Go Get Them Nick !

[BULLDOG]

[

"Prove Rump correct" about -------------------------------- what?

Agenda driven fake news.

Link to that?

The fake news:

LIST: 24 Pieces of MSM Fake News in 5 Days

The agenda driven media:

(For some reason I can't upload the image, but it is at the link below)

STUDY: 91% of recent network Trump coverage is negative - Washington Post

As always, If Trump doesn't like negative coverage, then he should quit doing childish things.

 

[Siete]

the kid was a graduate of Trump University - he's got nothing.

last we'll hear about this farce.

 

[Pogo]

"Defamation of character occurs when someone makes a false statement about you that causes you some type of harm. The statement must be published (meaning some third party must have heard it), false, and it must result in harm, usually to the reputation. Those essential components of a defamation claim are fairly straightforward. "


Defamation of Character Lawsuits: Proving Actual Harm

I'd say...if the articles are written with qualifiers such as "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to" and "appeared"...the Washington Post wouldn't be getting sued.

And that's EXACTLY how they are written. As they always are, that's Journalism 101.

"According to" is the most common.

As soon as they claimed one time in a statement that something definitively happened that didn't...they are guilty of defamation.

That's what I was looking for in the suit narrative. Never found it. Not one.

Just like the Smollett Hoax...they thought this was a slam dunk. It fit the narrative they intentionally project. I think this time it is going to bite them in the ass...and their wallet.

Not familiar with that but the entire suit here is a house of cards. All bluffing. You're familiar with poker, right? I think these attorneys are too.

 

[Pogo]

the kid was a graduate of Trump University - he's got nothing.

last we'll hear about this farce.

Ah yes Fraud University ---- where 'you don't sell products, benefits or solutions --- you sell FEELINGS". And one way to sell FEELINGS is to file a bullshit lawsuit that will snooker those that don't know their way around the law, and thereby build up a mythology.

And fuck that.

 

[basquebromance]

better to be late and right than early and wrong, my friends, as Watters said

 

[OKTexas]

Trump's retarded and has nothing to do with the case.

I'll assume this comment if directed at the OP.

I suspect it will be immediately dismissed. Just because some inbred kid from Buttfuck, Nowhere is sad he was caught on video doesn't mean the 1st Amendment ceases existing.

The First Amendment doesn't protect libel and defamation.

If you named him in your comment and called him an inbred...he could sue you for libel. And you would lose. Just like the Washington Post is going to lose. They don't have a legal leg to stand on.

Commenting on a video is not libel or defamation. Or else people would be getting sued and losing left and right. Especially your hero dotard.

And the WaPo didn't "comment" on it anyway. They simply reported what witnesses said about the event.

That's what the suit's exhibits all point to --- QUOTES from people who were there describing what they saw.

Last summer Sean Spicer's attorney tried to make grunting noises about the same thing, threatening to "sue" the Associated Press for passing on a story (not even their original story) about a heckler who came into a Spicer book signing and accused him of racism. Which is also a fact, it happened and it's fully on video. Spicer's attack dog started spewing about how he was going to "sue" AP for passing that on. Needles to say, he never did. Because he can't.

These fascist assholes can whine and stomp their feet all they like but you can't just "sue" people for accurately reporting what someone said. Period.

Spicer is a public figure, there's a much higher burden to prove malice. The kid is a private citizen, malice is not an element, just that the paper got it wrong and refused to correct the record.

.

 

[Pogo]

Trump's retarded and has nothing to do with the case.

I'll assume this comment if directed at the OP.

I suspect it will be immediately dismissed. Just because some inbred kid from Buttfuck, Nowhere is sad he was caught on video doesn't mean the 1st Amendment ceases existing.

The First Amendment doesn't protect libel and defamation.

If you named him in your comment and called him an inbred...he could sue you for libel. And you would lose. Just like the Washington Post is going to lose. They don't have a legal leg to stand on.

Commenting on a video is not libel or defamation. Or else people would be getting sued and losing left and right. Especially your hero dotard.

And the WaPo didn't "comment" on it anyway. They simply reported what witnesses said about the event.

