Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
BrooklynGuy

Sandmann’s $250M Suit Against WAPO Back On

116 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

BrooklynGuy

Good to see the ISIS sympathizers over at the Washington Post will be held accountable. When reached for comment Jeff Bezos had this to say, Amazon sales for bomb making supplies are up 30% this quarter. ;)

Judge reopens Covington teen Nicholas Sandmann’s $250M suit against the Washington Post

A federal judge on Monday reopened the $250 million defamation lawsuit filed by Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann against the Washington Post, a report said.

The ruling by US District Court Judge William Bertelsman partially reverses his own July decision to toss the suit on grounds that opinions published by the paper from Native American activist Nathan Phillips — whom was recorded in a viral standoff with Sandmann — were protected under the First Amendment. Based off an amended complaint filed by the Kentucky student’s legal team, Bertelsman granted the plaintiff the ability to seek discovery from the Washington Post on three of 33 alleged libelous statements reported in the paper documenting the Jan. 18 incident in Washington, DC, according to the Washington Times.

Read more: https://nypost.com/2019/10/28/judge-reopens-covington-teen-nicholas-sandmanns-250m-suit-against-the-washington-post/

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

I wouldn't hold my breath.  With the current state of the interpretation of the first amendment, it's legal to lie.  Just look at what's been going on with the Hannity/Seth Rich lawsuit to see that.  Opinion pieces and new commentators aren't news reporters and have no obligation to be truthful.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Hmm... surely the question here is whether the Washington Post story carelessly perpetuated a libel ? 

Or are newspapers protected against that in the US ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
10 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I wouldn't hold my breath.  With the current state of the interpretation of the first amendment, it's legal to lie.  Just look at what's been going on with the Hannity/Seth Rich lawsuit to see that.  Opinion pieces and new commentators aren't news reporters and have no obligation to be truthful.

It isn't legal to slander and libel.

Edited by joc
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

For anyone who's forgotten his incredibly punchable face:

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

For anyone who's forgotten his incredibly punchable face:

 

Looks like a sweet kid to me...oh wait...that's right...he is!

Here you go...speaking of punchable faces...

560946506_whipkick.jpg.e437c614ddab781d6a3065f0e34ec78c.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

He really should make this his walkon music.

No one would dare to try anything with him, surely 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

IMG_29102019_235108_(400_x_281_pixel).jpg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
16 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

For anyone who's forgotten his incredibly punchable face:

 

Dude, no matter how smirkingly unctuous someone may be, he did nothing wrong.

Edited by Sir Wearer of Hats
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
7 hours ago, F3SS said:

In light of all the facts that this 16 year old kid literally just stood there while this crazy lying Indian banged a drum in his face after being insulted by the crazy racist black Israelites only to be accosted and abused by major media outlets afterwards you still choose to be a lesser man and hate on the kid because of the hat he's wearing.

I'd say you're ugly inside but you're really just empty and devoid of any discerning qualities.

Weird that one kid stood in the native mans way while none of the others did. Its almost as if he made a choice while his compadres made a different choice.  :rolleyes:

The kid was a willing participant in a public spectacle. If he doesnt want to be in the headlines he needs to make different choices.

Isnt personal accountability a republican thing? Just not a Trumpian thing I suppose.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
12 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Weird that one kid stood in the native mans way while none of the others did. Its almost as if he made a choice while his compadres made a different choice.  :rolleyes:

The kid was a willing participant in a public spectacle. If he doesnt want to be in the headlines he needs to make different choices.

Isnt personal accountability a republican thing? Just not a Trumpian thing I suppose.

He stood still while somebody approached, invaded his personal space, and chanted into his face. I doubt there was time to consider the public relations aspect of the situation ? 

The fact is that this "Native American" was confrontational and rude. And the Washington Post printed an article about the event effectively accusing the boy of racism and incitement. They shot from the hip, without analysing the evidence, or seeking clarification. They deserve to be fined and - if possible - publicly whipped, made to stand in the corner with their noses pressed against the wall, and sent to bed with no supper ! 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

He stood still while somebody approached, invaded his personal space, and chanted into his face. I doubt there was time to consider the public relations aspect of the situation ? 

The fact is that this "Native American" was confrontational and rude. And the Washington Post printed an article about the event effectively accusing the boy of racism and incitement. They shot from the hip, without analysing the evidence, or seeking clarification. They deserve to be fined and - if possible - publicly whipped, made to stand in the corner with their noses pressed against the wall, and sent to bed with no supper ! 

and yet the video clearly shows 20 something other kids not standing in a face off with the native man.....weird how one person who made a choice has had to face other consequences than the other 20 something who made a different choice. :rolleyes:

Maybe im WAY off but it seems to me if one were looking at the story with no other bias' they may think that personal choices had something to do with the outcome. Weird.

 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy
4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

and yet the video clearly shows 20 something other kids not standing in a face off with the native man.....weird how one person who made a choice has had to face other consequences than the other 20 something who made a different choice. :rolleyes:

Maybe im WAY off but it seems to me if one were looking at the story with no other bias' they may think that personal choices had something to do with the outcome. Weird.

