearly morally wrong and encouraging vigilantism is not a social good. I think the reason people are getting upset with dios is that they don't like him and it has nothing to do with what he is saying (since he did condemn it morally).

It is too bad that laws and agreed upon morals do not have a one-to-one correspondence, but that is just the way it is. To point this out is to state a truism, not a wicked act.
posted by Falconetti at 5:17 PM on August 29, 2005

The simple, but difficult to answer question is, what motivation did Fox have in releasing this information? I mean really? Is anyone out there still stupid enough to think they did this for the public good? It's patently obvious that the commentor wanted to start something, and the commentor would have known the reaction information like this would provoke. They would have to have been stupider than they already appear to be to think it wouldn't result in some kind of vigilante action, so one can only assume they were deliberately trying to incite it. I can't see any other reason for releasing unconfirmed, unchecked personal information to the public live on TV before informing the police. It simply doesn't make sense.

If I look through my phone book, notice some entry:

Al-Zawahiri A 25 Broadway St Springfield

Then put that address up on live TV claiming there's a terrorist living there, it's a bit like yelling fire in a theatre, isn't it? Why would I ever do that except to try and generate another exciting news story for next bulliten?
posted by Jimbob at 5:25 PM on August 29, 2005

It's fine to say "I don't know what the legal specifics are, but Fox News should be punished," but we have the rule of law for a reason. To simply run Fox News up the flagpole without a legal argument would be to engage in the same sort of vigilante behavior that currently plagues the Voricks.

If I'm not mistaken (and I may very well be), many countries have legislation to prosecute those proven guilty of inciting hate crimes, which seems to be the closest analogue to this particular situation. The "I'm just trying to help the police out" comment would indicate intent, but since no imperative was given (ex. "kill the President!") it's harder to argue in a legal case that the commentator, and by extension Fox News, was inciting any particular crime.
posted by chrominance at 5:30 PM on August 29, 2005

Post-preview: Jimbob, that's different; by directly naming someone who wasn't a terrorist and calling them a terrorist, you'd be committing libel (or slander; is the difference solely in whether the allegation was written or not? I can never remember). The Voricks were never named, nor were they intended to be. In fact, had Fox News done its due diligence and gotten the "alleged terrorist's" address right, they'd be in much bigger trouble than they are now (unless a court of law decided that the man in question was indeed a terrorist).
posted by chrominance at 5:34 PM on August 29, 2005

klangklangston: To put the argument for libel up again, the excuse that it was a commentor and not a reporter doesn't fly, and neither does the fact that it was live TV.

Well, libel is quite a bit harder than that to show. In order to make a libel claim stick, you have to show not only that the statements were not true, but that the news agency in question expressed a wanton disregard for the truth, or that they acted with malice, and that they refused to mitigate the damage.

The fact that it was a commentator doesn't fly. But the claims by Fox news that it was an honest mistake based on outdated information, and the fact that they issued an apology and a retraction, in however limited of a market, makes it difficult to claim strict libel.

Now it seems that one possibly could make a claim in regards to invasion of privacy, but I don't think a straight-up libel claim would be easy.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:42 PM on August 29, 2005

Loftus's response to my email:

I rarely make mistakes, but when I do I always admit them publicly. During the invasion of Iraq, I stated my firm opinion that Saddam had been killed in the first strike, and then apologized when I was wrong. The CIA later stated that they had been deceived by a double agent who falsely reported Saddam's death in detail.

On August 7, 2005 I made another mistake. For months my team of volunteers had been tracking a terrorist group, and we had all become quite frustrated about one federal agency's footdragging. After the London Subway bombings, I correctly and publicly identified a California man, Iyad Hilal, as the leader of one of the the terrorist groups that had been banned by the British.

I did not realize when I gave his address that Hilal had moved, and an innocent family was living there. I am heartsick that the family suffered harassment and anxiety as a result of my mistake. I take full and complete responsibilty for my error in judgment. I will try very hard to ensure that I make as few mistakes as possible, and again apologize profusely to all of you, especially the Vorick family.
posted by mosch at 5:50 PM on August 29, 2005

How can Dios possibly claim to be a lawyer?
posted by delmoi at 6:07 PM on August 29, 2005

I suggest a 6 figure amount. That will make a nice college fund for the kids.

That would be a nice amount if it were just about the family. It's not--it's about the family and FOX's irresponsible, malfeasant, and reckless behavior.

