Nick Sandmann case against NBC goes to Discovery Phase

[Pogo]

Doesn't this catholic peon have anything else to do but see who he can sue!!

Does the media have anything else to do. Other than trying to destroy a boys life, for wearing a magna hat. How tolerant they are.

They slandered him. The crime was, he had a magna cap on.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand here we go yet again, expecting different results.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LInk?

Maybe I should have spelled out, when I say "there has to be evidence", that means such evidence has to actually EXIST.

It was you loons that made up the lies about him.

The ones you can't find?

Oh and while you're out there looking for evidence from "the networks", feel free to search my posts too.

Yeah, they get buried pretty fast, but we can still find them. Poor pogo flailing away. You used be a decent poster, now you're a brainless retard. Now, all of these are videos that are uploaded to private organizations so that they can't be disappeared by the useful idiots at google.

Enjoy! Asshole!

17 Times Nathan Phillips Attacked Nick Sandmann in NBC Interview

MAGA hat teen Nick Sandmann: "Can't say that I'm sorry" for confrontation

MAGA teen not sorry for confrontation with Native American elder

Thanks, I did enjoy that your links described what's in 'em. Saves time.

ALL of them refer to quotes. Nathan Phillips said this. Nick Sandmann said that.
Those are descriptions of what someone said. Unless the quotes are fabricated ------------- that's news. Period.

It's a fact that Entity A said "X, Y and Z". Whether X, Y or Z are legitimate statements or not has NO bearing on the fact that Entity A said it.

 

[Pogo]

Doesn't this catholic peon have anything else to do but see who he can sue!!

Does the media have anything else to do. Other than trying to destroy a boys life, for wearing a magna hat. How tolerant they are.

They slandered him. The crime was, he had a magna cap on.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand here we go yet again, expecting different results.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LInk?

Maybe I should have spelled out, when I say "there has to be evidence", that means such evidence has to actually EXIST.

Lol, the networks reported the theme that the evil boy was attacking an innocent indian.

Then SHOW US.

This is what I mean by "has to actually EXIST". Show us a video of "the networks" ---- whatever that means ---- asserting that.

Just the fact that you can't be any more specific than "the networks" demonstrates you're talking out of your ass.

Again ------------------------------------- the shit has to actually EXIST. It has to be DOCUMENTED. We have to *SEE* it.
Whining "waah 'the networks' did this or that" does not cut it.

It was all over the news silly boy. I know you are a "brave" defender of the media here, but you are a loser, just like they are.

yyyyyeah I need something a bit more, 'ow you say, quantifiable than "it was all over the news", because sure it was.

 

[Pogo]

As predicted, today Judge Bertelsman entered an order allowing the Nickolas Sandmann case against NBCUniversal to proceed to discovery...

(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...

Let6 hope Nick's lawyers can SCALP THE FUCKING LYING PEACOCK!!!

Interestingly I laid out a challenge right here, last January, for anyone to show any evidence of this alleged defamation --- from NBC or from anywhere else in the so-called "mainstream media", including any and every entity in his McConnell-subsidized silly lawsuit.

Doubly interestingly I have yet to get even a single example of any such evidence in response.

Literally not one.

By the way how's that Sean Spicer "lawsuit" coming, speaking of frivolous legalistic posturing? Anything yet? Anything at all?

You choose to defend these assholes because you're an asshole. The defamation was clear to see after the full video was made available to the various media outlets who then instead of saying we are sorry continued to push their lying agenda. Normal people know what these assholes did. And so do you, but you're an asshole too.

If it were so "clear" it should be a no-brainer to just post it, shouldn't it.

I've been waiting to see it since last January. And still waiting.

 

[daveman]

As predicted, today Judge Bertelsman entered an order allowing the Nickolas Sandmann case against NBCUniversal to proceed to discovery...

(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...

Let6 hope Nick's lawyers can SCALP THE FUCKING LYING PEACOCK!!!

Interestingly I laid out a challenge right here, last January, for anyone to show any evidence of this alleged defamation --- from NBC or from anywhere else in the so-called "mainstream media", including any and every entity in his McConnell-subsidized silly lawsuit.

Doubly interestingly I have yet to get even a single example of any such evidence in response.

Literally not one.

By the way how's that Sean Spicer "lawsuit" coming, speaking of frivolous legalistic posturing? Anything yet? Anything at all?

NBC's lawyers will print your post and present it at trial. The judge will bang his gavel and dismiss the case. The entire courtroom will burst into applause.

 

[daveman]

As predicted, today Judge Bertelsman entered an order allowing the Nickolas Sandmann case against NBCUniversal to proceed to discovery...

(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...

Let6 hope Nick's lawyers can SCALP THE FUCKING LYING PEACOCK!!!

Doesn't this catholic peon have anything else to do but see who he can sue!!

He can probably get some more death threats from batshit crazy leftists.

 

[Pogo]

As predicted, today Judge Bertelsman entered an order allowing the Nickolas Sandmann case against NBCUniversal to proceed to discovery...

(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...

Let6 hope Nick's lawyers can SCALP THE FUCKING LYING PEACOCK!!!

Interestingly I laid out a challenge right here, last January, for anyone to show any evidence of this alleged defamation --- from NBC or from anywhere else in the so-called "mainstream media", including any and every entity in his McConnell-subsidized silly lawsuit.

Doubly interestingly I have yet to get even a single example of any such evidence in response.

Literally not one.

By the way how's that Sean Spicer "lawsuit" coming, speaking of frivolous legalistic posturing? Anything yet? Anything at all?

NBC's lawyers will print your post and present it at trial. The judge will bang his gavel and dismiss the case. The entire courtroom will burst into applause.

No lawyer needs my advice. This is just stating the obvious. If there's a story here it's the obtusity that refuses to see it.

And the Sean Spicer posturing was the same thing --- stating the obvious. That one didn't even TRY to go to court.

 

[daveman]

As predicted, today Judge Bertelsman entered an order allowing the Nickolas Sandmann case against NBCUniversal to proceed to discovery...

(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...

Let6 hope Nick's lawyers can SCALP THE FUCKING LYING PEACOCK!!!

Interestingly I laid out a challenge right here, last January, for anyone to show any evidence of this alleged defamation --- from NBC or from anywhere else in the so-called "mainstream media", including any and every entity in his McConnell-subsidized silly lawsuit.

Doubly interestingly I have yet to get even a single example of any such evidence in response.

Literally not one.

By the way how's that Sean Spicer "lawsuit" coming, speaking of frivolous legalistic posturing? Anything yet? Anything at all?

You choose to defend these assholes because you're an asshole. The defamation was clear to see after the full video was made available to the various media outlets who then instead of saying we are sorry continued to push their lying agenda. Normal people know what these assholes did. And so do you, but you're an asshole too.

If it were so "clear" it should be a no-brainer to just post it, shouldn't it.

I've been waiting to see it since last January. And still waiting.

Your long period of pouting is over.

NBC Doubles Down on ‘Racist’ Smear for Teens, Ignores Death Threats

Predictably, you will claim NBC's actions are harmless.

 

[jknowgood]

As predicted, today Judge Bertelsman entered an order allowing the Nickolas Sandmann case against NBCUniversal to proceed to discovery...

(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...

Let6 hope Nick's lawyers can SCALP THE FUCKING LYING PEACOCK!!!

Doesn't this catholic peon have anything else to do but see who he can sue!!

Does the media have anything else to do. Other than trying to destroy a boys life, for wearing a magna hat. How tolerant they are.

They slandered him. The crime was, he had a magna cap on.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand here we go yet again, expecting different results.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LInk?

Maybe I should have spelled out, when I say "there has to be evidence", that means such evidence has to actually EXIST.

It was you loons that made up the lies about him.

The ones you can't find?

Oh and while you're out there looking for evidence from "the networks", feel free to search my posts too.

 

[Pogo]

As predicted, today Judge Bertelsman entered an order allowing the Nickolas Sandmann case against NBCUniversal to proceed to discovery...

(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...

Let6 hope Nick's lawyers can SCALP THE FUCKING LYING PEACOCK!!!

Interestingly I laid out a challenge right here, last January, for anyone to show any evidence of this alleged defamation --- from NBC or from anywhere else in the so-called "mainstream media", including any and every entity in his McConnell-subsidized silly lawsuit.

Doubly interestingly I have yet to get even a single example of any such evidence in response.

Literally not one.

By the way how's that Sean Spicer "lawsuit" coming, speaking of frivolous legalistic posturing? Anything yet? Anything at all?

