The families of the victims at Sandy Hook should sue the MSM.

Before I start this post, I urge everyone to stay on the topic.

Understand that I am not a practicing lawyer nor do I know all laws in Connecticut.

Lets go back in time for a moment. A shooting happens, they happen very frequently. The one in Sandy Hook was broadcast loud and clear. For me, there have been only two other major events that have stopped me in my tracks and had me watching the updates. 9/11 and the Japan earthquake. I'm a regular guy, I work, have friends and a family. It really has to be something big for me to catch it on the first day. I'm sure a lot of you are like me.

Now for the lawsuit. Lets pretend the shooter didn't take his life or be killed by police. How could you have a proper trial? Remember the "police line do not cross" and "move along official police work"? Now we have helicopters and ground reporters telling us what to think. What about all the personal information that the media is putting in the open about these people? Maybe some of these people just want to be left alone, not everyone wants to be famous (although many do).

From a legal standpoint the media is doing a major disservice to the justice system. The media is also throwing these families under the bus for entertainment purposes.

Someone needs to put their foot down. On the first day they named Ryan Lanza as the shooter. If I were him I'd be getting myself a high profile lawyer. The reason they don't actually care about facts is because nobody holds them accountable.

Thoughts?

reply to post by litterbaux


I am not sure they would have a case, wouldn't blame them for trying though. I have been trying to get my reps to push legislation similar to that for years. I do not think that anything should be reported until the case is closed. Meaning if there is a trial, it won't have any jury tainting at all. That is my largest concern, jury tainting. My second concern is how MSM seem to be able to report stuff, before they have the facts straight, like sandy hook, best case scenario there. Worst case scenario is they just make stuff up, and claim an unnamed official gave the info. False information to the public seems to be the norm these days. Saw it in sandy hook, aurora, the AZ shooting, etc etc.

if they were real dont you think they would be sueing left and right? sue the school for not protecting their kids, sue the gov for whatever they can, sue the news for whatever they can..

how I know this is not real is there is no outrage from the parents, they seems so blah about the whole thing and then the one lady to go so far as to say her daughter wanted to tell obama to ban all guns.. RIGHT get a job lady because I'm not falling for the crap acting script ur reading...

NOTHING about this makes any sense if you believe it then you deserve everything that is coming to you.

I had this thread a bit ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Careful what you wish for...

What you suggest amounts to a restriction of Freedom of the Press to report news.

While I agree with your sentiment and believe that press should be held
accountable for KNOWINGLY reporting false news, holding them responsible for reporting
what news is available (from the sources at the time) is bad voodoo. It is we, the viewing
public that creates this frenzy of reporting anything and everything available with our
morbid curiosity and the ad revenue that this macabre interest of ours generates.

reply to post by TKDRL


You don't think even the older brother Ryan has a case? His name was plastered all over the MSM as a killer of children.

Turns out completely false. That falls under character assassination and defamation.

Although defamation is hard to prove in court, youtube video's would be enough evidence of purposeful neglect. In my opinion that is.

not saying they are but
they could be under threat and that threat could be very real
see this ats thread...2nd page in is a reply from starviego
www.abovetopsecret.com...

could the families be under such suppression???
if you know about the us patent office suppression's
you'd know
suppression tactics are real

reply to post by marbles87


Thank you for linking me your thread. I starred and flagged it.

You are absolutely right in your posts. I think, this is just my humble opinion, the media would love shootings like this twice a month. They can pretty much make up anything they want, as long as viewers are tuning in they are getting ad revenue. They have no care in the world for the actual victims or the moral fabric of a normal society.

They want to watch it burn, report on it, make incredible profits and move on after the smoke clears.

It's disgusting.

If I was the families I would be suing people like that Jack arse that AC did a story on that was saying it was all a staged event. It is people like that who are throwing these families under the bus for entertainment purposes. Their own personal entertainment I mean that guy shouldn’t be teaching I highly doubt he actually believes his own line of BS I think he was only trying to get attention for being the most idiotic voice about the tragedy at the families expense the fact that he is a teacher specializing in media gave him credibility so people listened to his craptastic ideas. At the very least that guy deserved to get his face bashed in.

Originally posted by lasvegasteddy
not saying they are but
they could be under threat and that threat could be very real
see this ats thread...2nd page in is a reply from starviego
www.abovetopsecret.com...

could the families be under such suppression???
if you know about the us patent office suppression's
you'd know
suppression tactics are real

I read your link. I just don't understand how you would convince all those people to lie. I think the school board is coming from my line of thinking. Let the police do their work and keep the media out of it.

