• 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.

Keridan said:
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.
Click to expand...

"They" did, or he did? Why did he have a publicist? I don't think the kids did anything worse than other teenagers would do in their situation (meaning I don't think they should have stuck around there to try and debate a group of half a dozen crazy guys) but do you believe that the only kid I saw being interviewed on every network in the country was "saying a silent prayer"? That sounds pretty made up to me, like something that, oh - a publicist would tell you to say? I'm not ok with death threats or any form of intimated or actual violence, no exceptions. That said, I think behind the scenes there was a whole lot of "we're going to make you into a national hero!" discussion surrounding this kid. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If I'm right, it's just gross.

And to repeat what I've said 3 or 4 times, the moral of this story is missed by almost everybody: stop believing news originating on social media. Just stop - everybody stop, everybody stop beginning right now.
 
From the reporting I have seen so far on this it seems to me the lawsuit defames the native american veteran in that it supposedly identifies him as a "phony" war hero.

The lawsuit may move forward but if it even comes close to a courtroom I am betting WaPo settles out of court, the kid gets his college money and dad get that vacation home they always wanted.

It appears the lawsuit is really playing into Sandman as some innocent little choir boy who came to D.C. and was savaged by evil protesters and then savaged again by the evil mainstream media.
 
Here in the States, such lawsuits never go anywhere. "Freedom of the press," you know.

In England, the WaPo would never have dared print such false reports about that young man.

In the Mother Country, you had better make sure that you print the truth, or you will be liable for huge damages (not to mention having to pay the defendant's court costs).

President Trump is so right when he calls for stricter defamation laws. As it is, the media regularly report blatant lies about the President (and even his family).
 
marke said:
Good news. I love it when what goes around comes around.
Click to expand...

Do you mean what "goes around" as in all the slanderous and defamatory Trump accusations against the Washington Post and New York Times and Jim Acosta et al should all result in them suing Obese Donald for $250 million dollars?

How about the false accusations you have made against Rod Rosenstein, falsely but intentionally labeling him as a traitor?

Should he get his "what goes around" and sue you for $250 million?
 
TheParser said:
Here in the States, such lawsuits never go anywhere. "Freedom of the press," you know.

In England, the WaPo would never have dared print such false reports about that young man.

In the Mother Country, you had better make sure that you print the truth, or you will be liable for huge damages (not to mention having to pay the defendant's court costs).

President Trump is so right when he calls for stricter defamation laws. As it is, the media regularly report blatant lies about the President (and even his family).
Click to expand...

That is not at all true.

Such cases are won by those bringing the lawsuits and even more suits get settled out of court.

The one against Glenn Beck for his defamation of the foreign student, claiming he was the "money man" behind the Boston Marathon bomber terrorist scumbags.

The settlement details were not publicly disclosed but Glenn has gone on to whine that it involved at least $3 million, and possibly substantially more, to settle that suit.
 
Saladin4 said:
Those creeps aren't going to get a penny
Click to expand...

So you think the innocent kid who did nothing at all is the creep? How do you feel about the actual racists there that were caught on video yelling racial slurs? Do they represent your ideology?
 
TheParser said:
Here in the States, such lawsuits never go anywhere. "Freedom of the press," you know.

In England, the WaPo would never have dared print such false reports about that young man.

In the Mother Country, you had better make sure that you print the truth, or you will be liable for huge damages (not to mention having to pay the defendant's court costs).

President Trump is so right when he calls for stricter defamation laws. As it is, the media regularly report blatant lies about the President (and even his family).
Click to expand...
Uh no, here in the States you just wont go to jail for it. You will however be successfully sued into creation. This Wapo case will settle out of court for millions. They have absolutely no choice as the kid has them dead to rights. After the wapo, the kid is gonna line up the next one as well he should.
 
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.

its even more retarded that the claim is
Click to expand...


Gawker was successfully sued into oblivion and the UVA frat boys successfully sued Rolling stone, so I wouldn't say this early that this is going nowhere.