FOX is a big, rich company. They could settle out of court with 6 figures and barely stifle a yawn. For proper punishment and to simply get the idoits' attention a couple of mil, minimum. Actually, start at ten million, with the money donated to various charities, such as lawyers for Gitmo prisoners who can't afford them. Ah, so many possibilities...
posted by zardoz at 6:17 PM on August 29, 2005

mosch: Has this apology, or anything like it, appeared on Fox News? Does one have to email Mr. Loftus to receive it?

KirkJobSluder: But the claims by Fox news that it was an honest mistake based on outdated information, and the fact that they issued an apology and a retraction, in however limited of a market, makes it difficult to claim strict libel.

My understanding is that Fox News issued a tight-lipped correction and an even terser [non] apology on air (or cable, whatever). In legal terms, is that enough to mitigate the harm done? Shouldn't Fox have to show some good-faith effort to promote and disseminate the correction at least as widely as the false info? Did they run promos about the correction, as they surely did about Loftus's punditry?

I'm not trying to be contentious. I don't understand the applicable legal parameters, and I hope someone does, somewhere, does.
posted by vetiver at 6:29 PM on August 29, 2005

Let me summarize for people who have decided to skip to the end of this thread: Booooo!!! Fox is bad!!! People should sue Fox because they are bad!!! Booo!!!

hmmm, the delicious wisdom of our torture-loving republican friends. Freedom of Lynching, sounds really good (well, it goes back to a pleasant Southern tradition, after all).

God forbid one right-winger for once, just once admits a mistake: never!

they're too busy celebrating the victory in Iraq, I guess
posted by matteo at 6:32 PM on August 29, 2005

Mablestreet: when you cite cases as authority, it would make sense first to read them, mm'kay? Here is what Herceg says:

Neither does the case law support plaintiffs' causes of action for negligent publication of an article which they allege harmed a reader. “Negligent” publication is a cause of action which arose in defamation cases. No court has held that the written word is either an attractive nuisance which would impose a special duty on defendant magazine, or a dangerous instrumentality for which defendant would be strictly liable. A magazine article is easily distinguishable from items such as gunpowder, fireworks, gasoline and poison which have an obvious physical effect. See Erwin v. Dunn, 201 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston, 1947, writ ref'd n.r.e.). It is not, for example, like a slingshot with physical properties which cause harm, and which raises the question for a jury whether, balancing of the magnitude of the risk against the utility of defendants conduct for society, the risk of harm in a particular case is unreasonable.

And that was before the court even decided to consider the First Amendment defense, which apparently should not apply to Fox News according to the persons on this thread.
posted by esquire at 6:44 PM on August 29, 2005

Matteo: I must not have read the story carefully because I did not realize that Fox News had lynched anyone. If that was the case, then I want to register my disapproval, and I apologize for thinking (but deciding the better of writing) that you are a hypocrite who does not believe in the First Amendment when it applies to entities whom low-budget documentaries have instructed you to hate.
posted by esquire at 6:49 PM on August 29, 2005

delmoi: what basis do you have for wondering whether Dios is a lawyer?
posted by esquire at 6:50 PM on August 29, 2005

Dios, I think the term you are looking for is "false light defamation" and it is indeed a tort.
posted by warbaby at 7:00 PM on August 29, 2005

the reason people are getting upset with dios is that they don't like him and it has nothing to do with what he is saying (since he did condemn it morally).

My point is exactly this. It's one thing to say "okay that shouldn't have been done." It's another to qualify that with a bunch of reasons it should be let lie. I'm saying we're making the darkest fantasies of all the 1984 obsessed conspiracy heads come true, and where's the damn outrage?

A big point that seems to be going by the wayside here is whether or not the worst part about this is the mistaken identity. Let's just say this guy didn't move. Let's say a news team suspects he's a terrorist. Is announcing his address on the news okay then? How about if we say where he works? Where his mother lives? I mean, it doesn't matter that no court or officer of the law has come within 10 feet of this guy, right? We can trust a news reporter not to exaggerate for a story right? And if somebody gets killed, I guess they had it coming right?

