CNN defense in Nick Sandman trial is that they broadcast opinions, not facts.

[ColonelAngus]

Media Lawyer Explains Why CNN Settlement in Libel Case Is a Big Deal

Oh, shit....CNN admits when they call anyone a racist, it’s just an opinion and not fact and not provable.
.
.
.


“[CNN] initially filed a motion to dismiss, making the argument that calling somebody a ‘racist’ is not a provable fact and therefore does not rise to the level of libel,” Glasser said. “I think it’s extremely telling—it really got overlooked—that CNN argued that there can’t be a factual basis for calling somebody a racist.”

Glasser cited CNN’s argument in a short article on Instapundit. CNN argued:

Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false. … Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.

The problem with this line of argument, Glasser said, is that CNN analysts frequently call President Donald Trump and others racist as a statement of fact.

“It’s fascinating that there is a news organization that will look the [audience] right in the eye and say, ‘We report facts and the fact is, Trump is a racist,’” Glasser said. “To go into court and say that it’s not a possible fact, it can’t be a fact, that’s a disconnect that really deserves, from a societal standpoint, some thought and discussion.”

 

[Pogo]

Media Lawyer Explains Why CNN Settlement in Libel Case Is a Big Deal

Oh, shit....CNN admits when they call anyone a racist, it’s just an opinion and not fact and not provable.
.
.
.


“[CNN] initially filed a motion to dismiss, making the argument that calling somebody a ‘racist’ is not a provable fact and therefore does not rise to the level of libel,” Glasser said. “I think it’s extremely telling—it really got overlooked—that CNN argued that there can’t be a factual basis for calling somebody a racist.”

Glasser cited CNN’s argument in a short article on Instapundit. CNN argued:

Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false. … Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.

The problem with this line of argument, Glasser said, is that CNN analysts frequently call President Donald Trump and others racist as a statement of fact.

“It’s fascinating that there is a news organization that will look the [audience] right in the eye and say, ‘We report facts and the fact is, Trump is a racist,’” Glasser said. “To go into court and say that it’s not a possible fact, it can’t be a fact, that’s a disconnect that really deserves, from a societal standpoint, some thought and discussion.”

To start off, here's your own link shooting itself in the foot:
>> Did anyone run this by Don LeMons, who would call a dog “racist” if it pooped in his yard?<<

Where did CNN (in this case) declare Smirk-Boi to be "a racist"? Got a link?

Where in fact did CNN declare Rump to be a racist?

Note that the operative verb there is declare. Aaaaaand GO.

 

[Nostra]

CNN used the defense "We are fake news"?

They finally got something right.

 

[Nostra]

Media Lawyer Explains Why CNN Settlement in Libel Case Is a Big Deal

Oh, shit....CNN admits when they call anyone a racist, it’s just an opinion and not fact and not provable.
.
.
.


“[CNN] initially filed a motion to dismiss, making the argument that calling somebody a ‘racist’ is not a provable fact and therefore does not rise to the level of libel,” Glasser said. “I think it’s extremely telling—it really got overlooked—that CNN argued that there can’t be a factual basis for calling somebody a racist.”

Glasser cited CNN’s argument in a short article on Instapundit. CNN argued:

Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false. … Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.

The problem with this line of argument, Glasser said, is that CNN analysts frequently call President Donald Trump and others racist as a statement of fact.

“It’s fascinating that there is a news organization that will look the [audience] right in the eye and say, ‘We report facts and the fact is, Trump is a racist,’” Glasser said. “To go into court and say that it’s not a possible fact, it can’t be a fact, that’s a disconnect that really deserves, from a societal standpoint, some thought and discussion.”

Where did CNN (in this case) declare Smirk-Boi to be "a racist"? Got a link?

Where in fact did CNN declare Rump to be a racist?

Note that the operative verb there is declare. Aaaaaand GO.

Your ignorance is cute, Sybil.

 

[ColonelAngus]

CNN used the defense "We are fake news"?

They finally got something right.

Can you fucking believe it? It’s just like when the DNC defense in court against Bernie Sanders supporters was that they can rig the election if they want! But what they LIED TO THE PUBLIC WAS THE PRIMARY WAS NOT RIGGED.

CNN actually used the legal defense that they are fake news.

So fucking funny.

 

[Pogo]

Media Lawyer Explains Why CNN Settlement in Libel Case Is a Big Deal

Oh, shit....CNN admits when they call anyone a racist, it’s just an opinion and not fact and not provable.

“[CNN] initially filed a motion to dismiss, making the argument that calling somebody a ‘racist’ is not a provable fact and therefore does not rise to the level of libel,” Glasser said. “I think it’s extremely telling—it really got overlooked—that CNN argued that there can’t be a factual basis for calling somebody a racist.”

Glasser cited CNN’s argument in a short article on Instapundit. CNN argued:

Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false. … Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.

The problem with this line of argument, Glasser said, is that CNN analysts frequently call President Donald Trump and others racist as a statement of fact.

“It’s fascinating that there is a news organization that will look the [audience] right in the eye and say, ‘We report facts and the fact is, Trump is a racist,’” Glasser said. “To go into court and say that it’s not a possible fact, it can’t be a fact, that’s a disconnect that really deserves, from a societal standpoint, some thought and discussion.”

Where did CNN (in this case) declare Smirk-Boi to be "a racist"? Got a link?

Where in fact did CNN declare Rump to be a racist?

Note that the operative verb there is declare. Aaaaaand GO.

Your ignorance is cute, Sybil.

Thank you for not answering. I've been expecting that.

 

[Pogo]

Media Lawyer Explains Why CNN Settlement in Libel Case Is a Big Deal

Oh, shit....CNN admits when they call anyone a racist, it’s just an opinion and not fact and not provable.

“[CNN] initially filed a motion to dismiss, making the argument that calling somebody a ‘racist’ is not a provable fact and therefore does not rise to the level of libel,” Glasser said. “I think it’s extremely telling—it really got overlooked—that CNN argued that there can’t be a factual basis for calling somebody a racist.”

Glasser cited CNN’s argument in a short article on Instapundit. CNN argued:

Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false. … Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.

The problem with this line of argument, Glasser said, is that CNN analysts frequently call President Donald Trump and others racist as a statement of fact.

“It’s fascinating that there is a news organization that will look the [audience] right in the eye and say, ‘We report facts and the fact is, Trump is a racist,’” Glasser said. “To go into court and say that it’s not a possible fact, it can’t be a fact, that’s a disconnect that really deserves, from a societal standpoint, some thought and discussion.”

Your (first) link declares:

>> A deluge of media outlets portrayed Sandmann as the aggressor and a racist <<​

--- yet gives us no evidence of such characterizations. We're just supposed to swallow. This is in fact tantamount to the challenge I issued here almost a year ago for anyone to show evidence of said media outlets promulgating such characterizations. I never got a single one. You'd think, given a "deluge", picking just one would be easy. You'd think.

It goes on later to sum up:

>> At the end of the day, media outlets can protect themselves by focusing on getting the facts correct before publishing rather than rushing to be first, Glasser said, especially in cases where there isn’t a compelling public interest in running the story. <<
​

That's true, well said. So where is there any evidence that they published false facts? And we're right back to the year-old challenge above.


Your first link goes on:

>> Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false. … Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable. <<​

That's true. "Racist/Racism" is a value judgment. As such it is not quantifiable. Prove it is. An unquantifiable, ergo subjective value judgment cannot be held as "fact". That's called "opinion".

Finally, a sub-link from your first link declares:

>> “‘We just want this to go away so we can get back to mourning the death of Qassem Soleimani,’ one senior CNN executive was heard to say.” <<​

Isn't that declaring a "fact"?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

They set about quite deliberately to defame a minor based upon the complete INVERSION of the truth.

The old crackhead bully beating his stupid drum in the boy's face was the racist and all the boy did was employ classic non violent resistance to the bullying.

I sure miss the day when the left was liberal and applauded non violent resistance. Today, they are just a bunch of fascists who support racist adults bullying children, instead.

 

[bluzman61]

Media Lawyer Explains Why CNN Settlement in Libel Case Is a Big Deal

Oh, shit....CNN admits when they call anyone a racist, it’s just an opinion and not fact and not provable.
.
.
.


“[CNN] initially filed a motion to dismiss, making the argument that calling somebody a ‘racist’ is not a provable fact and therefore does not rise to the level of libel,” Glasser said. “I think it’s extremely telling—it really got overlooked—that CNN argued that there can’t be a factual basis for calling somebody a racist.”

Glasser cited CNN’s argument in a short article on Instapundit. CNN argued:

Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false. … Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.

The problem with this line of argument, Glasser said, is that CNN analysts frequently call President Donald Trump and others racist as a statement of fact.

“It’s fascinating that there is a news organization that will look the [audience] right in the eye and say, ‘We report facts and the fact is, Trump is a racist,’” Glasser said. “To go into court and say that it’s not a possible fact, it can’t be a fact, that’s a disconnect that really deserves, from a societal standpoint, some thought and discussion.”

Where did CNN (in this case) declare Smirk-Boi to be "a racist"? Got a link?

Where in fact did CNN declare Rump to be a racist?

Note that the operative verb there is declare. Aaaaaand GO.

Your ignorance is cute, Sybil.

Pogo the Clown IS quite dim. That would be because he gets most, if not all of his news from CNN. Just pitiful.

 

[MarathonMike]

Like I posted before, they should be forced to change their call letters to Cable Opinion Network (CON).

 

[beagle9]

Media Lawyer Explains Why CNN Settlement in Libel Case Is a Big Deal

Oh, shit....CNN admits when they call anyone a racist, it’s just an opinion and not fact and not provable.
.
.
.


“[CNN] initially filed a motion to dismiss, making the argument that calling somebody a ‘racist’ is not a provable fact and therefore does not rise to the level of libel,” Glasser said. “I think it’s extremely telling—it really got overlooked—that CNN argued that there can’t be a factual basis for calling somebody a racist.”

Glasser cited CNN’s argument in a short article on Instapundit. CNN argued:

Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false. … Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.

The problem with this line of argument, Glasser said, is that CNN analysts frequently call President Donald Trump and others racist as a statement of fact.

“It’s fascinating that there is a news organization that will look the [audience] right in the eye and say, ‘We report facts and the fact is, Trump is a racist,’” Glasser said. “To go into court and say that it’s not a possible fact, it can’t be a fact, that’s a disconnect that really deserves, from a societal standpoint, some thought and discussion.”

Well I guess that it wasn't just the one thing of them alledgedly calling or suggesting that Nick was a racist if that is what they did, but probably it was compounded by other extenuating circumstances as a result of their attempt "alledgedly" to use him as a political pawn in order to attack their political enemies within the situation. That might be what caused their grief. I guess they were found by a judge as being bad stewart's with their huge power and authority when they did the story on Nick Sandman. Not good to allow to many one-sided biased actors to run your organization if that is what happened.

 

[Pogo]

Media Lawyer Explains Why CNN Settlement in Libel Case Is a Big Deal

Oh, shit....CNN admits when they call anyone a racist, it’s just an opinion and not fact and not provable.

“[CNN] initially filed a motion to dismiss, making the argument that calling somebody a ‘racist’ is not a provable fact and therefore does not rise to the level of libel,” Glasser said. “I think it’s extremely telling—it really got overlooked—that CNN argued that there can’t be a factual basis for calling somebody a racist.”

Glasser cited CNN’s argument in a short article on Instapundit. CNN argued:

Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false. … Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.

The problem with this line of argument, Glasser said, is that CNN analysts frequently call President Donald Trump and others racist as a statement of fact.

“It’s fascinating that there is a news organization that will look the [audience] right in the eye and say, ‘We report facts and the fact is, Trump is a racist,’” Glasser said. “To go into court and say that it’s not a possible fact, it can’t be a fact, that’s a disconnect that really deserves, from a societal standpoint, some thought and discussion.”

Where did CNN (in this case) declare Smirk-Boi to be "a racist"? Got a link?

Where in fact did CNN declare Rump to be a racist?

Note that the operative verb there is declare. Aaaaaand GO.

Your ignorance is cute, Sybil.

Pogo the Clown IS quite dim. That would be because he gets most, if not all of his news from CNN. Just pitiful.

Hey, if you can show the class any evidence at all --- DO SO.

That challenge has been out there since early last year. It never expires.

 

[Pogo]

Media Lawyer Explains Why CNN Settlement in Libel Case Is a Big Deal

Oh, shit....CNN admits when they call anyone a racist, it’s just an opinion and not fact and not provable.

“[CNN] initially filed a motion to dismiss, making the argument that calling somebody a ‘racist’ is not a provable fact and therefore does not rise to the level of libel,” Glasser said. “I think it’s extremely telling—it really got overlooked—that CNN argued that there can’t be a factual basis for calling somebody a racist.”

Glasser cited CNN’s argument in a short article on Instapundit. CNN argued:

Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false. … Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.

The problem with this line of argument, Glasser said, is that CNN analysts frequently call President Donald Trump and others racist as a statement of fact.

“It’s fascinating that there is a news organization that will look the [audience] right in the eye and say, ‘We report facts and the fact is, Trump is a racist,’” Glasser said. “To go into court and say that it’s not a possible fact, it can’t be a fact, that’s a disconnect that really deserves, from a societal standpoint, some thought and discussion.”

Well I guess that it wasn't just the one thing of them alledgedly calling or suggesting that Nick was a racist if that is what they did, but probably it was compounded by other extenuating circumstances as a result of their attempt "alledgedly" to use him as a political pawn in order to attack their political enemies within the situation. That might be what caused their grief. I guess they were found by a judge as being bad stewart's with their huge power and authority when they did the story on Nick Sandman. Not good to allow to many one-sided biased actors to run your organization if that is what happened.

The key phrase above is "if that is what they did". For if that is not what they did, there's no starting point for anything.

Therefore the first step is to establish that that IS what they did.

I put that out last January. No one has yet done it.

 

[ColonelAngus]

CNN’s own attorneys back up Trumps claim they are fake news. It’s fucking fantastic!

Do you think CNN will report on this? It’s newsworthy, isn’t it?

 

[Nostra]

Media Lawyer Explains Why CNN Settlement in Libel Case Is a Big Deal

Oh, shit....CNN admits when they call anyone a racist, it’s just an opinion and not fact and not provable.

“[CNN] initially filed a motion to dismiss, making the argument that calling somebody a ‘racist’ is not a provable fact and therefore does not rise to the level of libel,” Glasser said. “I think it’s extremely telling—it really got overlooked—that CNN argued that there can’t be a factual basis for calling somebody a racist.”

Glasser cited CNN’s argument in a short article on Instapundit. CNN argued:

Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false. … Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.

The problem with this line of argument, Glasser said, is that CNN analysts frequently call President Donald Trump and others racist as a statement of fact.

“It’s fascinating that there is a news organization that will look the [audience] right in the eye and say, ‘We report facts and the fact is, Trump is a racist,’” Glasser said. “To go into court and say that it’s not a possible fact, it can’t be a fact, that’s a disconnect that really deserves, from a societal standpoint, some thought and discussion.”

Well I guess that it wasn't just the one thing of them alledgedly calling or suggesting that Nick was a racist if that is what they did, but probably it was compounded by other extenuating circumstances as a result of their attempt "alledgedly" to use him as a political pawn in order to attack their political enemies within the situation. That might be what caused their grief. I guess they were found by a judge as being bad stewart's with their huge power and authority when they did the story on Nick Sandman. Not good to allow to many one-sided biased actors to run your organization if that is what happened.

The key phrase above is "if that is what they did". For if that is not what they did, there's no starting point for anything.

Therefore the first step is to establish that that IS what they did.

I put that out last January. No one has yet done it.

CNN’s lawyer says you are full of shit.

 

[ColonelAngus]

When the legal defense CNN presents the court is they are fake news, why would anyone give them any credibility?

 

[Muhammed]

Where in fact did CNN declare Rump to be a racist?

Note that the operative verb there is declare. Aaaaaand GO.

Are you fucking serious?

Go to 4:48 in this video. Don Lemon declares "Why doesn't President Trump condemn racism? His own words and actions tell you why. He's a racist."



In this CNN segment Ana Narvarro begins her TDS-fueled meltdown by calling him Donald J. Racist and repeatedly calls him a racist throughout the segment.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Oh, shit....CNN admits when they call anyone a racist, it’s just an opinion and not fact and not provable.

plus they have the additional weight of every rational person that none of that is news

 

[Pogo]

Media Lawyer Explains Why CNN Settlement in Libel Case Is a Big Deal

Oh, shit....CNN admits when they call anyone a racist, it’s just an opinion and not fact and not provable.

“[CNN] initially filed a motion to dismiss, making the argument that calling somebody a ‘racist’ is not a provable fact and therefore does not rise to the level of libel,” Glasser said. “I think it’s extremely telling—it really got overlooked—that CNN argued that there can’t be a factual basis for calling somebody a racist.”

Glasser cited CNN’s argument in a short article on Instapundit. CNN argued:

Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false. … Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.

The problem with this line of argument, Glasser said, is that CNN analysts frequently call President Donald Trump and others racist as a statement of fact.

“It’s fascinating that there is a news organization that will look the [audience] right in the eye and say, ‘We report facts and the fact is, Trump is a racist,’” Glasser said. “To go into court and say that it’s not a possible fact, it can’t be a fact, that’s a disconnect that really deserves, from a societal standpoint, some thought and discussion.”

Well I guess that it wasn't just the one thing of them alledgedly calling or suggesting that Nick was a racist if that is what they did, but probably it was compounded by other extenuating circumstances as a result of their attempt "alledgedly" to use him as a political pawn in order to attack their political enemies within the situation. That might be what caused their grief. I guess they were found by a judge as being bad stewart's with their huge power and authority when they did the story on Nick Sandman. Not good to allow to many one-sided biased actors to run your organization if that is what happened.

The key phrase above is "if that is what they did". For if that is not what they did, there's no starting point for anything.

Therefore the first step is to establish that that IS what they did.

I put that out last January. No one has yet done it.

CNN’s lawyer says you are full of shit.

Linkie-poo?

 

[Pogo]

When the legal defense CNN presents the court is they are fake news, why would anyone give them any credibility?

When your post consists of a strawman, why would anyone give IT credibility?