• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:270]First of many Covington lawsutis: Washington Post $250 million.

Saladin4 said:
The video doesn't lie.......Those creeps don't deserve a dime
Click to expand...

I saw the video. Chief Horsefeathers traveled 50 feet to get in the kid's face. Kid didn't move or respond.

What did I miss?
 
Felis Leo said:
You are correct, Chomsky. I should have said New York Times vs. Sullivan and its unholy progeny, the case law that essentially gave the news media nigh-immunity from people from being able to seek redress after being subject to widespread public defamation by ostensible fact-seeking media outlets, whether they held the highest public office or were just lowly private citizens.
Click to expand...
I looked at your reference link, and see nothing in it relevant to this case, nor do I see it portrayed in the manner you describe. In fact, "lowly private citizens" have full libel protection according to your source!
 
TurtleDude said:
1) those are other actors who engaged in the death threats.

2) Millions?

I like the suggestion of Cincinnati (once in Chicago) Talk show host Mike McConnell when it comes to jury verdicts

If lots of people are willing to undergo the "damage" in order to collect what the victim was awarded, then the verdict is too large. If no one would, then perhaps the verdict is too small
Click to expand...

How does incitement to violence shake out in civil litigation?
----

We've seen instances of real violence that were the result of irresponsible journalists spreading fear and hatred. The case of the white mentally challenged boy who was abducted and tortured by 8 blacks in Chicago comes to mind. That never would have happened without the 24/7 anti-Trump hysteria circa 2016 MSM.
----

Richard Jewell received millions, iirc, from his lawsuits against NYT and others stemming from them implicating him as being the 1996 Atlanta bomber, when he was actually a hero. I'll admit I'm biased in the Covington case, but considering the media's reaction to Covington, as well as the Jussie Smollett ****-show, I think it's time to make an example of them. Keep em honest, iow.
 
Chomsky said:
I looked at your reference link, and see nothing in it relevant to this case, nor do I see it portrayed in the manner you describe. In fact, "lowly private citizens" have full libel protection according to your source!
Click to expand...

Oh certainly they do...and yet, they don't. It really depends on the context, and the Supreme Court has made the issue as clear as mud as to when private citizens have that right to pursue a libel action against media outlets for defamation versus when they have to prove actual malice against the media to prevail. According to the Court in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., which held that news organizations should be held to the "actual malice" standard of New York Times v. Sullivan. Specifically, "f a matter is a subject of public or general interest, it cannot suddenly become less so merely because a private individual is involved.” Depending on whether the Court deems this matter a subject of "public" or "general" interest, these kids may have to roll the boulder up the hill and prove actual malice for the Washington Post's characterization of them.
 
Last edited:
jimbo said:
I saw the video. Chief Horsefeathers traveled 50 feet to get in the kid's face. Kid didn't move or respond.

What did I miss?
Click to expand...

A bunch of obnoxious jerks taunting and harassing....Then smirking about it with their MAGA Hats on
 
Saladin4 said:
A bunch of obnoxious jerks taunting and harassing....Then smirking about it with their MAGA Hats on
Click to expand...

what does their hats have to do with anything other than generating hate from the leftwing crowd?
 
Fishking said:
This is just the start of the lawsuits. The $250 million is what Bezos bought the whole company for. I hope the media outlets all get hammered hard for this and they finally stop being such irresponsible hit-jobs of yellow page media trash. It needs to cut deep.

Teen in Lincoln Memorial protest sues Washington Post for $250 million | Reuters
Click to expand...

This case will go no where and fail

theres no real legality for this

am i defending media for getting this wrong... nope of course not but theres still no hope for this because the precedence would be ever reaching and endless. Unless theres something i missed that would make this very unique, intentional and very damning it aint gonna work nor should it. Our media needs to be better but this isnt how to get it done especially with this failed case.

its even more retarded that the claim is
“wrongfully targeted and bullied” the teen to advance its bias against President Donald Trump because Sandmann is a white Catholic who wore a Make America Great Again souvenir cap on a school field trip to the March for Life anti-abortion rally in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 18.
Click to expand...
 
Saladin4 said:
A bunch of obnoxious jerks taunting and harassing....Then smirking about it with their MAGA Hats on
Click to expand...