Who the hell are you people?
posted by lumpenprole at 7:00 PM on August 29, 2005

because I did not realize that Fox News had lynched anyone.

well, following your logic, Osama didn't kill the WTC people, either -- he just told the 19 gentlemen where the skyscrapers were, right. are you sure you really are a lawyer, too?


keep hating the bad liberals, and party on. are you enlisting anytime soon, since quotas haven't really been met as of late, esq?
posted by matteo at 7:01 PM on August 29, 2005

Georg W. Bush and Co: Making sure everyone has their day in court since 2001!
posted by Balisong at 7:17 PM on August 29, 2005

lumpenprole, I don't know if you are referring to me as part of "you people," but I said in the sentence before the one you quoted:

"lumpenprole, Fox News is clearly morally wrong and encouraging vigilantism is not a social good."

That seems to directly address your concern, at least in my case.

Also, pointing out what the law actually says when others say or assume that the poor family can sue the despicable Fox News is hardly "making the darkest fantasies of all the 1984 obsessed conspiracy heads come true."
posted by Falconetti at 7:24 PM on August 29, 2005

Warbaby-

From Herndon v. Everett:

"False light requires that a plaintiff prove: (1) publication, (2) of a materially false statement, and (3) that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Eastwood v. Cascade Broad. Co., 42 Wn. App. 88, 91, 708 P.2d 1216 (1985), rev'd on other grounds, 106 Wn.2d 466 (1986). The publication of a falsehood means that the matter is made public by communicating it to the public at large, and the publication must be 'to a substantial number of people.' LaMon v. City of Westport, 44 Wn. App. 664, 669, 723 P.2d 470 (1986) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts sec.sec. 652E and D, comment a, at 384 (1977))."

There may be a case here for false light, but there is some confusion on element 2. The false statement concerned Hilal, the supposed terrorist, not the Vorick family. Whether this difference is legally relevant, I am not sure. Thanks for pointing this out though, I had never heard of it.
posted by Falconetti at 7:32 PM on August 29, 2005

vetiver: My understanding is that Fox News issued a tight-lipped correction and an even terser [non] apology on air (or cable, whatever). In legal terms, is that enough to mitigate the harm done? Shouldn't Fox have to show some good-faith effort to promote and disseminate the correction at least as widely as the false info? Did they run promos about the correction, as they surely did about Loftus's punditry?

From what I can tell, in libel cases there is such an overwhelming burden of evidence on the plaintiff that a libel case would be very difficult to persue. Were they scum for doing this? Most certainly. Does that constitute libel? I don't know.

Under privacy law? Now that's another story. To me this has better grounds as a privacy case than a libel case.

lumpenprole: It's another to qualify that with a bunch of reasons it should be let lie.

If you really think that I'm happy about what the press can legally get away with in terms of libel, you are fundamentally misreading me.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:33 PM on August 29, 2005

Matteo: Fox News = Osama. Thank you for helping us to update the Hitler rule. Was there some sort of contest that I missed on which MeFi was looking for a suitably ridiculous substitute? Moot point now, as you beat me to the punch. Kudos.

Two other points: I don't hate liberals, I just tire easily of ignorance; and quotas have been exceeded by Marine Corps and the Air Force for some time now. Please remove the tin foil before you go to bed or it might get caught in your ear.
posted by esquire at 8:01 PM on August 29, 2005

I second fox news = osama. Ignorant American "journalism" at it's worst.
posted by omidius at 8:03 PM on August 29, 2005

Which one do you suppose will destroy A'Merica faster?
posted by Balisong at 8:08 PM on August 29, 2005

Again, strictly dealing with the claim of libel, I think the key problem is that libel must be committed against someone; that is to say a statement must be made about the victim that paints them in a false light. No one has made any false or defamatory statements about the Voricks; no one has labelled them terrorists. This would seem to rule them out as victims of libel; therefore any legal action would have to rely on a different argument.

I don't think anyone's suggesting it would've been okay if Fox News had given out Hilal's correct address; indeed, as I stated above, it's likely the legal case against Fox would've been more clear-cut had they gotten his address right. Just because the legalities of a civil case are in question doesn't mean the ethical decision is also in question; the issue is whether the rule of law can be made to fit the moral distaste we feel for Fox's actions, or even whether it should.
posted by chrominance at 8:09 PM on August 29, 2005

(to elaborate on that last point: we might feel torture is justified morally, but should be illegal anyways because of pragmatic issues like determining the veracity of information gleaned through torture. Alright, I brought torture into this, I think this thread is now offically a clusterfuck.)
posted by chrominance at 8:12 PM on August 29, 2005

so, chrominance, you're saying that if, in fact there had been said terrorist living at broadcasted address, he could sue, but since it was Joe Normal, they have no case?

Doesn't that sound backwards?
posted by Balisong at 8:21 PM on August 29, 2005

How can Dios possibly claim to be a lawyer?

I'm willing to bet any amount of money you want that he can prove it. Care to put your money where your mouth is? (and I don't mean to put any onus on Dios with this challenge [Dois? Get it? He thinks he's GOD!!! Ha!])

(well, it goes back to a pleasant Southern tradition, after all).

I've been trying to come up with a suitable comment on this. But, seriously, sometimes you're just a dick. No amount of quality FPP's excuses that. Now, if you'll excuse me, since I'm from the South and obviously deserve to be slathered with your broad brush, there's probably a darkie somewhere that needs stringing up.
posted by Cyrano at 8:41 PM on August 29, 2005

Reading this thread makes one understand why people contemptuously think lawyers talk out of both sides of their mouths continually.

And Fox News? As I recall, the right-wingnuttery gathered their bloomers into massive wads when mere *hints* of doubt surfaced about news stories like President AWOL's Heroic National Service (and of course, noone has any real doubt at all about AWOL shirking and cheating on his service).

The wingnuts sure don't seem to be making a peep about an egregious error like this.

Maybe it's that talking out of both sides of one's mouth thingie again....
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 8:48 PM on August 29, 2005

Newspapers (at least in Houston) almost always name the location of an incident down to the 100. Even alleged crimes are published with such information. If you really wanted to, you could find the house of the alleged perp and spraypaint child molester all over it.
posted by mr.dan at 9:10 PM on August 29, 2005

Even if Fox had their information correct on Hilal, it's still none of their business to broadcast his name and address. Can anyone release the address of a suspect in a criminal proceeding?
The FCC should come down really hard on Fox for this. Even if it was live TV, they had plenty of time to 'bleep' inappropriate content and the producers and whoever else monitors their broadcasts should have known better.

(But the FCC is probably too absorbed in Janet Jackson's nipples to actually do the right thing...)

Newspapers (at least in Houston) almost always name the location of an incident down to the 100
Well, sure. On the local news, I'll hear about an incident that occurred on the xhundred block of Whatever St. and John Doe is in custody, but I have to really want to find out which of the 40 or so houses on that block he lives in. I'm not being handed his exact address.

To release a name and address under a light that shows unconvicted individuals as terrorists is utterly reprehensible. EVERYBODY in this country has a reasonable expectation of privacy and anonymity. It's also sickening that the only reason Fox is on the burner for this is because a different family is living in that house. Would there be an uproar if Hilal still lived there?

What if the front page of the paper, every day, had a list of "suspected gays" complete with full names, addresses, and phone numbers?

This incident illuminates the new witchhunt mentality that's being foisted on some citizens and spoon-fed to the receptive and grateful ones.
posted by Jon-o at 9:44 PM on August 29, 2005

What if the front page of the paper, every day, had a list of "suspected gays" complete with full names, addresses, and phone numbers?

And John-o wins...

Replace with "suspected _____" as your case comes up.
posted by Balisong at 9:50 PM on August 29, 2005

It also sucks that after a fox's public admittance of the mistake, people are still harrassing them. Damn, once the toothpaste is out of the tube...
posted by HiveMind at 9:51 PM on August 29, 2005

And John-o wins...

Is that sarcasm?
posted by Jon-o at 9:55 PM on August 29, 2005

John-O, yes.
posted by Balisong at 10:18 PM on August 29, 2005

Why?
posted by Jon-o at 10:21 PM on August 29, 2005

Sorta.

What's to stop news agencies from posting every suspected terrorist's address with a nonchalant retraction later on, on their websight, only if you look on the 'retractions' page.
Or suspected, damn, anything. I've seen local county papers print names and addresses of every single suspected stop during the week. The local paperpicks it up and publishes it.
From DUI to trespassing in the graveyard. everything gets press time.

Are they innocent? Guess you need to go to court just like they do to see for sure. The paper sure doesn't keep track of convictions unless it effects numerous people.
posted by Balisong at 10:26 PM on August 29, 2005

It also sucks that after a fox's public admittance of the mistake, people are still harrassing them. Damn, once the toothpaste is out of the tube...


What I meant was, it sucks that people are still harassing the family. I don't mind it when anyone harasses Fox.
posted by HiveMind at 11:25 PM on August 29, 2005

Jon-O: I am interested in hearing more about your intriguing privacy-rights-for-terrorists idea. Do you think it the sort of thing that we should implement on a national level so that we do not have to worry about individual states affording insufficient protections to terrorists? Please elaborate.
posted by esquire at 6:12 AM on August 30, 2005

Regarding false light defamation: the actionably false statement here seems to me to be the claim, not that the Voricks per se are terrorists, but that whoever lives in such-and-such a house (the Voricks' house) is a terrorist. The statement was published, it was materially false, and the insinuation that the Voricks (who live in that house) are terrorists is certainly offensive to a reasonable person.

To make it clearer: Loftus, the commentator, effectively stated that one of the persons living at 123 Suburban Pines Drive is a terrorist named Iyad Hilal. This is clearly false (it does not require the Voricks to prove that they are not terrorists, only that they are not Iyad Hilal), it is offensive, and it was published. Therefore, it's false light defamation.

As to liability for the resulting vandalism, I think there's a pretty good, though not necessarily airtight, argument in favor of the connection. The publication of a suspected terrorist's address, in the current social climate, can reasonably be expected to carry a serious risk of inciting vandalism and vigilantism. Therefore, if an address is labeled a den of terrorists, it would come as no surprise if its residents get harassed or worse. Whether this is enough of a link to establish causation for the purposes of a tort is up to a judge; IANAL, and I dont know the precedents in California or any other state.

That the address information was false certainly doesn't help Fox News' case. It implies a certain cavalier attitude toward accuracy and professional responsibility that speaks to negligence. That's a separate issue from causation, but tactically, I could see it swaying a judge in favor of establishing a precedent here, if there isn't already a clear one.
posted by skoosh at 6:19 AM on August 30, 2005

esquire: I am in favor of privacy rights for everyone, even people who may commit terrorist acts in the future, or are suspected of being terrorists now. Every American is, unless they're the sort of know-it-all prick who doesn't care about our vital traditions of independence, individuality, and equality.

See, in the declaration of independence, the part that says, "ALL men" resonates rather deeply with me. Doesn't it do the same for you? Are you as moved as I am by the vision of our founders?
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:37 AM on August 30, 2005

I did not realize when I gave his address that Hilal had moved, and an innocent family was living there.

Note Loftus' disregard for the rule of law. If suspected terrorists had been living there, then taking the fight to them would be okay. No harm, no foul. He doesn't stop to think that encouraging vigilante violence--in principle--might be a bad thing. The form of his apology implies that he intended there to be some response from people in general. It was simply a logistical mistake that he gave out the wrong address.
posted by wheat at 9:00 AM on August 30, 2005

esquire,
I'm talking about that whole equal protection under the law, innocent until proven guilty, privacy rights that every single resident (let alone citizen) should be afforded. These are basic human rights.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution aren't only for the benefit of American citizens. They're codes of belief, an American way of thinking, that should guide our perspective, be rules to live by, and encourage us to treat all people as though they were bound by it.
Suspected terrorists, convicted terrorists, illegal immigrants, and whoever else, no matter what they've done for whatever reason, have the same rights that you and I have. Remember that it says, "ALL men are created equal." not "People living in the United States." These are beliefs and laws that we practice here but we should treat everyone as though it applies to them, citizen or not.
posted by Jon-o at 10:23 AM on August 30, 2005

Sonofsam and Jon-O -- you guys have this marvelous, fight-the-power radicalism that is simultaneously inspiring and completely unrelated to any descriptive notion of existing law. I love reading stuff like that. Especially the citations to the Declaration of Independence as legal authority. Keep up the great work! You guys are getting me more fired up to be an American than I have been since Hulk Hogan stole his theme song from that other guy. In fact, you guys are making me want to give terrorists all kinds of crazy rights.
posted by esquire at 4:00 PM on August 30, 2005

In fact, you guys are making me want to give terrorists all kinds of crazy rights.
Well, unless you can find some terrible loophole that excludes them from the human race, they've already GOT rights. Just like you and me. And if you believed in what this country is supposed to stand for, you'd recognize that. If you don't, you ought to move somewhere where they still cut off hands for stealing. You'll fit right in.

Especially the citations to the Declaration of Independence as legal authority.
I was under the impression that the Declaration lays out some pretty good ideas that the majority of our national philosophy and legal system are both based on. If it wasn't for the authority of the statement "All men are created equal," Blacks would still be slaves.

Oh, and PS: Get fucked.
posted by Jon-o at 5:55 PM on August 30, 2005