On Those Catholic Kids That "Attacked" the Native Americans

[makattak]

I had a further thought about the false bishop.

The INSTANTANEOUS condemnation of members of his flock stands in stark contrast to the Church's mealy-mouthed tepid response to ostensibly Catholic New York politicians enabling and cheering mortal sins of murdering children.

[DittoHead]

They're suing the Washington Post now http://www.hemmerlaw.com/blog/for-truth-for-justice-for-nicholas/
As an actual lawsuit I doubt it's going to get very far.

[makattak]

They're suing the Washington Post now http://www.hemmerlaw.com/blog/for-truth-for-justice-for-nicholas/
As an actual lawsuit I doubt it's going to get very far.

How so? The young man is a minor. The news doesn't get to libel him as though he is a public figure.

He doesn't even have to prove malicious intent. Just that they were negligent.

Considering it takes a very small amount of time to prove the initial allegations completely false, I don't see how he can lose on the merits. The Washington Post took ZERO effort to substantiate the claims they published.


That's negligence right there, and all he needs for libel.

[zxcvbob]

How so? The young man is a minor. The news doesn't get to libel him as though he is a public figure.

He doesn't even have to prove malicious intent. Just that they were negligent.

Considering it takes a very small amount of time to prove the initial allegations completely false, I don't see how he can lose on the merits. The Washington Post took ZERO effort to substantiate the claims they published.


That's negligence right there, and all he needs for libel.

IMHO, it's a slam-dunk case, except for the damages.  He's going to have a hard time showing any actual damages, other than maybe his legal fees.  Is this being tried under Kentucky laws or federal laws?  (not sure if there are federal libel laws)  IANAL, and all that.

[makattak]

IMHO, it's a slam-dunk case, except for the damages.  He's going to have a hard time showing any actual damages, other than maybe his legal fees.  Is this being tried under Kentucky laws or federal laws?  (not sure if there are federal libel laws)  IANAL, and all that.

People were writing to potential colleges to prevent him from attending any college.

People were offering cash (and other incentives) to punch him or worse.


.... That's not damage to a reputation?

[DittoHead]

How so? The young man is a minor. The news doesn't get to libel him as though he is a public figure.

He doesn't even have to prove malicious intent. Just that they were negligent.

It was almost certainly a "matter of public concern" by the time WaPo even published their first story, so I expect they will have to prove malicious intent if it gets that far. It had already "gone viral" and pretty much all of the false and defamatory statements listed were just quotes from Phillips.
Sandmann may have a viable lawsuit against someone, I just don't see it happening against the Washington Post.

[Scout26]

It was almost certainly a "matter of public concern" by the time WaPo even published their first story, so I expect they will have to prove malicious intent if it gets that far. It had already "gone viral" and pretty much all of the false and defamatory statements listed were just quotes from Phillips.
Sandmann may have a viable lawsuit against someone, I just don't see it happening against the Washington Post.

But WaPo published 7 or 8 stories in the days after the event without doing any factchecking (i.e. watching the full videos).  That's negligence on the part of WaPo.  They are expected to make sure the stories they publish are as accurate as possible.   They continued to publish "the narrative" well after the truth of the event had come out.

As far a damages, every time someone googles Nicholas Sandmann or does any type of background check, the first things to come up will be the WaPo stories.  That's ruined the kid's reputation forever.

[Ben]

But WaPo published 7 or 8 stories in the days after the event without doing any factchecking (i.e. watching the full videos). 

Which came out like 12 hours after the edited one. There is literally no excuse for a mainstream news source to not have seen them within 24 hours of the edited one, but that first one got all the airplay in the MSM for days. Unlike the social media, "journalists" are supposed to do diligent research.

[HankB]

It was almost certainly a "matter of public concern" by the time WaPo even published their first story, so I expect they will have to prove malicious intent if it gets that far.  . . .

IANAL but . . .

Has the WaPo ever published a critical story equating MAGA hats - or "pro-life" individuals - with Klan hoods, racism, or some other unsavory opinions or practices? That might go a long way toward proving malicious intent when the object of their ire is NOT a public figure. 

[RoadKingLarry]

It was almost certainly a "matter of public concern" by the time WaPo even published their first story, so I expect they will have to prove malicious intent if it gets that far. It had already "gone viral" and pretty much all of the false and defamatory statements listed were just quotes from Phillips.
Sandmann may have a viable lawsuit against someone, I just don't see it happening against the Washington Post.

How could any sane person consider him, a 16 year old high school student, a "public figure" when all the publicity was without his consent. He was in the public eye involuntarily and not for any actual misdeed.
He's been doxxed, threatened, maligned and publicly ridiculed by numerous media outlets and libtard public figures.

[Hawkmoon]

It was almost certainly a "matter of public concern" by the time WaPo even published their first story, so I expect they will have to prove malicious intent if it gets that far. It had already "gone viral" and pretty much all of the false and defamatory statements listed were just quotes from Phillips.
Sandmann may have a viable lawsuit against someone, I just don't see it happening against the Washington Post.

It doesn't matter that it had gone viral. The kid wasn't a public figure. The fact that the libel and slander turned him into a public figure is ex post facto. That means the media had a duty to not be negligent. They didn't have absolutely prove that the claims against the kids were true, but they did have to at least make a conscientious effort to determine whether or not the charges were true.

And they didn't make any effort whatsoever. They took a narrative that supported their world view du jour and ran with it.

[gunsmith]

  I don't know who the SNL writer girl is who offered ... uh...."sex" to whomever would punch the young man, but I saw her picture.
 She is attractive, so i can easily imagine there are lots of idiot dudes out there who A: believe her  B: willing to actually assault the young gentleman.
She, obviously has never gotten a right hook, in the face, by an aggressor male a lot stronger than she is.
 I am willing to bet that God will one day let her know what its like to get a punch in the face.

[DittoHead]

the student became a “limited purpose public figure” during the confrontation, adding that Sandmann’s lawyers would need to then prove the Post “published what they knew was false and reckless.”
“We start from the proposition that the freedom of speech is protected and defamation is an exception, a very narrow exception. When it’s a public event, the exception is even narrower.”
while he makes a “very strong moral case,” the law “does not impose a moral standard on the Washington Post to engage in restraint.”

I've seen a lot of people on social media excited about this case, but I can't say I've seen many I respect with a legal background saying it's a strong case while there are a couple saying the opposite. Just because someone was wronged doesn't mean the courts will deliver justice.

I'm no lawyer and the whole Gawker thing didn't turn out how I expected, so I could turn out to be wrong but I'd still be willing to bet money that they don't win this case in court. I'm even skeptical that it will be settled out of court for anything more than an apology. That filing is kind of a mess - lots of stuff in there that definitely isn't defamation and (at least to me) looks pretty irrelevant so maybe I'm missing some of the actual statements WaPo made that were defamation. So much of it was opinion. This is from well before when the suit was filed but explains why it will be hard one to win https://reason.com/volokh/2019/01/24/libel-law-and-the-covington-boys

[sumpnz]

I think there's probably a good case, but not for $250mil.  Maybe $250k.

[DittoHead]

Another look through the lawsuit, they found one item compelling:

There is one statement that does look like a potential assertion of fact rather than opinion. From The Post:

"It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: 'I've got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,' " Phillips recalled. "I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way, and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn't allow me to retreat."

This strikes me as potential grounds for a libel claim. It may indeed be considered a statement of fact rather than opinion, and one that was incorrect. The false assertion certainly portrays Sandmann in a negative light, and The Post made little effort to corroborate it before the author went ahead and subjected a previously unknown teenage boy to all the negative publicity that comes with being the subject of hit piece in a major media outlet. But this is far from open and shut, as the media's failures in the Covington case, while substantial, are more open to interpretation than Rolling Stone's failures in the Virginia story.

[Hawkmoon]

"It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: 'I've got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,' " Phillips recalled. "I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way, and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn't allow me to retreat."

It's just a basic language problem. Phillips perhaps avoided going to one of those missionary schools on the reservation where they don't let the kids speak anything other than English. That might explain why he thinks "retreat" means "continue in a forward direction," rather than "go back to where I came in from."

The concept of someone in front of you blocking you from retreating is ... amusing.

[WLJ]

Add CNN

CNN to be sued for more than $250M over 'vicious' and 'direct attacks' on Covington High student: lawyer
https://www.foxnews.com/us/cnn-to-be-sued-for-more-than-250m-over-vicious-and-direct-attacks-on-covington-high-student-lawyer

[grampster]

The media overreaction/bias to this situation is the classic example of how far down into the depths modern *"journalism" has fallen.  I hope this kid's lawyer lines up a long line of individuals and companies to sue.  If they settle, I would make part of the settlement the absence of any non disclosure agreement.  The only way the media can begin to pay for their sins of distortion, obfuscation, error, lies and negligent reportage inter alia, is to rub their noses in it publicly.

 
*To call the dreck in print or broadcasting journalism or reporting does a disservice to the definition of each.   

[RoadKingLarry]

*To call the dreck in print or broadcasting journalism or reporting does a disservice to the definition of each.   

That's why I call it urinalism.

[DittoHead]

As an actual lawsuit I doubt it's going to get very far.

dismissed
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2019/07/26/nick-sandmann-lawsuit-against-washington-post-dismissed-federal-judge-trump/1841278001/

[MechAg94]

Marburger said the opinion issue was at the crux of the suit.

"When we’re all looking at the same facts, we’re all free to say what we think those facts show without being fearful of a libel judgement against us," Marburger said. "And that’s what you have here."

Odd quote.  The Post can say anything they want as long as it is an opinion or quoting someone's opinion.  That is the sort of thing that can be heavily abused.

[Hawkmoon]

Odd quote.  The Post can say anything they want as long as it is an opinion or quoting someone's opinion.  That is the sort of thing that can be heavily abused.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[MechAg94]

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Into obscure movies?   
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2463808/

[bedlamite]

Lawsuit has been reinstated

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/federal-judge-reinstates-libel-lawsuit-filed-by-covington-catholic-teen-against-washington-post/2019/10/28/30155c52-f9ae-11e9-ac8c-8eced29ca6ef_story.html

[Ben]

Lawsuit has been reinstated

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/federal-judge-reinstates-libel-lawsuit-filed-by-covington-catholic-teen-against-washington-post/2019/10/28/30155c52-f9ae-11e9-ac8c-8eced29ca6ef_story.html

If I read it right, by the same judge who first denied it. Interesting.