I’m sure the families of those kids are lawyering up big time. Hope the post has a nice big libel warchest, because they’re going to get cleaned out. What makes this more despicable than many other cases of libel (which of course, aren’t good in any context), is that with the fear mongering going on and the fact that many people in this country wouldn’t think twice about exacting some vigilante justice on some terrorists, they actually endangered these kids in addition to all the other crap that goes along with something this erroneous.
What part of the Post’s story do you contend is untrue? Cite the offending utterances verbatim, as you would have to in a complaint for defamation.
First off, I’m not a lawyer, so you’ll need to talk to one to get the specific case that would be argued, but Wikipedia’s definition of Libel is this " libel …is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image"
I’d say implying (rather directly by calling them the ‘bag men’) that the two individuals on their cover blew up 180 people, killing 3, when it’s patently false, without verifying that the FBI were targeting them would fit that that description to a tee.
Yes, even if you alleged the defamatory content is implied, you still have to aver the actual utterance made. And then, because it is not facially defamatory, you have to show the colloquium (that it pertains to the plaintiff) as well as the inducement (the exogenous facts, which together with the verbatim utterance make the statement defamatory) and/or the innuendo (the defamatory impact the not-facially-defamatory statement has in the presence of the inducement).
So, I’ve made your life easier: I’ve only asked you for the verbatim utterance, and not the further elements of colloquium, inducement, and innuendo.
I’ll grant that the photos satisfy the colloquium.
Your inducement/innuendo leaves much to be desired, the term “bag men” pertains to the fact that they are sought because they were seen holding bookbags implicated in the bombing. This wasn’t a protection racket (nor is there any confusion on this point), so you can’t use the slang meaning of “bag man” meaning the one who collects proceeds on behalf of an extorter.
And when I said “You momma a hoe” I was stating her resemblance to a gardening implement.
Eh, where an utterance has both plausible permissible and defamatory readings, the First Amendment would require the case for defamation fail. To hold otherwise would mean that any utterance which can be teased to produce a defamatory reading will give rise to legal liability. This is a burden on free speech that plainly is impermissible.
In other words, you have to show that there is no plausible non-defamatory interpretation of the utterance, in light of the circumstances surrounding its publication. Here, the bookbags that were of the kind implicated in the bombing gave rise to the police interest (as reported by the Post and which is not contended to be an unfactual statement) and gave rise to the headline. Without more, there’s not a showing that the Post fingered them as the bomber, particularly because the headline has to be read together with the article, where the nature of police interest is set forth more fully.
Judging by your sense of humor, I take it you are a lawyer.
People that can spout all that bullshit usually work for companies like The Post or for Rupert Murdoch.
I am much too nice a person to call someone a leprous, syphilitic scum sucking whore. I have standards. Not many, but some. Guidelines, really.
I remembered your zinger and I had to laugh when on NPR the father of the bombers claimed that it would be impossible for his sons to be the killers because they were raised by very loving parents… they are lawyers, surely you can see how loving that environment can be, uh?
Can you feel the love?!?! 
(Yeah, to me it was very odd that the father had to remark on their line of work in regards to the loving environment part, obviously he is not aware of the American pastime of dissing the legal profession).
Odd. Different news report said one of the parents was an auto mechanic of the “shade tree” variety, and some neighbors thought the mom worked in some sort of health occupation. I suggest we take this to be the case, since it is unlikely that two fairly recent immigrants from Checnya could have attended and graduated from law school. As well, they are no doubt suffering, and there is no reason to cast any further aspersions.
There are even posters on this board who defend vigilantism.
LIAR! In your post immediately before this one, you said:
Well, now, not a liar, Sir Hamlet, Esq. I was too nice a person, and then, suddenly, I wasn’t.
And Rupert doesn’t count. He’s Australian.
I’ve been down this road too many times to count. Let me save you some trouble: after you have patiently explained the specific requirements of the law, and explained how the facts adduced do not reach the bar required, you will contemptuously be told that the poster didn’t actually mean there would be a lawsuit and wasn’t actually talking about libel suits in the “legal” meaning, but was simply speaking in a casual reference to false impressions, and colloquially used “libel” and “sue” as impressions and descriptive words with no actual, factual meaning. And you will be an asshole for daring to assume that “Hope the post has a nice big libel warchest, because they’re going to get cleaned out,” meant an actual lawsuit with actual monetary damages.
Oh, you poor dear! How dreadful this must all be for you. Need a moment?
I really don’t see how libel law would shield the Post here. They printed the photo and suggested that the two men were suspects in the bombing and that the FBI was looking for them. The photo had been highlighted by people on Reddit, and I can’t see how anybody could argue the Post made an effort to show those were the suspects. The headline “Bag men” says very clearly that these are the bombers. That the two men in the photo were harmed is obvious, and that sounds like reckless disregard for the truth from where I sit.
elucidator, because of what you said I was beginning to distrust NPR, but other sources report that the parents were lawyers in Chechnya, no wonder the father was back there as I think job opportunities for Russian lawyers would be better over there than in the USA.
http://www.thestate.com/2013/04/19/2732907/bombing-manhunt-continues-boston.html
Although I would not be surprised if this is yet another CNNarnia imaginary report.
New Yorkers generally know that it’s unreliable. But they have an online presence and not everyone groks to their clownishness. (Starving Artist, for example, defended them when the Post falsely and maliciously characterized the NY hotel maid as a prostitute.)
Incidentally, the paper has never made much money: it may sell copies but big advertisers don’t like have their brands associated with wholly unreliable news copy. Per year losses may have average $80 million: the NY Post was basically Murdoch’s plaything. Back during the 1970s the newspaper magnate successfully used that megaphone to prop Ed Koch. But those days are passed: after the British wiretapping scandal, Murdoch was forced/prompted to spin off a number of papers, including the Post. It’s unlikely that they will be able to pay their own way for many years.
Cite: The New York Post: the game is up for Murdoch's plaything | Michael Wolff | The Guardian
Do you believe that the article dispels some of the inferences you make above? Or do you believe that reading the article and viewing the picture leaves a reasonable person no plausible inference except that the men pictured were the guilty bombers?