The hebrews weren't the ones wearing MAGA hats. I guess you could also apply the first part of the sentence to the American Indians as they did taunt and harass, but still no hats. Very odd post from someone who supposedly saw the videos. You should probably watch again.
 
AGENT J said:
This case will go no where and fail

theres no real legality for this

am i defending media for getting this wrong... nope of course not but theres still no hope for this because the precedence would be ever reaching and endless. Unless theres something i missed that would make this very unique, intentional and very damning it aint gonna work nor should it. Our media needs to be better but this isnt how to get it done especially with this failed case.
Click to expand...

Well, here is my thought, AJENT J, and I welcome your response. If this case was taken all the way up to the Supreme Court the Washington Post lost this lawsuit, it would mean that new organizations would have to wait and examine the facts before printing and pushing false stories that potentially ruin the lives of the subjects of their story. In the day we are living in, when media outlets shoot from the hip and whisper retractive apologies to the widow, I think society will greatly improve if media outlets realize they can be sued into oblivion for pushing false information.

And in case you were thinking to ask, I do mean ALL media outlets, Fox News included. News Media organizations should not be granted a de facto license to defame. I think we would quickly regain a more polite, sane society that we have all but lost.
 
Last edited:
Saladin4 said:
A bunch of obnoxious jerks taunting and harassing....Then smirking about it with their MAGA Hats on
Click to expand...

OK, I get it. They smirked and wore MAGA hats.

You have to be kidding.
 
TurtleDude said:
hard to say because he is going to have to prove damages which-given he is not employed, is going to be rather speculative. I would give it less than a 25% chance of it getting to a jury.
Click to expand...

I don't know, several pages of death threats sent his way and the way of his fellow students might just help.
 
Oborosen said:
I don't know, several pages of death threats sent his way and the way of his fellow students might just help.
Click to expand...

Is that something the defendant paper could have reasonably foreseen?
 
Felis Leo said:
Oh certainly they do...and yet, they don't. It really depends on the context, and the Supreme Court has made the issue as clear as mud as to when private citizens have that right to pursue a libel action against media outlets for defamation versus when they have to prove actual malice against the media to prevail. According to the Court in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., which held that news organizations should be held to the "actual malice" standard of New York Times v. Sullivan. Specifically, "f a matter is a subject of public or general interest, it cannot suddenly become less so merely because a private individual is involved.” Depending on whether the Court deems this matter a subject of "public" or "general" interest, these kids may have to roll the boulder up the hill and prove actual malice for the Washington Post's characterization of them.
Click to expand...
Alright - I'm not familiar with these cases following Sullivan, so thanks for clarifying and referencing your point.

I must point-out that your original link claims while Rosenbloom expanded protection, Gertz & Time Inc soon after provided more protections to individuals who were thrust into the public eye involuntarily. So there was some pendulum swing after Rosenbloom, it seems.

But your point is reasonable, and I was not aware of the expansion of the malice standard to even civilian individuals who may be involuntarily thrust into being public figures. So, thanks for bringing that to my attention.
 
Felis Leo said:
1.) Well, here is my thought, AJENT J, and I welcome your response.
2.) If this case was taken all the way up to the Supreme Court the Washington Post lost this lawsuit, it would mean that new organizations would have to wait and examine the facts before printing and pushing false stories that potentially ruin the lives of the subjects of their story.
3.) In the day we are living in, when media outlets shoot from the hip and whisper retractive apologies to the widow, I think society will greatly improve if media outlets realize they can be sued into oblivion for pushing false information.
4.) And I do mean ALL media outlets. Fox News included.
5.) News Media organizations should not be granted a de facto license to defame.
Click to expand...

1.) sure no problem
2.) this will never make it anywhere but i understand what you are saying. You are hoping for it to be a trigger for better reporting and THAT would be awesome but I dont want the trigger to be something so insane and ludicrous. Id perfer something real, a case with solid integrity. What this case is based on (what i quoted prior, is nutzoid insane) President trump himself along with political personalities right left and center could all be targets with even MORE of a case than this has. (yes they are "news" but regardless they have done much worse in relation)
3.) i totally agree but again, not based on this case(lawsuit) and society itself is part of the problem . . . drama sells many times better than positivity and society also demand fast news. We all have to be better really but media does need to be better but this is by no means where to start at.
4.) not sure why you had to specify? i assumed you meant all and i would never assume you would leave out one of the worst
5.) i again agree but that is a hard thing to police with free speech and again, this case will never make a case to accomplish what we both agree on. Theres no traction here to get it down. we would need a REAL case that has solid and obvious potential.

again this is the case:
“wrongfully targeted and bullied” the teen to advance its bias against President Donald Trump because Sandmann is a white Catholic who wore a Make America Great Again souvenir cap on a school field trip to the March for Life anti-abortion rally in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 18.
Click to expand...

that is not making it . .especially if race and religion is tried . . that is conspiracy theory stuff right there
 
TurtleDude said:
Is that something the defendant paper could have reasonably foreseen?
Click to expand...

