• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

I'm glad he settled. The cruelty of the online shame mob with their Trumpian relationship to the evidence was really something amazing to witness. I would have liked to see the journalists and outlets publicly apologize and also explain the basic ethics of journalism they broke. People here continued portraying Nathan Phillips as the victim, when he was confrontational and presumptuous and clearly misread the entire situation and this happened even after the dust had settled and news outlets retracted their stories.
 
portlandatheist said:
I'm glad he settled. The cruelty of the online shame mob with their Trumpian relationship to the evidence was really something amazing to witness. I would have liked to see the journalists and outlets publicly apologize and also explain the basic ethics of journalism they broke. People here continued portraying Nathan Phillips as the victim, when he was confrontational and presumptuous and clearly misread the entire situation and this happened even after the dust had settled and news outlets retracted their stories.
Click to expand...


:thumbsup:
 
Bablonbee makes fun of the situation [satire] (dated article from when he settled with CNN)
Sandmann says the hosts will be forced to wear the hats until they've learned their lesson, which could take a while. "Just be careful you don't make an expression some could construe as 'smug.' Wouldn't want you to get punched or your lives to get ruined, or anything like that."

CNN hosts must also finish every broadcast by saying, "Good night, and I am a big, fat dummy, while Trump is the best president we've ever had."
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't think that's quite a fair representation of his position, at least not as I read it. He quite clearly didn't think those kids deserved their treatment in the media, and rather explicitly indicated that the media should pay a price for it. I think his point was more about the legal system in general, and not really specific to this case: that huge financial rewards for victims don't always make sense on their own even in cases where the perpetrators deserve huge financial penalties as punishment. The best argument against this system (which he didn't explicitly state but I suspect he would agree with) is probably that it creates bad incentives for people to falsify or exaggerate claims of harm for financial gain.

I'm not unsympathetic to that viewpoint, except that I can't see any better way to allocate the penalties except to the victims. If the victims end up better off than they would have if nothing had happened, well, that may not be the perfect outcome, but it's an acceptable one. And I don't know of a solution to the problem of falsified claims of harm which eliminates the possibility of huge or even disproportionate payouts without compromising the rights of victims.
Click to expand...

Hit the nail on the head. I might quibble about "best argument", but that's pretty close to what I would say, and everything else is spot on.
 
So is there any actual evidence that Sandmann won any substantial amount of money here?

The case was settled. Who knows that that means. It's in Sandmann's best interest to declare victory, but I see no evidence that he walked away with a payout.

Throwing him a pittance might have been cheaper than continuing litigation, even if the news agencies thought they would eventually emerge victorious. Sandmann had the uphill climb of not only proving that the news agencies were wrong, but that they knew the story was wrong and ran it anyway.

Speculation about the settlement from some lawyer dude on Twitter. There's a thread of details that he thinks points towards a insignificant payout to settle the case.

So a lot of people seem to think Sandmann won a meaningful amount of money, but every part of this, from the procedural history, the timing, the announcement, the relevant law, all of it confirms Sandmann was paid mere nuisance value.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/RespectableLaw/status/1287597289255710720

Sandmann have proven himself to be quite the media savvy kid, and has become a minor celebrity among the political right. Declaring victory over a settlement that can't be disclosed would be another savvy move, even if there was no significant amount of money awarded.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
So is there any actual evidence that Sandmann won any substantial amount of money here?

The case was settled. Who knows that that means. It's in Sandmann's best interest to declare victory, but I see no evidence that he walked away with a payout.

Throwing him a pittance might have been cheaper than continuing litigation, even if the news agencies thought they would eventually emerge victorious. Sandmann had the uphill climb of not only proving that the news agencies were wrong, but that they knew the story was wrong and ran it anyway.

Speculation about the settlement from some lawyer dude on Twitter. There's a thread of details that he thinks points towards a insignificant payout to settle the case.



https://twitter.com/RespectableLaw/status/1287597289255710720

Sandmann have proven himself to be quite the media savvy kid, and has become a minor celebrity among the political right. Declaring victory over a settlement that can't be disclosed would be another savvy move, even if there was no significant amount of money awarded.
Click to expand...


However, "mere nuisance value" for a large business can be a life-changing amount for a (non-one-percenter) individual.
 
Myriad said:
However, "mere nuisance value" for a large business can be a life-changing amount for a (non-one-percenter) individual.
Click to expand...

We don't know what Sandmann owes his lawyer. Could very well be free representation, given the publicity, but it's also possible that whatever settlement was gobbled up by lawyer bills.

My point is that there is no evidence to believe that this secret settlement was a big win for Sandmann. 1A protections are very generous for journalists, and even with the bad reporting, it was a longshot to win.

It seems more likely to me that it became clear to everyone that the case was unwinnable and the settlement just put the thing down rather than waste a bunch of time and legal fees.
 
I'm guessing that his lawyers wouldn't have advised accepting a nuisance amount unless, as Myriad was getting at, it was a nuisance amount to the businesses, which would be a substantial amount for him. "Enough to pay for his college education" would be a "nuisance" for the business. Enough to make him never have to work a day in his life would be somewhat more than a nuisance for the business, but not enough to lose sleep over or require specific mention in the next quarterly stock report.


However, that's all speculation. I have no specific information or knowledge to indicate how much he got.
 
Meadmaker said:
I'm guessing that his lawyers wouldn't have advised accepting a nuisance amount unless, as Myriad was getting at, it was a nuisance amount to the businesses, which would be a substantial amount for him. "Enough to pay for his college education" would be a "nuisance" for the business. Enough to make him never have to work a day in his life would be somewhat more than a nuisance for the business, but not enough to lose sleep over or require specific mention in the next quarterly stock report.


However, that's all speculation. I have no specific information or knowledge to indicate how much he got.
Click to expand...

The settlement could have been $0. We have no idea.

I don't think there's really any good reason to assume it was a windfall amount given how difficult the case was for Sandmann. Unless he can prove that these news outlets knew the story was false and published it anyway, the defamation case was going to fail. Suing a news outlet for a false story is a very difficult venture and requires pretty specific evidence of willful misrepresentation.

The NDA works well for Sandmann. He can declare victory and let people's imagination run wild. Given that this case never had much chance of success and was largely about publicity, it's a job well done.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
I don't think there's really any good reason to assume it was a windfall amount given how difficult the case was for Sandmann. Unless he can prove that these news outlets knew the story was false and published it anyway, the defamation case was going to fail. Suing a news outlet for a false story is a very difficult venture and requires pretty specific evidence of willful misrepresentation.
Click to expand...

Only for public figures. For others, it's enough to show that they published defamatory information with reckless disregard for the truth. They didn't check their stories.


In these days of viral videos, prior standards are getting harder to apply and enforce. News outlets would undoubtedly claim that if you have been exposed on social media in a viral video, that makes you a public figure. I don't know the state of the law on the subject right now.

I looked back at the early days of this thread. They published things that were wrong, and that they had enough information to know that they were wrong, and that did result in actual defamation. That shouldn't be a weak case or difficult to win. If it is, then something is wrong with the system.

The only hard part is the question of damages. Did he actually suffer harm? There were the death threats and harassment, of course, but by the time is was all over he got a lot of favorable publicity, so the media can argue there was no net harm. I don't know how that would fly in the courtroom.
 
Meadmaker said:
Only for public figures. For others, it's enough to show that they published defamatory information with reckless disregard for the truth. They didn't check their stories.


In these days of viral videos, prior standards are getting harder to apply and enforce. News outlets would undoubtedly claim that if you have been exposed on social media in a viral video, that makes you a public figure. I don't know the state of the law on the subject right now.

I looked back at the early days of this thread. They published things that were wrong, and that they had enough information to know that they were wrong, and that did result in actual defamation. That shouldn't be a weak case or difficult to win. If it is, then something is wrong with the system.

The only hard part is the question of damages. Did he actually suffer harm? There were the death threats and harassment, of course, but by the time is was all over he got a lot of favorable publicity, so the media can argue there was no net harm. I don't know how that would fly in the courtroom.
Click to expand...

It's hard for me to argue as I'm not a lawyer. The reporting I've seen from lawyers that seem reputable indicates that suing a newspaper for incorrect reporting such at this is a losing proposition. Unless there were some smoking gun evidence uncovered during discovery that showed the paper knowingly published false info, it was likely a losing case.
 
His attorney is not happy, and I'm guessing more will come out eventually if he's serious with these tweets.



https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1287845514474655747

"This tweet by
@AshaRangappa
may have cost Ms. Rangappa her job at
@CNN
. It is called breach of confidentiality agreement. Asha Rangappa is a liar. I know how to deal with liars.

Heads are going to roll at CNN or
@N1ckSandmann
is going to filing another lawsuit & reveal truth."


https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1287817475686531072

"This tweet by
@MrDanZak
may have cost him his job as a journalist at
@washingtonpost
It is called breach of confidentiality agreement. Dan Zak is a liar. I know how to deal with liars."

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1287815888884858882

"This retweet by
@brianstelter
may have cost him his job at
@CNN
. It is called breach of confidentiality agreement. Brian Stelter is a liar. I know how to deal with liars."
 
TahiniBinShawarma said:
His attorney is not happy, and I'm guessing more will come out eventually if he's serious with these tweets.
Click to expand...

Others have pointed out that all journalists referenced in the tweets say they guessed, that they were speculating.

If they guessed right, then Lin Wood (Sandman's attorney) appears to have confirmed that they guessed right - possibly breaking the confidentiality agreement himself in the process.
 
crescent said:
Others have pointed out that all journalists referenced in the tweets say they guessed, that they were speculating.

If they guessed right, then Lin Wood (Sandman's attorney) appears to have confirmed that they guessed right - possibly breaking the confidentiality agreement himself in the process.
Click to expand...

He called them liars. That suggests to me that they were not guessing, that they know the truth, and that amount isn't the truth.
 
He also Twitted this gem:

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1287074713899094017

TRUTH: Plan is underway to seize control of our country.

By whom? Military-industrial complex acting in concert with media owners, Pharma, mega-wealthy & power hungry, like @georgesoros, @BillGates, @BillClinton, @HillaryClinton, @JeffBezos, @BarackObama, @WarrenBuffett.

#FightBack
Click to expand...

He seems like an idiot.
 
crescent said:
Others have pointed out that all journalists referenced in the tweets say they guessed, that they were speculating.

If they guessed right, then Lin Wood (Sandman's attorney) appears to have confirmed that they guessed right - possibly breaking the confidentiality agreement himself in the process.
Click to expand...

I think he has a point. If there was a confidentiality agreement, then the journalists are clearly breaching it by tweeting about it* even if it is their 'private' twitter and they claim they are just reposting 'gossip' in their private capacity.

If this becomes common, someone gossips about it, then the gossipee posts the gossip from an anonymous source then the gossiper reposts; it destroys confidence in making confidentiality agreements with the press. Now one may argue about whether these confidentiality agreements are a good thing but one can imagine circumstances when they are helpful to making a settlement on both sides.

*Whether the facts are true or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom