Apple charged in defamation suit against BET

[AppleInsider]

iTunes operator Apple Inc. is charged as an accomplice in a new defamation lawsuit filed against Viacom and sibling television network BET for mislabeling two Texas residents as "murderers" on the hit television series "American Gangster."

The 13-page suit, filed Wednesday in the United States District Court Southern District of Texas, alleges that a photo of convicted Chicago gang leader Larry Hoover, which also contained Houston residents James Prince and Thomas Randle, has aired repeatedly in conjunction with the BET series alongside an audio caption that dubs the three as killers.

"During the advertisement program, a photograph of Mr. Prince and Mr. Randle is shown with Mr. Larry Hoover, without their permission, with the narrator stating they were "MURDERERS," the claim states. "Neither Mr. Prince nor Mr. Randle has ever been convicted of any felony offenses, let alone murder."

In the episode of "American Gangster" entitled "Larry Hoover and the Gangster Disciples" which aired on October 10, 2007, the photo was shown at least three more times, the suit alleges. Since then, that episode has made its way to the iTunes Store for digital sale, which is where Apple factors into the mix.

"Such patently false, inflammatory and defamatory publications have materially and substantially harmed the reputation of my clients personally and in the business area in which they operate," wrote Warren M Fitzgerald, Jr, attorney for the two Houston men.

Prince and Randle attest that they contacted BET and parent company Viacom ahead of the episode's commercial broadcast to inform them that segment contained false and defamatory information and to request that their likeliness be removed from the show. The networks reportedly refused.

The two men are now seeking punitive damages in the amount to be determined at trial, a preliminary injunction barring the rebroadcast or sale of the episode during the pendency of the lawsuit, and a permanent injunction and restraining order barring any future rebroadcast or sale by Viacom, BET and Apple.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[bdkennedy1]

W H A T E V E R! This will be thrown out.

[tjcortez]

Thats pretty bad that the network is blowing them off. Hopefully Apple will pull it as well.

[ajhill]

Clearly Viacom is responsible for this, not Apple.

What is our world coming to when the courts are full of lawsuits brought by criminals. Notice that the articles mentions that the two have never been convicted of any felonies, let alone murder. It didn't mention misdemeanors, arrests for felonies, associations with felons. I'm sure that the two mentioned are model citizens.

What happen to this country's backbone. We are sitting here passively while the criminals take over our country. Remember what made this country great? Let's get back to that!!!

[SpamSandwich]

Talk about scumbag lawsuits. Chop them all up and feed 'em to the fishes, I say!

[rtdunham]

Originally Posted by ajhill

...What happen to this country's backbone. We are sitting here passively while the criminals take over our country. Remember what made this country great? Let's get back to that!!!

yep: first they throw a bubble gum wrapper in your yard, and the next thing you know, they're coming for your women. If they're not murders now, they''re gonna be, so let's treat 'em like that. Hell, kill 'em now, before they can kill the first time. Yeah! That's the ticket. We should get back to what made this country great...and that DID include condoning libeling people, didn't it, and condemning those who have been accused of a crime, but acquitted or not convicted? Oh, how I long for the good old days when Jefferson and Madison and their righteous gang stood up for those causes, and made this country great.

[BuzDots]

What a crock of shit. Another duo wishing their 15 minutes lasted a little longer!!

[mayosolo]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"Such patently false, inflammatory and defamatory publications have maternally and substantially harmed the reputation of my clients personally and in the business area in which they operate,"

Maternally harmed, eh? This is what happens when "yo momma" jokes get out of hand.

[OwlBoy]

Suing iTunes? Well that means they need to add on all the cable and satellite companies that carry BET.

-Owl

[crees!]

If the photo was taken in public then their permission was not needed for it to be taken.

[Guartho]

Yes, that's true, but the caption is the crux.

[melgross]

Yes, it's the caption. If it had mentioned Hoover as "a" murderer, that would be different. But, people who are not convicted of that shouldn't be labeled that way by a media organization. It doesn't even matter if they were accused. It would then be "alleged".

The same pertains to O J. We pretty much all THINK he is a murderer, but a Tv show can't have the official designation of him as a murderer, even if individuals on a particular show say that they think he is.

