Can Ralph Yarl's family sue Fox News?

[ecstatic]

The shooter's grandson, Karl Ludwig, is now on record stating that his grandfather was radicalized by Fox News channel. Is this an opportunity to sue Fox News into oblivion?

[Abnredleg]

1. No - the link is too tenuous

[marybourg]

2. We won't know until it goes before a judge.

[Ocelot II]

5. It would get before a judge just long enough for the judge to dismiss it.

This isn't a viable tort claim, as odious as Fox's influences are.

[ecstatic]

8. What would it take to make a case similar to the case against Alex Jones?

Or hell, even similar to Dominion/Smartmatic. FNC is being held accountable for the conspiracies and negative slander of those companies. What about the constant negative coverage and imagery FNC puts out there regarding immigrants and/or people of color? It seems like companies are protected while entire groups of people are not.

[Ocelot II]

11. There has to be conduct that was the proximate cause (direct cause)

of a specific injury to a specific person. Dominion and Smartmatic are specific "persons" who are able to demonstrate that Fox defamed them by name and caused provable losses to their businesses. It's not that they are companies, it's that they were specifically identifiable. If Fox had defamed a person by name and caused provable harm to them (their reputation or other personal interest), that person would have a good claim as well. But the injury has to be that of a specific person or entity.

"Defamatory statements about a group or class of people generally are not actionable by individual members of that group or class. There are two exceptions to this general rule that exist when the group or class is so small that the statements are reasonably understood to refer to the individual in question; or the circumstances make it reasonable to conclude that the statement refers particularly to the individual in question." Restatement (2d) of Torts, § 564A.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. OH yes they can sue

If they can find an attorney to represent them, but proving faux's bullshit caused this would be very difficult.

We all know faux played a huge role in the actions of this jackass, but proving it is so very hard.

Not even sure what legal theory would get them there.

[Ocelot II]

4. No. There could be too many intervening and superseding causes

of Ludwig's radicalization. What did he watch or read besides Fox? Had he held racist ideas before Fox became popular? It's basically impossible to hold any media outlet directly responsible for the ideas held by a particular individual unless that individual had no other influences, and maybe not even then. What Fox does is basically stochastic terrorism - they talk in a general way that there are certain enemies that should be feared and hated, knowing that some people might take them literally and commit acts of violence, but they are just removed enough from intentional, direct influence on or directions to any particular individual that it's impossible to prove that they directly and proximately caused an individual to take action.

[ecstatic]

7. Thanks. It's such a shame that there's nothing that can be done.

I truly believe they are causing significant harm.

[stopdiggin]

6. Fox News told this guy to shoot

a doorbell ringer? Being sarcastic - but the question doesn't really deserve much else.

[flvegan]

9. Can they? Sure.

If they can find a lawyer to take the case (outside small claims...which would be hilarious). Will they be happy potentially paying Fox's legal fees and costs when they lose? Probably not.

[samrob22]

10. YES! Anyone can sue anyone else. It may not go anywhere but a suit can be filed. i would try it.

To me, it's a form of harassment. FOX and friends and pundits et al harass their viewers to act in the most hateful ways. There is a legal suit in t here somewhere. Inciting public unrest or provoking public tyranny...something.

[Runningdawg]

12. The grandson and/or family should have red-flagged grandpa. "the warning signs were there"

Grandpa had a "locker full" of guns, "they were everywhere".
He's right - this didn't have to happen.