That's what the suit's exhibits all point to --- QUOTES from people who were there describing what they saw.

Last summer Sean Spicer's attorney tried to make grunting noises about the same thing, threatening to "sue" the Associated Press for passing on a story (not even their original story) about a heckler who came into a Spicer book signing and accused him of racism. Which is also a fact, it happened and it's fully on video. Spicer's attack dog started spewing about how he was going to "sue" AP for passing that on. Needles to say, he never did. Because he can't.

These fascist assholes can whine and stomp their feet all they like but you can't just "sue" people for accurately reporting what someone said. Period.

Spicer is a public figure, there's a much higher burden to prove malice. The kid is a private citizen, malice is not an element, just that the paper got it wrong and refused to correct the record.

In Spicer's case it doesn't matter --- AP simply reported that the incident happened (which it did -- it's on video). There can be no "malice" in reporting that an incident which clearly happened, happened.

In Smirk-Boi's case, what exactly did the paper "get wrong"? This question has been sitting there for literally a month and has yet to get a single response.

Not one.

 

[Siete]

the kid was a graduate of Trump University - he's got nothing.

last we'll hear about this farce.

Ah yes Fraud University ---- where 'you don't sell products, benefits or solutions --- you sell FEELINGS". And one way to sell FEELINGS is to file a bullshit lawsuit that will snooker those that don't know their way around the law, and thereby build up a mythology.

And fuck that.

wonder what WP's counter suit is ?

 

[BULLDOG]

the kid was a graduate of Trump University - he's got nothing.

last we'll hear about this farce.

Ah yes Fraud University ---- where 'you don't sell products, benefits or solutions --- you sell FEELINGS". And one way to sell FEELINGS is to file a bullshit lawsuit that will snooker those that don't know their way around the law, and thereby build up a mythology.

And fuck that.

wonder what WP's counter suit is ?

I'm no lawyer, but malicious prosecution might fit.

 

[B. Kidd]

Sandmann has a crack attorney, Lin Wood.
He's gonna be on Hannity tonite.
Nick might not make 250 mill, but he will make more than WashPo wants to pay!

 

[Missourian]

Not familiar with that but the entire suit here is a house of cards. All bluffing. You're familiar with poker, right? I think these attorneys are too.

I don't think so. From what I'm reading...journalist are only immune from liability if they are quoting goverment officials or reports...not individuals.

As it pertains to journalism, this is what I found (all from the same article, link at the end):

What Is Libel?
Libel is published defamation of character, as opposed to spoken defamation of character, which is slander.

Libel:

• Exposes a person to hatred, shame, disgrace, contempt or ridicule.
• Injures a person’s reputation or causes the person to be shunned or avoided.
• Injures the person in his or her occupation.

Examples might include accusing someone of having committed a heinous crime, or of having a disease that might cause them to be shunned.

-------------

• Privilege Accurate reports about official proceedings – anything from a murder trial to a city council meeting or a congressional hearing – cannot be libelous. This may seem like an odd defense, but imagine covering a murder trial without it. Conceivably, the reporter covering that trial could be sued for libel every time someone in the courtroom accused the defendant of murder.

----------

Public Officials vs. Private Individuals

In order to win a libel lawsuit, private individuals need only prove that an article about them was libelous and that it was published.

What Do You Need to Know About Libel and Libel Law?

 

[Missourian]

In Smirk-Boi's case, what exactly did the paper "get wrong"? This question has been sitting there for literally a month and has yet to get a single response.

Not one.

They defamed his character...by definition.

See above.

 

[bendog]

If the person defamed was a private person, in most states, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she:

• knew that the statement was false and defamatory, or
• acted with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement in making the statement, or
• acted negligently in failing to ascertain whether the statement was true or false before making it.

To act in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of a statement means that the person making the statement had serious doubts as to the truth of the statement, but they went ahead and made it anyway.

If the person defamed was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement.
Defamation, Libel, and Slander: Key Elements of a Claim

 

[OKTexas]

Trump's retarded and has nothing to do with the case.