Given that they decided to spread such information when the paper knew that they didn't have all of the information, or were at worst. Falsely selling an angle that they knew would get them new readers. It wouldn't be too hard for them to reason it in as such.

We've seen media groups and singular journalist get caught in lies like this before and not even change their story after the fact of being caught.
 
Felis Leo said:
Well, here is my thought, AJENT J, and I welcome your response. If this case was taken all the way up to the Supreme Court the Washington Post lost this lawsuit, it would mean that new organizations would have to wait and examine the facts before printing and pushing false stories that potentially ruin the lives of the subjects of their story. In the day we are living in, when media outlets shoot from the hip and whisper retractive apologies to the widow, I think society will greatly improve if media outlets realize they can be sued into oblivion for pushing false information.

And in case you were thinking to ask, I do mean ALL media outlets, Fox News included. News Media organizations should not be granted a de facto license to defame. I think we would quickly regain a more polite, sane society that we have all but lost.
Click to expand...
I can't say I agree with your post, especially the "sue them into oblivion" reference. I'm an ardent supporter of the Fourth Estate, believe it has a special and intrinsic role in democratic society, and therefore needs to have some slack commensurate with its import to said society.

However, I believe you're sincere in the bolded last line, and while I don't agree with your premise or tactics, I do support your end goal.
 
When I first read of this law action, I recognized it for what it is, nothing more than an attorney's dream of a large settlement. This kid never thought this up, nor did his parents. The attorneys, and I have no doubt, representing this boy, approached him.

The Post was out of line. They are being held by the short hairs for their failure. So be it, a bit of punishment is in order. The lawyers will profit, the boy will be financially secure, all because of poor journalism. So it goes. Bezos can afford the hit. He doesn't pay taxes anyway, nor is he known for being philanthropic, he's a stingy SOB scrooge, so why should anyone care if his money does some good for others?
 
TurtleDude said:
Hogg actively sought the limelight: this CC student-not so much
Click to expand...

Yes he did. His family hired a prominent publicist who mainly represents Republican congressmen and had him go on a scripted media tour. If he wasn't seeking the limelight, why didn't he stay out of it instead of vaulting himself into it (to be fair, I think his family vaulted him into it).
 
JMR said:
I don't hate the Covington student. I also don't hate David Hogg. I think both have been mistreated in similar ways, but I don't think either deserve million dollar settlements.
Click to expand...

No comparison between the two... none at all. One was waiting for their bus to take them home and the other took an active role in a political issue that
is red hot in our country. Hogg does not deserve a penny.
 
Mustachio said:
Yes he did. His family hired a prominent publicist who mainly represents Republican congressmen and had him go on a scripted media tour. If he wasn't seeking the limelight, why didn't he stay out of it instead of vaulting himself into it (to be fair, I think his family vaulted him into it).
Click to expand...

This was a reaction to death threats, school being closed down, calls for them never to be allowed into colleges and tons more. The kids went there to be part of a standard protest and did nothing wrong. Of course they went public in reaction to the sudden attacks on them.
 
OldFatGuy said:
When I first read of this law action, I recognized it for what it is, nothing more than an attorney's dream of a large settlement. This kid never thought this up, nor did his parents. The attorneys, and I have no doubt, representing this boy, approached him.

The Post was out of line. They are being held by the short hairs for their failure. So be it, a bit of punishment is in order. The lawyers will profit, the boy will be financially secure, all because of poor journalism. So it goes. Bezos can afford the hit. He doesn't pay taxes anyway, nor is he known for being philanthropic, he's a stingy SOB scrooge, so why should anyone care if his money does some good for others?
Click to expand...

These annoying fools aren't going to get a dime...Dream on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom