0
10

[–] jsac 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Im not a lawyer but i did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

0
2

[–] Reverse-Flash 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

A real lawyer would have upgraded to Extended Stay America.

0
0

[–] TAThatBoomerang 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Context?

0
1

[–] jsac 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

0
4

[–] Holonomic 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

If this is actually a serious question...

...I'm no lawyer, but I believe the idea behind a lawsuit is to be made whole again after some kind of transaction has taken place. I think that calls for the naming of whomever you believe are responsible, and THAT means who is directly responsible.

The media incites violence (yes, they do), but that doesn't damage you. The rioters damage you, or something they do causes damage --- setting a fire, setting off explosives, etc.

The media didn't cause the damage, they created an atmosphere under which damage could occur, but they are not responsible for some moron taking it upon themselves to go full chimpout and start burning things down.

If you had a local media outlet that was consistently inciting violence, and you had recordings, video, etc showing clearly they went out of their way, then you could sue the owner of the station, but I don't think you could bring a class-action against the whole station, but I'm not sure about that.

But I'm pretty sure if you suffered damages due to a riot you would have to sue the ones that committed those damages.

0
2

[–] everlastingphelps 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

IANAL, but I work in litigation.

Short answer, yes with an if / no with a but

Long answer:

Class actions aren't special for lawsuits except for the extra hurdle of representing hundreds or thousands of plaintiffs at once (especially ones who don't know they are being represented.) There are the normal hurdles that you have to get over for a lawsuit to survive (anyone can file a lawsuit, the trick is keeping it from being dismissed) and then a couple class action related.

First, there is the issue of standing. Who has the right to sue? You can't represent everyone who wants to be in the lawsuit -- the people have to have the right to recover damages. That means first they have to be damaged. You have to show actual, quantifiable harm that can be measured in money. You have a much better chance of standing for, say, business and property owners who suffered property damage (a few hundred people) than you do "Everyone Who Was Watching Who Got Salty" who want emotional damages or even People who decided to go there and got caught in it and have medical bills.

Second, you have to have a legitimate tort. Incitement to violence can be a tort (it's what Trump is being sued for) but the problem is who is doing the inciting. The media, by rebroadcasting someone else, isn't actually doing the inciting -- the speaker is. Even if a particular anchor is inciting, that doesn't necessarily get you to the network itself, which is where the money is. You have to show an act that a particular entity committed that is a tort in the state where it was done. There's no way around hitting all those elements, no matter how shitty the situation might be.

Third, you have to get around the First Amendment. There's always a balancing act going on with "incitement" because you are, by definition, talking about political speech. This is where the lawsuit going on against Trump is likely to fail, because speech doesn't get much more political than running for President and stumping, and I think that there is a good case in the argument that even if (arguendo) Trump was in fact inciting violence, he was doing it for the purpose of it's campaign value for getting votes, not its value in getting the fuck beaten out of some hippie scum, and was therefore protected.

Now we get into class action particular things. You have to get the class certified. That means that you have to show that you have a definable group of plaintiffs (The Class) who share a common situation. That situation has to both give them standing (the first issue) and it has to give rise to a particular set of common damages that can all be proven at once. Taking the property owner issue above, you're going to have a big fight about how damages are calculated, and since property values vary so much, the defense is going to have a good argument against certifying the class because each defendant is going to need to prove his damages individually (since they will get fucked if you go by something like tax assessments). The broader your class, the more different their situations will be, and the harder it will be to get class cert.

Finally, as part of the class cert, you have to have Representative Plaintiffs, who shepherd the case through the courts. They have to be part of the class, they have to direct the litigation, and they often have to testify to things that a plaintiff normally testifies to. They aren't going to be you unless you are part of the Class, and without them, you can't get certified.

Oh, and you need a lawyer who does this sort of thing and isn't going to fuck you out of the majority of the money, which is really rare.

0
0

[–] madmardigan [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Thanks for the reply. Any precedent set regarding class action lawsuits during riots or based upon questionable information being spread. For example couldn't a connection be drawn between a broadcast reporting incorrectly, purposely or accidently ,that led to damages? Not try to use you as Lexus Nexus, just curious as one of the dumb slobs that finds the law foreign and fascinating.

0
0

[–] daskapitalist 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Realistically no.

0
0

[–] everlastingphelps 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Nothing comes to mind.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Trigglypuff 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I'm not sure, are you an expert on Delaware law? In Delaware you can sue anybody..

0
0

[–] AlterNut 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The lawsuit would probably need to be for malicious falsehood which means the plaintiffs must prove the media made up false stories with the intent to do harm.