 

It would go against every fiber in your being to acknowledge in any instance that the right has a valid point on anything wouldn't it. ;) :lol:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, BrooklynGuy said:

It would go against every fiber in your being to acknowledge in any instance that the right has a valid point on anything wouldn't it. ;) :lol:

Nahh im all for lower national debt, personal responsibility, smaller and constitutional government. The right I dont have a problem agreeing with.

When it comes to the tin foil hatted ignorance fueled orgy of grievance and victimhood that is Trumpism however, you probably have a valid point :D

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

@BrooklynGuy In all seriousness though if the Washpo is found to have actually committed liable then they should be punished reasonably.

My main concern, and my reason for pushing so hard to pump the brakes on this one is I see this as a larger movement towards eroding the freedom of the press. I fear we have reached the point where the more partisan on both sides are willing to accept a short term culture war win regardless of long term consequences and that is a dangerous place to be.

It doesnt seem to elicit more than chuckles from his supporters but lets not forget that one of the very first things this administration did was float the idea of altering the 1st amendment.

Reince Priebus admits Trump administration has looked into changing the First Amendment

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
34 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

@BrooklynGuy In all seriousness though if the Washpo is found to have actually committed liable then they should be punished reasonably.

My main concern, and my reason for pushing so hard to pump the brakes on this one is I see this as a larger movement towards eroding the freedom of the press. I fear we have reached the point where the more partisan on both sides are willing to accept a short term culture war win regardless of long term consequences and that is a dangerous place to be.

It doesnt seem to elicit more than chuckles from his supporters but lets not forget that one of the very first things this administration did was float the idea of altering the 1st amendment.

Reince Priebus admits Trump administration has looked into changing the First Amendment

When elements of the press wantonly and recklessly abuse their 1st Amendment protection, then perhaps it was time that the amendment WAS reviewed ? 

There's nothing sacred or sacrosanct about the 1st Amendment. Nor is it set in concrete.

Recall its name. The 1st AMENDMENT.. meaning that it was a change from what existed previously. What was changed once can be changed again. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
47 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

There's nothing sacred or sacrosanct about the 1st Amendment.

Couldn't disagree more.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey

The strangest part of this case to me is how this case was originally thrown out without proper discovery or even reviewing the full video of the event. 

Quote

The ruling by US District Court Judge William Bertelsman partially reverses his own July decision to toss the suit on grounds that opinions published by the paper from Native American activist Nathan Phillips — whom was recorded in a viral standoff with Sandmann — were protected under the First Amendment.

Quote

Based off an amended complaint filed by the Kentucky student’s legal team, Bertelsman granted the plaintiff the ability to seek discovery from the Washington Post on three of 33 alleged libelous statements reported in the paper documenting the Jan. 18 incident in Washington, DC, according to the Washington Times.

Seems like the Judge just wanted to get this off his plate ASAP. Now he's actually willing to lend an ear?

Edit to add--

Quote

“Suffice to say that the Court has given this matter careful review and concludes that ‘justice requires’ that discovery be had regarding these statements and their context. The Court will then consider them anew on summary judgment,” he said.

Uh, ya think? Who is this Judge and where did he get his law degree?

Edited by Dark_Grey
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

When elements of the press wantonly and recklessly abuse their 1st Amendment protection, then perhaps it was time that the amendment WAS reviewed ? 

You can't publicly drag someone through the mud with half-truths and exaggerations then hide behind the 1st A when they turn around and sue you. There are a lot of guilty parties that aren't part of the lawsuit that should be. Notorious mental case Kathy Griffin is one of them.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
30 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

Notorious mental case Kathy Griffin is one of them.

IDK thats a slippery slope. She isnt a media outlet with the responsibilities attached.

Should Trump be sued for hundreds of millions for the lies and insults he puts on Twitter? I dont personally think so

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
14 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

IDK thats a slippery slope. She isnt a media outlet with the responsibilities attached.

Should Trump be sued for hundreds of millions for the lies and insults he puts on Twitter? I dont personally think so

Trump rarely criticises private citizens ? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
36 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Trump rarely criticises private citizens ? 

I think Bezos may feel differently :lol:

This list from 2015 is quite hilariously comprehensive

The definitive list of every person Donald Trump has called a loser

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
27 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I think Bezos may feel differently :lol:

This list from 2015 is quite hilariously comprehensive

The definitive list of every person Donald Trump has called a loser

 

Ooooh.. what an interesting list. Thanks for posting that @Farmer77

MY problem is that - having skimmed down it - I can't help but agree with him on many of the entries. 

Alex Salmond and David Cameron spring immediately to mind :D 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, RoofGardener said:

Ooooh.. what an interesting list. Thanks for posting that @Farmer77

MY problem is that - having skimmed down it - I can't help but agree with him on many of the entries. 

Alex Salmond and David Cameron spring immediately to mind :D 

Im just saying both sides have become a little too comfortable with the concept of legislating away speech they dont like.  The right is all to willing to erode the 1st so people stop talking bad about them and the left is all to willing to do the same over "hate speech".

Im all for society self regulating that kind of stuff. Wanna fire a guy for being a Nazi thats cool, wanna ban someone from your privately owned internet platform because you think they post too many MSM articles go for it, but when you start talking about actual legislation to stop those things then you are talking about destroying the very foundations of American freedom and I dont think enough of us take the time to look at things from the 30k foot view.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.