Their attorney gave every one who posted malicious and or threatening comments about the boys 48 hours to delete their tweet and or retract their statements and some did.
Ilmar Omar and Kathy Griffith both deleted their post but others didn't.

The importance of that 48 hours grace period is it shows those people refused to retract statements they knew they were false.

Also the legal standard for defamation goes way down when you're dealing with minors and in some States they could easily win
 
Fenton said:
Gawker was successfully sued into oblivion and the UVA frat boys successfully sued Rolling stone, so I wouldn't say this early that this is going nowhere.

Their attorney gave every one who posted malicious and or threatening comments about the boys 48 hours to delete their tweet and or retract their statements and some did.
Ilmar Omar and Kathy Griffith both deleted their post but others didn't.

The importance of that 48 hours grace period is it shows those people refused to retract statements they knew they were false.

Also the legal standard for defamation goes way down when you're dealing with minors and in some States they could easily win
Click to expand...

They filed in federal court, not state court...

2019-02-19 Sandmann vs. Washington Post - Complaint.pdf | DocDroid
 
Fenton said:
Gawker was successfully sued into oblivion and the UVA frat boys successfully sued Rolling stone, so I wouldn't say this early that this is going nowhere.

Their attorney gave every one who posted malicious and or threatening comments about the boys 48 hours to delete their tweet and or retract their statements and some did.
Ilmar Omar and Kathy Griffith both deleted their post but others didn't.

The importance of that 48 hours grace period is it shows those people refused to retract statements they knew they were false.

Also the legal standard for defamation goes way down when you're dealing with minors and in some States they could easily win
Click to expand...

for THIS case based on what they are suing on and who I would. I wouldnt bet 50 cents on them winning. Those cases arent even close to this.

again:
“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...

against the Washington post this will go now where IMO. Its way to flimsy and if they actually try the race and religion thing it will insta-fail since that is bat**** insane. And like i already mentioned, i wish this case or another case WAS a solid case. Id like to see the media get slapped for more accountability . . but this case is a waste and aint gonna get done.
 
BlueTex said:
They filed in federal court, not state court...

2019-02-19 Sandmann vs. Washington Post - Complaint.pdf | DocDroid
Click to expand...


I would be a little nervous if I we're WaPo. The Gawker and Rolling stone defamation lawsuits have shown that media cannot hide behind the first amendment and get away with libelling a private citizen.

WaPo has been playing fast and hard with the truth for the last 2 years and has abandoned all pretense as an objective news outlet
It wouldn't hurt my feelings if they lost and we're forced to settle
 
Fenton said:
I would be a little nervous if I we're WaPo. The Gawker and Rolling stone defamation lawsuits have shown that media cannot hide behind the first amendment and get away with libelling a private citizen.

WaPo has been playing fast and hard with the truth for the last 2 years and has abandoned all pretense as an objective news outlet
It wouldn't hurt my feelings if they lost and we're forced to settle
Click to expand...

Have you read the actual filing? Anything about the filing seem odd to you?
 
Since conservative media outlets have lied about, attacked and libeled people for they don't agree with for decades if I were a conservative I would be veeeeery wary of rooting for a case like this to succeed, even though it is the WaPo..
 
Felis Leo said:
Well, hopefully they are compensated. However, because of what I consider to be the ridiculously wrongly-decided case of New York Times vs. Sullivan, the press practically has a license to slander and destroy others' good character with little consequence. I do not think these kids will prevail.
Click to expand...

Sullivan was a public official, so the court held he had to show actual malice and not just negligence to the truth. The key here is that Nick Sandmann is a private figure, so he only has to show that he was injured by the statements and that the journalist didn't exercise due diligence.

The first question these "journalists" should be asked is: "What did Nick Sandmann say when you called him?" Because if they didn't at least try to get his story before holding him up for public excoriation, that will be tough to justify.

That said, $250 million is crazy.
 
BlueTex said:
Have you read the actual filing? Anything about the filing seem odd to you?
Click to expand...

These bullet points seem accurate enough, unless I'm missing something

10 ) Nicholas has zero history of political activism or aggressiveness and did not exhibit any such conduct even when confronted with unbridled racist attacks by activist bullies at the National Mall.

11 ) The Post’s campaign to target Nicholas in furtherance of its political agenda was carried out by using its vast financial resources toenter the bully pulpit of false and defamatory print and online articles which effectively provided a worldwidemegaphone to Phillipsand other anti-Trump individuals and entities to smear a young boy who was in itsview an acceptable casualtyin theirwar against the President.

12 ) Unlike the Post’s abuse of the profession of journalism, Plaintiffs do not bring this lawsuit to use the judicial system to further a political agenda. This lawsuit is brought against the Postto seek legal redress for its negligent, reckless, and maliciousattacks on Nicholas which caused permanent damage to his life and reputation

Especially after the Jesse Smollet incident, the MSM need to start being held accountable for their actions.
 
Fenton said:
These bullet points seem accurate enough, unless I'm missing something

10 ) Nicholas has zero history of political activism or aggressiveness and did not exhibit any such conduct even when confronted with unbridled racist attacks by activist bullies at the National Mall.

11 ) The Post’s campaign to target Nicholas in furtherance of its political agenda was carried out by using its vast financial resources toenter the bully pulpit of false and defamatory print and online articles which effectively provided a worldwidemegaphone to Phillipsand other anti-Trump individuals and entities to smear a young boy who was in itsview an acceptable casualtyin theirwar against the President.

12 ) Unlike the Post’s abuse of the profession of journalism, Plaintiffs do not bring this lawsuit to use the judicial system to further a political agenda. This lawsuit is brought against the Postto seek legal redress for its negligent, reckless, and maliciousattacks on Nicholas which caused permanent damage to his life and reputation

Especially after the Jesse Smollet incident, the MSM need to start being held accountable for their actions.
Click to expand...

Are these typical statements included in a filing?
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Sullivan was a public official, so the court held he had to show actual malice and not just negligence to the truth. The key here is that Nick Sandmann is a private figure, so he only has to show that he was injured by the statements and that the journalist didn't exercise due diligence.

The first question these "journalists" should be asked is: "What did Nick Sandmann say when you called him?" Because if they didn't at least try to get his story before holding him up for public excoriation, that will be tough to justify.

That said, $250 million is crazy.
Click to expand...

Yep, they'll never get 250 million, but WaPo may be forced to settle out of court, and his attorney's have a long list of celebrities and reporters to sue after this trial
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Sullivan was a public official, so the court held he had to show actual malice and not just negligence to the truth. The key here is that Nick Sandmann is a private figure, so he only has to show that he was injured by the statements and that the journalist didn't exercise due diligence.

The first question these "journalists" should be asked is: "What did Nick Sandmann say when you called him?" Because if they didn't at least try to get his story before holding him up for public excoriation, that will be tough to justify.

That said, $250 million is crazy.
Click to expand...

Given that standard, can we expect thousands of similar complaints against Brietbart, Daily Caller, etc.?
 
BlueTex said:
Are these typical statements included in a filing?
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar enough with defamation lawsuits or fillings to say.
 
BlueTex said:
Given that standard, can we expect thousands of similar complaints against Brietbart, Daily Caller, etc.?
Click to expand...

If and when they do something this heinous, we can only hope they'll be held accountable for their actions.

I think the bigger issue here is the age of the plaintiff's. These were minors and everyone knew they were minors.
 
What do you guy's think the over/under day's until the next leftist over reaction?
 
TurtleDude said:
Hogg actively sought the limelight: this CC student-not so much
Click to expand...

Hogg was standing up for a movement, kids getting slaughtered. CC student were racist assholes with their racist MAGA hats and complete punks.

they were not defamed. Oh, wait, talking to a dishonest, delusional righty, forgot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom