(NEW YORK, may 2, legal Reuters) - two brothers pursue the Fox television network for defamation after that network allegedly their third brother accused by the authorities to work for al-Qaeda-related.
Showing images of Walid and Mohamed El-Hanafi in a broadcast on their brother Wesam Fox implied that they were either funding activities of their brother or engaged in such activities themselves, said of the prosecution.
A spokesman for Fox said that they were aware of the prosecution and review.
Wesam El-Hanafi was charged in Federal Court on April 30, 2010, for allegedly providing material support to al-Qaida, according to the Office of the US Attorney for Manhattan.
Among other allegations, Wesam El-Hanafi was charged for the purchase of digital watches that could be used as explosives timers.
Walid and Mohamed El-Hanafi were not charged with a crime.
In a segment on the indictment, Fox showed copies of the licence of Walid and Mohamed El-Hanafi, as their trial, which was filed Thursday in the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County.
Walid and Mohamed El-Hanafi also accused pay-O-Matic check cashing Corp. and Western Union Financial Services Inc. Fox delivery with copies of the licences their driver, cashed cheques and receipts of silver wire.
The segment news implied that all three brothers used pay-O-Matic and Western Union on the bathroom in Brooklyn Avenue to help provide material support to al-Qaida, according to the complaint.
Western Union does not comment on pending, said spokesman Stephen Gawlik. But he said that pay-O-Matic is a Western Union agent. Pay-O-Matic officials not immediately responded to requests for comments.
The complaint is a libel by continued involvement, said Sandra Baron, Executive Director of the Media Law Resource Center, New York.
"The defendant is not accused of directly stating that the plaintiffs were involved with terrorism," Baron said.
At the beginning of the case, the brothers will have to prove that a "reasonable Viewer" would have probably drawn this conclusion, said Baron.
According to the case, the plaintiffs must show that Fox "fundamentally the involvement of the intention or was so indifferent that it was the same as in intention," she said.
According to the complaint, a journalist for Fox said that El-Hanafi family used the Brooklyn Western Union to cash cheques all days and wire money abroad, but nothing illegal.
This reference could work for the benefit of the Fox, said Baron. A trial can be determined that the broadcast is trying to convey that the other brothers were not present at something illegal.
To determine if something is libellous, should be to consider all of the report, she added.
(Reported by Jennifer Golson of legal Reuters;) (Editing by Howard Goller and Peter Bohan)
没有评论:
发表评论