Covington Kid, Defamation Lawsuits...

[Ingomike]

The Covington kids legal team has filed lawsuits against Washington Post and CNN for their coverage of the events in DC that were broadcast around the world.

Especially Interested in the takes on this topic from legal eagles.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

The Covington kids legal team has filed lawsuits against Washington Post and CNN for their coverage of the events in DC that were broadcast around the world.

Especially Interested in the takes on this topic from legal eagles.

I'm no legal eagle but I'm glad he is doing it and I pray that CNN, wp have to reach deep deep deep into their pockets, to the point of bankrupting these fascists networks. One think for sure is they will not stop until they are made to stop and the price of their bias is to high for them to sustain.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[ATOMonkey]

Listening to the radio... A defamation lawsuit does not sound like fun, because the opposing attorney will ask very probing questions to determine your character baseline. This is done in order to illustrate that the character of the person was questionable to begin with and the slanderous or libelous accusations of the media did not impugn the character of the person.

Have you ever lied?
Have you ever cheated?
Have you ever viewed pornography?
Have you ever had pre-marital sex?
Have you drank alcohol under-aged?
etc. etc.

If they catch you in a lie, now you're perjured.

 

[Ingomike]

Listening to the radio... A defamation lawsuit does not sound like fun, because the opposing attorney will ask very probing questions to determine your character baseline. This is done in order to illustrate that the character of the person was questionable to begin with and the slanderous or libelous accusations of the media did not impugn the character of the person.

Have you ever lied?
Have you ever cheated?
Have you ever viewed pornography?
Have you ever had pre-marital sex?
Have you drank alcohol under-aged?
etc. etc.

If they catch you in a lie, now you're perjured.

Much harder with a minor as in this case...

 

[churchmouse]

Listening to the radio... A defamation lawsuit does not sound like fun, because the opposing attorney will ask very probing questions to determine your character baseline. This is done in order to illustrate that the character of the person was questionable to begin with and the slanderous or libelous accusations of the media did not impugn the character of the person.

Have you ever lied?
Have you ever cheated?
Have you ever viewed pornography?
Have you ever had pre-marital sex?
Have you drank alcohol under-aged?
etc. etc.

If they catch you in a lie, now you're perjured.

He looked pretty squeaky clean. He might be to young to have dabbled in some of those pursuits.

 

[bwframe]

They can attack the kids however much they want. We all seen what happened on video and there can be more video of possible further attacks on these youths from the ambulance chasers.

I'm sure the opposing attorney's will be fine siding with those dandy black israelites and the "war hero."

 

[Ark]

I'm a Wikipedia lawyer, so that's good enough!

The tone of the actual filing borders on unprofessional, IMO. The requested damages are ridiculous. But I think the plaintiff may have a couple of things going for him.

First, this kid was unquestionably NOT a public figure when he left for the protest. The Supreme Court has established broad protections for reporting and opining on government officials and other public figures, to the point that it is very nearly impossible to actually sue a media outlet for defamation when you are judged to be a public figure, unless you can prove specific malice.

Gertz v. Welch (1974) is an interesting comparison because it deals specifically with a publication publishing inaccurate information about a non-public figure. The Court awarded damages for that one, because the plaintiff had taken no action to involve himself in public life or a public debate, and had not been drawn in and made a center of debate prior to that. The publication was judged to have acted negligently, but not with malice. Therefore, punitive damages couldn't be a part of it. But a private person can seek actual damages for defamation that was the result of negligence.

But, in 2010, the court protected false statements made by a dead Marine by Westboro protesters, on the grounds that the issue of war was a public concern and therefore the plaintiffs couldn't receive damages for emotional distress. So the definition of a person who is a de facto public figure (I came across the term "Limited-Purpose Public Figure", which is applicable) is flexible. You don't have to choose to become a LPPF, you can end up defined as one because something happened involving you that drew public attention. Being accused of a major crime is a common example.

It may be possible to argue that Sandmann became a LPPF by virtue of being at this protest and winding up in a viral video that exploded across the country in a matter of hours. By the time WaPo started running stories, he's a public figure, at the center of an issue of public concern (race relations? I guess?). That could throw the negligence standard out the window and force the case to be decided on the plaintiff's claims of malice, which boils down to maliciously failing to do due diligence and obtain the full video BEFORE reporting. The lawsuit also specifically claims that WaPo was maliciously doing bad journalism to advance an agenda against Trump, not Sandmann. Trump is, of course, the ultimate public figure, and is not a plaintiff in the lawsuit. They also claim using "unreliable sources" is negligent or malicious...questionable, as reporters don't control what their sources say.

I dunno which way this could go. Life and media in the internet age isn't what it was when a lot of this Supreme Court case law was laid down. You could argue that being a viral video subject makes you a LPPF. You could argue that it is ridiculous to expect the media to refrain from reporting on a story without "complete" information that the reporters have no idea may ever materialize. You could argue there is no evidence of malice against Sandmann specifically, as the lawyers argue that the malice is directed at President Trump. I think if it's judged on the negligence standard, Sandmann has the advantage. Proving malice on the part of reporters running stories about an LPPF based on limited information at the time of publication is...a long shot, IMO.

This could be a big case. None of this viral video outrage culture stuff has gotten before the Court. We're not talking about reporting done laboriously over months before being published. This is reporting that went live within a matter of hours, and that's the industry standard. Could be time for the Court to make some updates.

 

[CampingJosh]

He looked pretty squeaky clean. He might be to young to have dabbled in some of those pursuits.

Nope. He was in high school, right? These things are quite common by middle school.

 

[HoughMade]

Reputation, not what is done in private, is the relevant issue. Those questions are not appropriate, nor will they be answered, in every defamation case.

What's more, reputation regarding sexual matters or alcohol is not at issue in this case. Reputation as to racism is. I do not foresee a scenario where the kid has to answer questions of a private, sexual nature under oath, nor about whether he has ever consumes alcohol.

Lying or cheating? Maybe, but still a pretty tenuous relationship to the case. His reputation as to lying or cheating, maybe, but specific instances that are not already known to others? Irrelevant.

 

[Spear Dane]

I am keenly interested in him suing some of those hollywood individuals. You know the names. Social media is going to remain a hurricane of liberal vitriol until some people are made accountable for the vile things said.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

I am keenly interested in him suing some of those hollywood individuals. You know the names. Social media is going to remain a hurricane of liberal vitriol until some people are made accountable for the vile things said.

I agree.. even then I have my doubts as with this new mentality everything is upside down. Right is wrong, bitter is sweet, good is evil.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Alamo]

It’s back on:

Federal judge partially revises decision in Sandmann case against Washington Post

 

[churchmouse]

It’s back on:

Federal judge partially revises decision in Sandmann case against Washington Post

To have to fight this hard in these situations when the media strives for their own benefit over your rights is ridiculous. The deck is stacked.

 

[Ingomike]

I am keenly interested in him suing some of those hollywood individuals. You know the names. Social media is going to remain a hurricane of liberal vitriol until some people are made accountable for the vile things said.

Very well stated...

 

[Ingomike]

To have to fight this hard in these situations when the media strives for their own benefit over your rights is ridiculous. The deck is stacked.

It has been very difficult to sue media, even if they are very wrong, and in the long run it is good it is that way. This was beyond the pale as they had the entire video and still spread their chosen but false narrative.

 

[churchmouse]

It has been very difficult to sue media, even if they are very wrong, and in the long run it is good it is that way. This was beyond the pale as they had the entire video and still spread their chosen but false narrative.

And in this the end game was clear.

 

[PistolBob]

Listening to the radio... A defamation lawsuit does not sound like fun, because the opposing attorney will ask very probing questions to determine your character baseline. This is done in order to illustrate that the character of the person was questionable to begin with and the slanderous or libelous accusations of the media did not impugn the character of the person.

Have you ever lied?
Have you ever cheated?
Have you ever viewed pornography?
Have you ever had pre-marital sex?
Have you drank alcohol under-aged?
etc. etc.

If they catch you in a lie, now you're perjured.

The kid should just say no to all of it. Make them prove it.

 

[Ingomike]

Interesting developments in this case.

In a 30-page opinion, Judge Bertelsman held that, as a matter of law, Sandmann could not prevail against the Washington Post on his defamation claim. The court reasoned that Sandmann’s claim failed because the Post’s articles were not statements “concerning” Sandmann, as they referenced the group of students or did not include a name or picture of Sandmann. He further ruled that the Post’s reporting of the incident was “not factual” because they could not be proven “objectively incorrect.”


Judge Bertelsman’s original opinion was ripe for reversal by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. But Sandmann’s attorneys, Todd McMurtry and Lin Wood, opted against appealing immediately, and instead asked Judge Bertelsman to reconsider his decision. Sandmann’s lawyers also requested permission to file an amended complaint.

In ruling that these statements were sufficient to allow Sandmann’s case to move forward, the court also noted that in his amended complaint, Sandmann alleged in great detail “that Phillips deliberately lied concerning the events at issue,” and that but for the Washington Post’s negligence or malice, they would have realized as much.


https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/2...s-defamation-lawsuit-against-washington-post/

 

[actaeon277]

[video=youtube;CZl9t4cnsrc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZl9t4cnsrc[/video]

 

[Ingomike]

Judge allows case to move forward and discovery to begin against NBC...

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/21/nick-sandmann-covington-catholic-teen-nbcuniversal/