The media are like mind police, let the actual police do the work.

reply to post by Grimpachi


In your opinion, why are the families not pressing charges?

My bet is they will but at this time they are still grieving.

In the case you mentioned, my anger would trump my grief. Why are they so silent?

reply to post by rival


I responded to everyone in this post before you because your post made me think.

I've come to the conclusion that there is no telecasted news program that's real/factual/informative.

There are many avenues to get news. Internet, radio and television. About 10 years ago there was a paradigm shift. Although the internet has many biased stories it's easy to research the topic to get a more balanced view. With television and radio, you have no choice. The opinions just get pumped into you.

Once they figure out how to regulate the internet, with what you just said in mind, it's game over for real thought.

reply to post by rival


The first amendment, as it is interpreted by the US Supreme court, gives the press a large amount of latitude when reporting news. Freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, and it should be highly protected.

The only exception I can think of (I am not a Constitutional Law lawyer) where the press is limited in what it can do are cases of libel. Basically, the press cannot print libelous statements about newsworthy people unless it acts maliciously, i.e. it cannot print false statements about newsworthy people when it knows the statements are false. The press can print libelous statements if it is unsure the statements are false, even if it should have known the statements were false.

Ryan Lanza might have a case, should be pursue it.

The family of the victims can't because they were exactly harmed by the reporting, even if false.

What about all the personal information that the media is putting in the open about these people?

The information reported was public information. The media might have a responsibility to NOT report the names of Minors who are victims, but reporting their names or any other public information is not grounds for a lawsuit.

The Media cannot be held accountable unless they knowingly report false news. There's also good faith that they were reporting the news they thought was accurate with no malice. This doesn't speak to shoddy research/investigation/negligence, though, nor does it speak to the fact should someone be mistakenly accused or something or reported to have been dead, etc (which is why Ryan L might have a case).

I'm not really sure *why* you think the victims' families should be sued, though, unless because they media put them in the spotlight after this tragedy, in which instance because of the case they are in the public light. Some of them did cater to the media, which they didn't have to do.

Maybe some of these people just want to be left alone, not everyone wants to be famous (although many do).

If they truly wanted their privacy and grieving, they could do very well by ignoring the media, etc, even if the media hounds them (which they likely wouldn't, in this case at least), but the media could still report on public info.

From a legal standpoint the media is doing a major disservice to the justice system. The media is also throwing these families under the bus for entertainment purposes.

Maybe the media are doing a disservice. But that is why there are investigations, of which the media aren't a part. And since the shooter did not survive, this point is kinds of irrelevant. Of course, the media exploit everything they can to get viewers and rating, it's what they do.

Should they be held accountable? Slippery slope. Who's to say what they can and can't report without consequence? Who decides, the government? What about freedom of the press? Who decides, the government?

Perhaps the media should simply have some decency, but to criminalize their behavior is a dark path for the First Amendment.

The first amendment is one of the absolutely greatest and most important things we have. Speech and Press go hand in hand.

We must preserve it at all cost, even if the press can be disgusting.

reply to post by Liquesence


Thank you for that well thought out, well written post.

I have nothing to write on my second line so I'll just give you a high five.

reply to post by litterbaux


I think the news should be held accountable, not through legal action as I don't know anything they did wrong and I have been watching.. They should be held accountable socially though, and they are.. Some how I think less of the media than I did before.. Still that is a blanket term. Were some of them responsible? Did they act in good taste while still trying to get at the truth?

I don't know.. I'd implicate news stations in cover ups and other unsavory practice for other cases, but really in this case all I see is lions jumping on a kill. Seriously no pun intended. do NOT take it that way, I wish I could come up with a better analogy.. It is what it is, and I don't like it.. I would choose not to watch these stations in the future, but I already don't watch news, except after the fact through ATS.

Legally?

Unless there is some kind of undeserved assassination of character (Slander) then I don't see the illegal action.
On this forum we are practicing free speech. I don't know how I feel about the news misreporting things to mass audiences though.. IS free speech still protected when you lie to millions of people with motive and agenda in mind?? I truly don't know. I don't want to limit free speech..

I guess I wish people were more aware and free, so that bad free speech doesn't need to be controlled, because it just looks bad, backward, and broken...

The Media is our eyes and ears.. Let's not chop those off...

I,m done with ATS theres new facts coming out about Sandy Hook every day. Why is ATS not letting people post about them. Its because the people that control MSM now Control ATS.

reply to post by Paul3


What new facts? The police report isn't been published until March as far as I know.

If you mean theories, then who's bringing out those? Actual investigators on the ground or someone in another state sitting behind a computer?

The families would have cases...

....If they were real families.

I thought false news reports were freedom of speech.