I'll assume this comment if directed at the OP.

I suspect it will be immediately dismissed. Just because some inbred kid from Buttfuck, Nowhere is sad he was caught on video doesn't mean the 1st Amendment ceases existing.

The First Amendment doesn't protect libel and defamation.

If you named him in your comment and called him an inbred...he could sue you for libel. And you would lose. Just like the Washington Post is going to lose. They don't have a legal leg to stand on.

Commenting on a video is not libel or defamation. Or else people would be getting sued and losing left and right. Especially your hero dotard.

And the WaPo didn't "comment" on it anyway. They simply reported what witnesses said about the event.

That's what the suit's exhibits all point to --- QUOTES from people who were there describing what they saw.

Last summer Sean Spicer's attorney tried to make grunting noises about the same thing, threatening to "sue" the Associated Press for passing on a story (not even their original story) about a heckler who came into a Spicer book signing and accused him of racism. Which is also a fact, it happened and it's fully on video. Spicer's attack dog started spewing about how he was going to "sue" AP for passing that on. Needles to say, he never did. Because he can't.

These fascist assholes can whine and stomp their feet all they like but you can't just "sue" people for accurately reporting what someone said. Period.

Spicer is a public figure, there's a much higher burden to prove malice. The kid is a private citizen, malice is not an element, just that the paper got it wrong and refused to correct the record.

In Spicer's case it doesn't matter --- AP simply reported that the incident happened (which it did -- it's on video). There can be no "malice" in reporting that an incident which clearly happened, happened.

In Smirk-Boi's case, what exactly did the paper "get wrong"? This question has been sitting there for literally a month and has yet to get a single response.

Not one.

What did they get wrong, how the situation was characterized. No one mobbed Phillips or restricted his movements, and from all the videos I saw, Sandmann never moved form the spot where he was standing, Phillips approached him.

.

 

[Meathead]

maybe Trump will give the kid some pointers on how to lose lawsuits.

'Go get them Nick': Trump cheers on Kentucky student suing the Washington Post for $250 million

He will get them too.|Almost all will settle out of court. The last thing they is losing whatever iota they have left of independant journalism by making a news. The kid will be set for life!

 

[Pogo]

I'll assume this comment if directed at the OP.

The First Amendment doesn't protect libel and defamation.

If you named him in your comment and called him an inbred...he could sue you for libel. And you would lose. Just like the Washington Post is going to lose. They don't have a legal leg to stand on.

Commenting on a video is not libel or defamation. Or else people would be getting sued and losing left and right. Especially your hero dotard.

And the WaPo didn't "comment" on it anyway. They simply reported what witnesses said about the event.

That's what the suit's exhibits all point to --- QUOTES from people who were there describing what they saw.

Last summer Sean Spicer's attorney tried to make grunting noises about the same thing, threatening to "sue" the Associated Press for passing on a story (not even their original story) about a heckler who came into a Spicer book signing and accused him of racism. Which is also a fact, it happened and it's fully on video. Spicer's attack dog started spewing about how he was going to "sue" AP for passing that on. Needles to say, he never did. Because he can't.

These fascist assholes can whine and stomp their feet all they like but you can't just "sue" people for accurately reporting what someone said. Period.

Spicer is a public figure, there's a much higher burden to prove malice. The kid is a private citizen, malice is not an element, just that the paper got it wrong and refused to correct the record.

In Spicer's case it doesn't matter --- AP simply reported that the incident happened (which it did -- it's on video). There can be no "malice" in reporting that an incident which clearly happened, happened.

In Smirk-Boi's case, what exactly did the paper "get wrong"? This question has been sitting there for literally a month and has yet to get a single response.

Not one.

What did they get wrong, how the situation was characterized. No one mobbed Phillips or restricted his movements, and from all the videos I saw, Sandman never moved form the spot where he was standing, Phillips approached him.

--- And?
What's this got to do with WaPo?

 

[Pogo]

In Smirk-Boi's case, what exactly did the paper "get wrong"? This question has been sitting there for literally a month and has yet to get a single response.