[Guartho]

Yes, only South Park has dared come close, and they left themselves a sliver of deniability.

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by ajhill

What is our world coming to when the courts are full of lawsuits brought by criminals. Notice that the articles mentions that the two have never been convicted of any felonies, let alone murder. It didn't mention misdemeanors, arrests for felonies, associations with felons. I'm sure that the two mentioned are model citizens.

What happen to this country's backbone. We are sitting here passively while the criminals take over our country. Remember what made this country great? Let's get back to that!!!

I didn't realize, in the US, people were guilty until proven innocent. Silly me, I thought it was the other way around.

[rtdunham]

Originally Posted by mayosolo

Maternally harmed, eh? This is what happens when "yo momma" jokes get out of hand.

excellent, excellent, excellent. oh, and did i say, excellent? thanks for the grins.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Gustav

I didn't realize, in the US, people were guilty until proven innocent. Silly me, I thought it was the other way around.

I really don't think a conviction necessarily proves anything either way. There can be false convictions just as well as someone being falsely let go too.

The public isn't necessarily held to the same standards that the justice system is held.

[ShavenYak]

I suppose if this isn't settled by the time the season of American Gangster is put on DVD, they'll also go after Best Buy, Barnes & Noble, Amazon, Netflix, Blockbuster, etc.

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by ajhill

What is our world coming to when the courts are full of lawsuits brought by criminals.

Where does it say that either of those is a criminal? Or are you just assuming that?

These guys definitely have a case, you really think it's OK to show someone's picture on TV with the word MURDERER under it (when they're not)? But their case is with BET, not apple.

Originally Posted by crees!

If the photo was taken in public then their permission was not needed for it to be taken.

Probably true...but the main point of the suit is putting "murderers" under their picture.

[macinthe408]

All TV and speaker manufacturers need to be included in this lawsuit.

After all, the defamation could not have occured if it wasn't for its ability to be displayed on a TV and heard through its speaker.

Physicists could also be implicated since they're responsible for discovering and defining the dark matter and dark energy that the images and sounds travel through to get to the rods and cones, and tympanic membranes.

Long live the US and A.

[rickag]

Originally Posted by melgross

Yes, it's the caption. If it had mentioned Hoover as "a" murderer, that would be different. But, people who are not convicted of that shouldn't be labeled that way by a media organization. It doesn't even matter if they were accused. It would then be "alleged".

The same pertains to O J. We pretty much all THINK he is a murderer, but a Tv show can't have the official designation of him as a murderer, even if individuals on a particular show say that they think he is.

I could be mistaken, but OJ was convicted in civil court, so maybe he at least may be portrayed as a murderer. shrug

[nagromme]

If I were falsely (no matter what my other deeds) labeled a murderer repeatedly in the media (EVEN after trying to get the error simply corrected), and people I met and tried to do business with believed it (which they surely would), I'd be totally justified in a lawsuit.

Apple's involvement is just legal absurdity, but the overall suit has merit. It's a matter of fact in dispute--are they convicted murderers or not? We have a legal system in place to deal with that, so let the process take its course, I say.

[rickag]

Originally Posted by macinthe408

All TV and speaker manufacturers need to be included in this lawsuit.

After all, the defamation could not have occured if it wasn't for its ability to be displayed on a TV and heard through its speaker.

Physicists could also be implicated since they're responsible for discovering and defining the dark matter and dark energy that the images and sounds travel through to get to the rods and cones, and tympanic membranes.

Long live the US and A.

Heck, sue the dark matter and dark energy too, oh, wait, they don't have a $15 billion bank account to tape.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I really don't think a conviction necessarily proves anything either way. There can be false convictions just as well as someone being falsely let go too.

The public isn't necessarily held to the same standards that the justice system is held.

But news organizations are, and should be. So are all media, if it's an official statement.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by rickag

I could be mistaken, but OJ was convicted in civil court, so maybe he at least may be portrayed as a murderer. shrug

No, it doesn't work that way. Civil court is very different from criminal court. the standard of proof is far lower. You also can't try criminal cases there. This was a different kind of trial. It's hard to explain, but someone can lose a civil case for having responsibility for something without having lost the criminal case. That doesn't mean that all criminal trials come out with the correct conclusion. I've been on plenty of juries over the years, and I've never been on one that didn't try to do the right thing. But, then, we never had anyone famous.

[Celemourn]

Originally Posted by rickag

I could be mistaken, but OJ was convicted in civil court, so maybe he at least may be portrayed as a murderer. shrug

Not exactly. Criminal court decides if he committed murder or not. Civil court can only determine if he was responsible for their deaths, however that may have occurred. The civil judgement for wrongful death only says that he was responsible, not that he personally did it. It would be like a CEO refusing to replace a faulty piece of equipment, which then broke and killed someone. The CEO might be found responsible for 'wrongful death'. Or I think that's how it goes. Someone please correct my errors.

C

[Noj]

QUOTE: "Such patently false, inflammatory and defamatory publications have MATERNALLY and substantially harmed the reputation of my clients personally and in the business area in which they operate," wrote Warren M Fitzgerald, Jr, attorney for the two Houston men.

How do you sue ignorant attorneys for murdering the English language?
I feel harmed, maternally and substantially, by Mr. Warren M Fitzgerald, Jr's poor grasp of language skills. - Obviously a graduate of the Houston School System.

[teckstud]

I hear 2 muggers are being sued by someone in NYC for stealing their Zunes on the subway, then throwing them back at them for not being an iPod, and knocking them unconcious with those bricks!

[Capt. Obvious]

These guys have a beef w/ Viacom/BET - but as far as the Apple "involvement", they might as well sue Sony for making TVs the public watched it on....

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by rtdunham

yep: first they throw a bubble gum wrapper in your yard, and the next thing you know, they're coming for your women. If they're not murders now, they''re gonna be, so let's treat 'em like that. Hell, kill 'em now, before they can kill the first time. Yeah! That's the ticket. We should get back to what made this country great...and that DID include condoning libeling people, didn't it, and condemning those who have been accused of a crime, but acquitted or not convicted? Oh, how I long for the good old days when Jefferson and Madison and their righteous gang stood up for those causes, and made this country great.

I suppose most people don't know that Sir Thomas Paine with Jefferson and Madison made it possible for authors in the United States of America [coined by Paine] to own copyrights for their works and to help protect them from being imprisoned if they wrote articles against the government.

This country was founded in enlightenment views and today it resembles the Precambrian period with the way the laws are arresting any scapegoat they can to get ratings and more.

[rasnet]

Originally Posted by Celemourn

Not exactly. Criminal court decides if he committed murder or not. Civil court can only determine if he was responsible for their deaths, however that may have occurred. The civil judgement for wrongful death only says that he was responsible, not that he personally did it. It would be like a CEO refusing to replace a faulty piece of equipment, which then broke and killed someone. The CEO might be found responsible for 'wrongful death'. Or I think that's how it goes. Someone please correct my errors.

C

You're right that a civil ruling says he was responsible. In fact, civil suits deal with responsibility to the plaintiff, and a ruling is determined by a preponderance of the evidence (which you might think of as a pretty solid likelihood that the defendant is responsible). Crimes are injustices against society, which is one reason why the burden of proof is the much higher "reasonable doubt" standard.

Wrongful death is also a much broader term than murder both in the possible scope of interaction and in motive, but if I recall correctly, the spin the plaintiffs put in the civil trial was more or less the same, so from that perspective, the civil ruling implies that he killed them himself.

[Booga]

Originally Posted by rickag

I could be mistaken, but OJ was convicted in civil court, so maybe he at least may be portrayed as a murderer. shrug

You are indeed mistaken. A civil court cannot "convict". It is also incorrect, incidentally, to say that Microsoft was "convicted" of some sort of abuse of their monopoly. You can say that OJ was judged to have been responsible for their deaths in a civil court.

I think it's pretty bad that two guys who haven't been convicted of anything are labeled as "murderers". I think I'd sue, too, if someone did that to me. But... sue Apple? I don't get that part. Why not sue every single cable and television affiliate as well?

Whether or not they're likely to win, though, depends on whether they're "public figures" from my limited understanding of law. If these are two private citizens, they're almost certain to win this one because all they have to prove is that the facts portrayed are materially incorrect and caused damage. If these are some sort of celebrities they're likely to lose, because they'd have to prove the network knowingly included false information that was intended to cause harm.

I'm not a lawyer.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Noj

QUOTE: "Such patently false, inflammatory and defamatory publications have MATERNALLY and substantially harmed the reputation of my clients personally and in the business area in which they operate," wrote Warren M Fitzgerald, Jr, attorney for the two Houston men.

How do you sue ignorant attorneys for murdering the English language?
I feel harmed, maternally and substantially, by Mr. Warren M Fitzgerald, Jr's poor grasp of language skills. - Obviously a graduate of the Houston School System.

Most likely, whichever writer typed that down in transcribing it, or more likely, someone here on the site, made that mistake. I'm sure you realize that.

[floccus]

To those of you who are actually confused/upset/whatever about Apple's being named as part of this suit..

Viacom is directly liable for the program, and thus any and all monetary damages would be paid by them.

Apple, via iTunes, is serving as a distribution medium. This, in concert with the attempts to get Viacom, vis-a-vis BET, to cease any further airings of the episode, Apple was named to force them to cease selling the episode. I would assume the plaintiff's laywers asked Apple to do so, but Apple can't because of their contract agreement with Viacom to distribute the show unless Viacom says not to, which Viacom has yet to do.

To make it easier for you to understand.. they are not trying to get $$ from Apple. They're simply trying to force them to stop selling the episode.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by floccus

To those of you who are actually confused/upset/whatever about Apple's being named as part of this suit..

Viacom is directly liable for the program, and thus any and all monetary damages would be paid by them.

Apple, via iTunes, is serving as a distribution medium. This, in concert with the attempts to get Viacom, vis-a-vis BET, to cease any further airings of the episode, Apple was named to force them to cease selling the episode. I would assume the plaintiff's laywers asked Apple to do so, but Apple can't because of their contract agreement with Viacom to distribute the show unless Viacom says not to, which Viacom has yet to do.

To make it easier for you to understand.. they are not trying to get $$ from Apple. They're simply trying to force them to stop selling the episode.

The man (I assume) speaks the truth!

[Chris_CA]

Originally Posted by melgross

Most likely, whichever writer typed that down in transcribing it, or more likely, someone here on the site, made that mistake. I'm sure you realize that.

Yeah, after all, Command C, Command V are pretty difficult keystrokes to get correct.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Chris_CA

Yeah, after all, Command C, Command V are pretty difficult keystrokes to get correct.

Well, considering it's spelling...

[ntrembat]

Originally Posted by floccus

Viacom is directly liable for the program, and thus any and all monetary damages would be paid by them.

Apple, via iTunes, is serving as a distribution medium. This, in concert with the attempts to get Viacom, vis-a-vis BET, to cease any further airings of the episode, Apple was named to force them to cease selling the episode. I would assume the plaintiff's laywers asked Apple to do so, but Apple can't because of their contract agreement with Viacom to distribute the show unless Viacom says not to, which Viacom has yet to do.

To make it easier for you to understand.. they are not trying to get $$ from Apple. They're simply trying to force them to stop selling the episode.

True; except that no contract can compell unlawful action.

Prediction: Apple will pull the unedited episode and ask to be dismissed as a party to the case; Viacom will settle for undiscosed $ and correct the episode, which Apple will redistribute. $2 gets you whatever version Apple has up now . . .

[ascii]

Boy, these people must really think Apple are legal pushovers. Apple's legal team will make short work of them.

[Guartho]

Originally Posted by Booga

If these are some sort of celebrities they're likely to lose, because they'd have to prove the network knowingly included false information that was intended to cause harm.

I'm not a lawyer.

Well, if they can prove that they asked Viacom to not air the episode before it aired I think that'll probably get them past the Actual Malice test that public figures have to pass to win a defamation case.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Guartho

Well, if they can prove that they asked Viacom to not air the episode before it aired I think that'll probably get them past the Actual Malice test that public figures have to pass to win a defamation case.

Maybe. But Viacom may not have shown them the show before it aired, so they may not have known what was going to happen.

It doesn't really matter.