MAGA brats mock Native American with "build the wall" chants

[Checkmite]

The Washington Post has filed a motion to dismiss the suit. "The Post said its overall coverage was accurate and 'ultimately favorable' to Nick." USA Today. According the The Blaze, the Washington Post "asserts its stories were accurate and did not impugn the reputation of Covington (Ky.) Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann, who entered a social media storm through video footage shot during a chaotic afternoon."

I am not a big fan of the two lawsuits (there is a second lawsuit against CNN), but these arguments are pretty thin gruel IMO.

Evidently, the arguments were actually spot on. The Washington Post is not guilty of defamation by virtue of simply reporting the protected speech of a participant of the event.

 

[Darat]

Evidently, the arguments were actually spot on. The Washington Post is not guilty of defamation by virtue of simply reporting the protected speech of a participant of the event.

Would have been funny if it was allowed. The media wouldn't have been able to report 95% of anything Trump says!

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Typical case brought by people who can afford the legal costs without thinking twice.

 

[sackett]

Daddy still wants to try for that $250M, he says. His lawyers will be glad to help, no doubt, for as long as he wants to keep on.

He laments "what was done" to his kid. Did that old Injun scalp his younker? Count coup off him? Steal his fave buffalo pony? Sakes alive, that otter be worth sunthin, dontcher think?

 

[Craig4]

It's hard to care about what happens to anyone wearing a Nazi armband in public.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's hard to care about what happens to anyone wearing a Nazi armband in public.

????? Did I miss something? Was Prince Harry in the suit?

 

[Craig4]

????? Did I miss something? Was Prince Harry in the suit?

Actually they were MAGA hats but, same thing really.

 

[applecorped]

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Ah, yes, the "NPC meme". "I'm going to say that you're parroting things other people came up with by repeating something other people came up with". Well done.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a factually false assertion in WaPo

from Robby Soave's Reason article, 2/21/2019,
[begin Reason quote] 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. [end Reason quote; highlighting mine]

As I have said previously, I admit to being conflicted about the lawsuit, but I have no hesitation about calling out the Washington Post for being biased and sloppy in this instance. This was slipshod journalism from a paper that can do much better.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

ultimately favorable?

Evidently, the arguments were actually spot on. The Washington Post is not guilty of defamation by virtue of simply reporting the protected speech of a participant of the event.

As I argued in the comment immediately above this one, the Post was not accurate at first (when it most counted). What part of their coverage was "ultimately favorable" to Mr. Sandmann?
EDT
As reported in the Washington Examiner, WaPo acknowledged problems in its reporting. However, it claims that the issue of whether or not Mr. Phillips was blocked is a matter of opinion:

"Bertelsman said he accepts Sandmann’s claim that he was only trying to diffuse the situation, not block anyone, when he was standing in front of Phillips, despite Phillips not viewing Sandmann’s actions in the same manner.

“However, Phillips did not see it that way. He concluded that he was being ‘blocked’ and not allowed to ‘retreat.’ He passed these conclusions on to The Post. They may have been erroneous but … they are opinion protected by the First Amendment. And The Post is not liable for publishing these opinions,” Bertelsman wrote.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

from Robby Soave's Reason article, 2/21/2019,
[begin Reason quote] 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. [end Reason quote; highlighting mine]

As I have said previously, I admit to being conflicted about the lawsuit, but I have no hesitation about calling out the Washington Post for being biased and sloppy in this instance. This was slipshod journalism from a paper that can do much better.

You can be a pretty terrible journalist and still be well clear of any real risk of libel. They may have repeated an accusation without doing any due diligence, but they didn't libel. Reporting the words of Phillips is accurate and not libel, even if Phillips himself was committing libel when he said them.

A respected newspaper is rightly castigated for doing shoddy reporting, but that shouldn't be confused with any real chance of litigation success. A wide variety of trash publications thrive on publishing utter trash day in and day out with no real fear of being sued. Consider that the AJ defamation case is considered a long shot gives the proper perspective for how wide the protections journalists have to get the facts wrong in this country.

Unless the lawyers for the Covington kid were totally unethical hacks, they probably told him from the start that his claim was exceedingly unlikely to be successful. This seemed more like litigation intending to generate headlines rather than actually succeed in court.

 

[Mike!]

You can be a pretty terrible journalist and still be well clear of any real risk of libel. They may have repeated an accusation without doing any due diligence, but they didn't libel. Reporting the words of Phillips is accurate and not libel, even if Phillips himself was committing libel when he said them.

A respected newspaper is rightly castigated for doing shoddy reporting, but that shouldn't be confused with any real chance of litigation success. A wide variety of trash publications thrive on publishing utter trash day in and day out with no real fear of being sued. Consider that the AJ defamation case is considered a long shot gives the proper perspective for how wide the protections journalists have to get the facts wrong in this country.

Unless the lawyers for the Covington kid were totally unethical hacks, they probably told him from the start that his claim was exceedingly unlikely to be successful. This seemed more like litigation intending to generate headlines rather than actually succeed in court.

...Or the hopes of a quiet cash settlement to just shut up and go away. Which is honestly what I'd hoped would happen. Is this one of those things that could be appealed and taken higher, or it is now a dead issue? To me, Phillips was/is a dick, and the kid was mostly in the wrong place at just the right time for it to happen at all. Send him to college and call it good.

 

[plague311]

...Or the hopes of a quiet cash settlement to just shut up and go away. Which is honestly what I'd hoped would happen. Is this one of those things that could be appealed and taken higher, or it is now a dead issue? To me, Phillips was/is a dick, and the kid was mostly in the wrong place at just the right time for it to happen at all. Send him to college and call it good.

Huh? Why would they send him to college? **** him.

Once it was appealed with prejudice I'm fairly positive it can't go anywhere else.

A dismissal with prejudice is dismissal of a case on merits after adjudication.The plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res judicata on the claims that were or could have been brought in it.

He doesn't deserve any money, he doesn't deserve a paid for college, he doesn't deserve anything at all. He tried to throw a hail mary and it got snagged for a pick-6.

Game over.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

viva frei video

Around 12:50 the host of this video blog discusses an aspect of Kentucky defamation law that I thought might work in Mr. Sandmann's favor. I was previously unaware of this individual and do not know how credible a source he is.
Link

 

[Ziggurat]

Huh? Why would they send him to college? **** him.

Once it was appealed with prejudice I'm fairly positive it can't go anywhere else.

Not exactly. First, I assume you mean dismissed with prejudice. You don't appeal with prejudice. Second, the dismissal itself can be appealed. What the "with prejudice" means is that they can't refile an amended complaint. But if the dismissal itself gets overturned on appeal by a higher court, they could still be in business.

I claim no knowledge of their odds of successfully appealing the decision.

 

[plague311]

Not exactly. First, I assume you mean dismissed with prejudice. You don't appeal with prejudice. Second, the dismissal itself can be appealed. What the "with prejudice" means is that they can't refile an amended complaint. But if the dismissal itself gets overturned on appeal by a higher court, they could still be in business.

I claim no knowledge of their odds of successfully appealing the decision.

Yes, I was going to correct it but I assumed people would know what I meant. I'm glad you were able to parse it.

I'm definitely not saying you're wrong. I looked at the definition of res judicata and it says:

a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties.

Do you have something I could read that would help me better understand this? It seems like it's saying the ball has dropped, and that there isn't a way to pursue it further. I'm open to being wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you have something I could read that would help me better understand this? It seems like it's saying the ball has dropped, and that there isn't a way to pursue it further. I'm open to being wrong.

https://www.illinoislegalaid.org/legal-information/difference-between-dismissed-or-without-prejudice

"Sometimes, though, judges dismiss cases with prejudice. Maybe the loser has already had chances to fix their case, and the judge concludes there's no way the case can go forward. But it could be lots of things. The result is that the case is closed. If your case was dismissed with prejudice, it could be appealed to a higher judge, but you can’t start over from scratch and try again."

I don't think that there's any ruling a lower court judge can make which (at least in principle) can't be appealed to a higher court.

 

[plague311]

https://www.illinoislegalaid.org/legal-information/difference-between-dismissed-or-without-prejudice

"Sometimes, though, judges dismiss cases with prejudice. Maybe the loser has already had chances to fix their case, and the judge concludes there's no way the case can go forward. But it could be lots of things. The result is that the case is closed. If your case was dismissed with prejudice, it could be appealed to a higher judge, but you can’t start over from scratch and try again."

I don't think that there's any ruling a lower court judge can make which (at least in principle) can't be appealed to a higher court.

Duly noted and conceded.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a portion of the Kentucky statute

Here is a link to the dismissal itself. The judge quoted a portion of the Kentucky statute on defamation: "[t]o be libelous per se the defamatory words must be of such a nature that courts can presume as a matter of law that they do tend to degrade or disgrace [the plaintiff], or hold him up to public hatred, contempt or scorn." This is one of the passages talked about in the video blog link I added upthread today. Legal Insurrection also covered the dismissal.