Not one.

They defamed his character...by definition.

See above.

Where did they even characterize his "character"?

This is the same month-old question that's been sitting untouched. And is nowhere addressed in the suit.

When did journalism start making judgments about "character"? Or about anything?

 

[bendog]

Defamation of a private individual requires negligence. And there is a picture. And if the reporter just expressed an opinion, Nick's focked.

His attorney is famous. I think he's going to basically try to show the media went off half cocked. But Nick put himself in the pic.

 

[Pogo]

Not familiar with that but the entire suit here is a house of cards. All bluffing. You're familiar with poker, right? I think these attorneys are too.

I don't think so. From what I'm reading...journalist are only immune from liability if they are quoting goverment officials or reports...not individuals.

You're actually suggesting no one can be quoted unless they're government officials?



Sorry, no. If Person X makes a statement, and the Daily Planet reports that "person X made this statement" ---- that's a true and accurate account. Period. If they want to later hide from what they said --- tough shit.

As it pertains to journalism, this is what I found (all from the same article, link at the end):

What Is Libel?
Libel is published defamation of character, as opposed to spoken defamation of character, which is slander.

Libel:

• Exposes a person to hatred, shame, disgrace, contempt or ridicule.
• Injures a person’s reputation or causes the person to be shunned or avoided.
• Injures the person in his or her occupation.

Examples might include accusing someone of having committed a heinous crime, or of having a disease that might cause them to be shunned.

-------------

• Privilege Accurate reports about official proceedings – anything from a murder trial to a city council meeting or a congressional hearing – cannot be libelous. This may seem like an odd defense, but imagine covering a murder trial without it. Conceivably, the reporter covering that trial could be sued for libel every time someone in the courtroom accused the defendant of murder.

----------

Public Officials vs. Private Individuals

In order to win a libel lawsuit, private individuals need only prove that an article about them was libelous and that it was published.

What Do You Need to Know About Libel and Libel Law?

Thanks, I need no definition; I worked in media for decades. So I knew what this was about and what it wasn't about before it started. That's also why I put that challenge out a month ago, when wags on this board started calling for "lawsuits". I already knew better.

 

[OKTexas]

Commenting on a video is not libel or defamation. Or else people would be getting sued and losing left and right. Especially your hero dotard.

And the WaPo didn't "comment" on it anyway. They simply reported what witnesses said about the event.

That's what the suit's exhibits all point to --- QUOTES from people who were there describing what they saw.

Last summer Sean Spicer's attorney tried to make grunting noises about the same thing, threatening to "sue" the Associated Press for passing on a story (not even their original story) about a heckler who came into a Spicer book signing and accused him of racism. Which is also a fact, it happened and it's fully on video. Spicer's attack dog started spewing about how he was going to "sue" AP for passing that on. Needles to say, he never did. Because he can't.

These fascist assholes can whine and stomp their feet all they like but you can't just "sue" people for accurately reporting what someone said. Period.

Spicer is a public figure, there's a much higher burden to prove malice. The kid is a private citizen, malice is not an element, just that the paper got it wrong and refused to correct the record.

In Spicer's case it doesn't matter --- AP simply reported that the incident happened (which it did -- it's on video). There can be no "malice" in reporting that an incident which clearly happened, happened.

In Smirk-Boi's case, what exactly did the paper "get wrong"? This question has been sitting there for literally a month and has yet to get a single response.

Not one.

What did they get wrong, how the situation was characterized. No one mobbed Phillips or restricted his movements, and from all the videos I saw, Sandman never moved form the spot where he was standing, Phillips approached him.

--- And?
What's this got to do with WaPo?

I'd quote the post but they hide behind a pay wall, so I'll quote Sandmann's lawyers.

The suit says the paper described Sandmann as the instigator in a confrontation with Native American activist Nathan Phillips, “‘accost[ing]’ Phillips by ‘suddenly swarm[ing]’ him in a ‘threaten[ing]’ and ‘physically intimidat[ing]’ manner.

Covington High Teen Nicholas Sandmann Suing ‘Washington Post For $250M

.