• 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

Planigale said:
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.
Click to expand...
Right. Speculating about something you don't know which concerns a confidentiality agreement for a company you work for.........well, that is a really bad idea for number of reason.
 
Who exactly is bound by a confidentiality agreement? Is it just the parties to the agreement, or does it extend beyond that?

Am *I* not allowed to speculate on what the settlement might be?
 
TahiniBinShawarma said:
His views on that have no bearing on his reputation in the type of litigation being discussed. His record on that is clear. There are plenty of idiots who are good at what they do for a living.
Click to expand...

Threats of litigation are a dime a dozen. I don't really give his twitter raging much weight unless he actually files.

Given the high publicity of this case, it's important to parse out the posturing for the public and the actual practice of the law.
 
Last edited:
TahiniBinShawarma said:
His views on that have no bearing on his reputation in the type of litigation being discussed. His record on that is clear. There are plenty of idiots who are good at what they do for a living.
Click to expand...

No doubt. Doesn't mean he's not an idiot - he plainly is. A QAnon follower must be - pretty much by definition.

His Twitter feed is hilarious incidentally - it mainly consists of him telling people he's blocked them.
 
Matthew Best said:
No, I don't. So what's the answer to the question? Who IS bound by a confidentiality agreement?
Click to expand...

hard to say, it's probably defined in the NDA that can't be disclosed. The NDA can only bind those that sign to it, so nobody outside of these organizations has any reason to worry. It's an agreement, not a court order, nobody that isn't involved in the agreement is free to speculate.

I have no idea how this works. Would it cover everyone at the news org that signed it, or just the immediately involved journalists? It's a negotiated agreement between these two parties, it could be broad or narrow or somewhere in between.
 
Matthew Best said:
No, I don't. So what's the answer to the question? Who IS bound by a confidentiality agreement?
Click to expand...

Only the parties to an agreement can be bound by the agreement. But the agreement with the company could specify behavior for employees of the company, with the company obliged to take action if those employees violate those specified behaviors. In other words, the company could be bound by the settlement to act against an employee even if the employee is not directly bound by the settlement.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Threats of litigation are a dime a dozen. I don't really give his twitter raging much weight unless he actually files.

Given the high publicity of this case, it's important to parse out the posturing for the public and the actual practice of the law.
Click to expand...


You could have said that when he made the initial threat to sue, and you'd be wrong. I get that most threats are just that, threats, this is a bit different.
 
Matthew Best said:
No doubt. Doesn't mean he's not an idiot - he plainly is. A QAnon follower must be - pretty much by definition.

His Twitter feed is hilarious incidentally - it mainly consists of him telling people he's blocked them.
Click to expand...


LOL, I've never understood those that block people that disagree with them rather than engaging. I get your point on the QAnon. I'm just saying him being an idiot has no bearing on his legal skills, he's pretty good when it comes to that.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
hard to say, it's probably defined in the NDA that can't be disclosed. The NDA can only bind those that sign to it, so nobody outside of these organizations has any reason to worry. It's an agreement, not a court order, nobody that isn't involved in the agreement is free to speculate.

I have no idea how this works. Would it cover everyone at the news org that signed it, or just the immediately involved journalists? It's a negotiated agreement between these two parties, it could be broad or narrow or somewhere in between.
Click to expand...

I'm betting it covers the news organization as a whole. When he sued, it was the organization, not the individuals. Those individuals work for the organization though. Their twitter feeds could be construed to be outlets of their job, as they are used to promote and disseminate facets of the organization they work for, and job titles are prominently displayed.
 
I feel bad for Sandmann. In the interview I saw with him early on, he seemed a shy and unobtrusive kid. He is going to have a rough time being seen as anything but a right-wing icon, now. That's sure to throttle his worldview down a few notches. How long till he escapes that role?
 
Thermal said:
I feel bad for Sandmann. In the interview I saw with him early on, he seemed a shy and unobtrusive kid. He is going to have a rough time being seen as anything but a right-wing icon, now. That's sure to throttle his worldview down a few notches. How long till he escapes that role?
Click to expand...

He's pretty young. I can see why he might have felt wronged, but I wonder if he really understood that he was being set up as some sort of right-wing champion in the fight against the Lying Mainstream MediaTM. People's interest in his case wasn't just about his little showdown in DC, it was just another battle in the great partisan media wars.

That said, I find it hard to believe that this story is really going to be in many people's minds even 5 years from now.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
He's pretty young. I can see why he might have felt wronged, but I wonder if he really understood that he was being set up as some sort of right-wing champion in the fight against the Lying Mainstream MediaTM. People's interest in his case wasn't just about his little showdown in DC, it was just another battle in the great partisan media wars.

That said, I find it hard to believe that this story is really going to be in many people's minds even 5 years from now.
Click to expand...


Anyone can go to the first post in this thread to see "why he felt wronged." You're characterization of the whole episode is quite funny.
 
TahiniBinShawarma said:
Anyone can go to the first post in this thread to see "why he felt wronged." You're characterization of the whole episode is quite funny.
Click to expand...

I think Sandmann has a legitimate grievance against these companies. I just wonder if he realized that much of the interest in his case was about a conflict much bigger than his personal calamity. I hope he was, at least, a willing pawn in the larger culture war, and not just some sucker.

If he paid out of pocket for any of this legal representation, he likely got scammed.
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't know how much Nick Sandmann got, but because of the nature of the deep pocketed corporations, I'm guessing it was a whole bunch. I know his lawyers were asking for one gazillion dollars, but they probably settled for....how much? A few hundred thousand? Any less than that and they might as well not have settled at all. It would come out of the petty cash drawer. Maybe a million or more? That's a lot of money.

It's a weird system we have in America. "Punitive damages" can turn someone from any ordinary person to a rich person even though what happened wasn't all that bad. That's weird. It's the system, but it's weird. If indeed he got one million dollars or more as a result of this incident, it was in fact the luckiest day of his life.
Click to expand...

I tend to disagree with your framing of it as the luckiest day of Sandmann's life. I get that it might be a lot of money... but I'm not entirely sure that money makes it all better. I'm not really sure what does appropriately compensate for the treatment that Sandmann was subject to as a direct result of false reporting.

That said, I doubt that the intent of the suits was to "make it better" for Sandmann, so much as it was to "make it hurt" for the news outlets that set this mess off.

And FWIW, I still run across people out in interwebsland who firmly believe that Sandmann and his fellow students deserved the doxxing and death threats and mistreatment they received because... I don't know. Because they had on trump hats? Because they were white? Because they were initially painted as evil-doers and people are loathe to change their minds? It makes no sense to me, but I regularly run across people who will still claim that he deserved the treatment that he got and that him winning the suits is a travesty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom