Muslim brothers sue Fox television network for ‘libel by implication’

Frivolous? via Muslim brothers sue Fox television networkfor libel in al Qaeda report.

Two brothers are suing the Fox television network for libel after the network allegedly linked them to a third brother accused by authorities of working for al Qaeda.

By showing Walid and Mohamed El-Hanafi’s images during a broadcast about their brother Wesam, Fox implied that they were either funding their brother’s alleged activities or engaged in such activities themselves, the lawsuit said.

A spokesperson for Fox said they were aware of the lawsuit and reviewing it.

Wesam El-Hanafi was indicted in federal court on April 30, 2010, for allegedly providing material support to al Qaeda, according to the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Among other allegations, Wesam El-Hanafi was accused of buying digital watches that could be used as explosive timers.

Walid and Mohamed El-Hanafi were not charged with a crime.

During a segment about the indictment, Fox showed copies of Walid and Mohamed El-Hanafi’s driver’s licenses, according to their lawsuit, which was filed on Thursday in New York Supreme Court, Kings County.

Walid and Mohamed El-Hanafi also accused Pay-O-Matic Check Cashing Corp. and Western Union Financial Services Inc. of providing Fox with copies of their driver’s licenses, cashed checks and money wire receipts.

The news segment implied that all three brothers used Pay-O-Matic and Western Union on Bath Avenue in Brooklyn to assist in providing material support to al Qaeda, according to the complaint.

Western Union does not comment on pending litigation, spokesman Stephen Gawlik said. But he said Pay-O-Matic was a Western Union agent. Officials from Pay-O-Matic did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The complaint is a libel by implication lawsuit, said Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York City.

“The defendant isn’t being accused of directly asserting that the plaintiffs were involved with terrorism,” Baron said.

At the start of the case, the brothers will have to prove that a “reasonable viewer” would have likely drawn that conclusion, Baron said.

As the case goes on, the plaintiffs will have to show that Fox “fundamentally intended the implication or was so reckless that it was the same as intending it,” she said.

According to the complaint, a Fox reporter said the El-Hanafi family used the Brooklyn Western Union to cash everyday checks and wire money abroad, but nothing illegal.

That mention could work to Fox’s advantage, Baron said. A trial might determine that the news report was trying to convey that the other brothers were not involved in anything unlawful.

In order to determine whether something was defamatory, one would have to look at the whole report, she added.

More on el-Hanafi here.