Hacker News Reader

Comment by dkokelley | Hacker News Reader

I wonder what (if any) legal recourse Ryan Lanza might have against the news agencies that libeled his name. I imagine it really depends on the exact wording used, but Ryan could have a great defamation/emotional distress case on his hands, when everything settles.

View on HN

It's very difficult in the US. The argument will be he was a public figure, which would make it near impossible (actual malice) His argument will be he was a private figure, which would make it possible (negligence, though state law varies).

First person to say "he wasn't a public figure, they made him one" gets the fun job of making new law about it.

In the US it is very hard to win a libel case (as the plaintiff). Basically, you have to prove that the news agencies intentionally and maliciously libeled you. This is pretty darn near impossible to prove in most cases. If I recall correctly, an example of a case where a libel lawsuit would be successful is one where the new agency makes up something or encourages a source to make up something.

EDITS (replies to below):

Defamation laws in the US are actually very complex and in certain cases ambiguous. Different states have different standards for civil liability. In Gertz v. Robert Welch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc.), which involved a newspaper publishing lies about a non-public official, the Supreme Court held that state defamation laws had to have the plaintiff prove at the very least fault of some kind on the defendant's part, and that for punitive damages malice must be proved. The court also found that people cannot be made into a public official.

Certain statements are considered to be inherently damaging and fault does not need to be proved.

Regardless, clearly Ryan Lanza does not have a case since law enforcement officials did originally identify him, wrongly, as the suspect. The police were clearly not negligent because the reason they ID'd him as the gunman was because his ID was found on the gunman's body. I don't know if the news actually stated as a fact that he was guilty.

This is not true. The standard of actual malice applies only to public figures.

OK. So he was identified as the suspect. First, is there a case against the police? This is assuming that it was police recklessness/negligence and Ryan was never an actual suspect. Second, having been identified as the suspect, did any of the media outlets go on to defame him given that he was not actually tried and convicted? If XYZ News Corp receives the name from an official statement saying he is the suspect, and then runs a story accusing him of murder, does that make them libelous? I'm sure there are editorial standards about what can be said of a person between being declared a suspect and declared guilty.

> Regardless, clearly Ryan Lanza does not have a case since law enforcement officials did originally identify him, wrongly, as the suspect.

They did? The article made it sound like they used the name Ryan Lanza, but that they didn't identify which Ryan Lanza.

Is it possible to do a... reverse class-action suit? In which you file suit against everyone who created a "Ryan Lanza burn in hell" Facebook page, every news outlet that libeled you, etc., all at once?

That's just called naming multiple defendants.

Talk to the RIAA/MPAA/MAFIAA about that, they do it all the time.

There's a very large legal industry surrounding shotgun legal claims in rapid succession throughout the country.

The nice thing about America is that you can sue anyone for anything (even if the case has no merit and goes nowhere).

But winning a libel suit is no panacea — it doesn't magically make your life better. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell#Libel_cases and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell#Aftermath .

Might not make your life better, but it would be incredibly satisfying.

Could he claim copyright to the photo of himself that they used and sue them for copyright infringement? It seems like a stretch but how did they receive permission to republish that image?

Does he even own that image? I thought once it was uploaded to Facebook it became property of Facebook.

It's not Facebook's property; they just get an unlimited license to reproduce it in order to provide their service. For organizations that are not Facebook, I'm sure the situation is much more murky.

Although a defense, Fair Use would certainly allow news organizations to publish those images without concern.

Maybe, but he could dmca them. There is basically no penalty for that, even if they win.

Well, no, it's Fair Use. It's a legal defense, but since a news site would be hosting their own content, and editorializing, they would be be able to claim safe harbor. So a DMCA takedown would be effectively ignores, and followed up in the courts. Regardless, it's text book fair use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

He would have a much better chance suing media companies in the UK, Europe and Australia who repeated the claims, since the libel laws are much looser there.

Almost impossible to win a libel case in the USA, it will almost certainly be shot down on first amendment grounds or with him being/becoming a public figure after the police named him.

None. The news agencies claim it came from the police, who had been confused. There was no malicious intent, no gross negligence, and he is a limited public figure no matter if he was the shooter or the brother of the shooter

Well, no, because he was actually neither the shooter nor the brother of the shooter, so he is unlikely to be found a limited public figure. Plus, pegging him as such without doing even the most basic research seems like negligence to me (any reasonably prudent person would have taken 15 fucking seconds to look harder at his profile)

Otherwise, your assessment would be correct.

All other news reports seem to indicate that this Facebook-Ryan is the brother of the killer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com