You choose to defend these assholes because you're an asshole. The defamation was clear to see after the full video was made available to the various media outlets who then instead of saying we are sorry continued to push their lying agenda. Normal people know what these assholes did. And so do you, but you're an asshole too.

If it were so "clear" it should be a no-brainer to just post it, shouldn't it.

I've been waiting to see it since last January. And still waiting.

Your long period of pouting is over.

NBC Doubles Down on ‘Racist’ Smear for Teens, Ignores Death Threats

Predictably, you will claim NBC's actions are harmless.

This is why I keep saying, Reading is fun-DUH-mental.

You may not know this but I get Brent Bozo's MRC droppings in my email, have for years. They're hilarious.

Let's have a look under the hood. Want to?

In the link behind the link their evidence quotes NBC thusly:

>> “A troubling scene many are calling racist, played out in Washington yesterday.... <<​

In the interest of reading comprehension let's run that back with the crucial words highlighted. Ready?

>> “A troubling scene many are calling racist, played out in Washington yesterday... <<
​

Did you catch it? Was it too subtle?

Now class, WHO is doing the calling here? Is it ---- NBC?




Shall we continue?

>> Kentucky high school students accused of mocking Native American elder Nathan Phillips... <<​

"Accused" by ------------ who?

If this is having trouble seeping in, here's what it would have looked like if the TV network had asserted it. Ready?

"Kentucky high school students were mocking Native American elder Nathan Phillips..."​

WOW. Words mean stuff huh??

And then immediately after this part the Brent Bozo writer LITERALLY writes:

>> Allen singled out junior Nick Sandmann by seemingly suggesting he was the one who started everything.... <<​

Get that? The subjective "It seems to me he's suggesting" wants to grow up to be "NBC SAID".

FUCK outta here.

 

[EvMetro]

Interestingly I laid out a challenge right here, last January, for anyone to show any evidence of this alleged defamation --- from NBC or from anywhere else in the so-called "mainstream media", including any and every entity in his McConnell-subsidized silly lawsuit.

Doubly interestingly I have yet to get even a single example of any such evidence in response.

Literally not one.

By the way how's that Sean Spicer "lawsuit" coming, speaking of frivolous legalistic posturing? Anything yet? Anything at all?

I am interested in pursuing your challenge, and I understand how frustrating it can be to get an appropriate response from forum members. Is there a thread on this site that formally describes the challenge? Please refer me to where the challenge should be discussed and answered. I'll be interested in asking you a few questions to narrow down what you are looking for.

 

[Pogo]

Interestingly I laid out a challenge right here, last January, for anyone to show any evidence of this alleged defamation --- from NBC or from anywhere else in the so-called "mainstream media", including any and every entity in his McConnell-subsidized silly lawsuit.

Doubly interestingly I have yet to get even a single example of any such evidence in response.

Literally not one.

By the way how's that Sean Spicer "lawsuit" coming, speaking of frivolous legalistic posturing? Anything yet? Anything at all?

I am interested in pursuing your challenge, and I understand how frustrating it can be to get an appropriate response from forum members. Is there a thread on this site that formally describes the challenge? Please refer me to where the challenge should be discussed and answered. I'll be interested in asking you a few questions to narrow down what you are looking for.

Okay, there were multiple threads at the time, last mid-January. It may take some searching by now but I'll see what I can find.

 

[EvMetro]

As predicted, today Judge Bertelsman entered an order allowing the Nickolas Sandmann case against NBCUniversal to proceed to discovery...

(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...

Let6 hope Nick's lawyers can SCALP THE FUCKING LYING PEACOCK!!!

Interestingly I laid out a challenge right here, last January, for anyone to show any evidence of this alleged defamation --- from NBC or from anywhere else in the so-called "mainstream media", including any and every entity in his McConnell-subsidized silly lawsuit.

Doubly interestingly I have yet to get even a single example of any such evidence in response.

Literally not one.

By the way how's that Sean Spicer "lawsuit" coming, speaking of frivolous legalistic posturing? Anything yet? Anything at all?

You choose to defend these assholes because you're an asshole. The defamation was clear to see after the full video was made available to the various media outlets who then instead of saying we are sorry continued to push their lying agenda. Normal people know what these assholes did. And so do you, but you're an asshole too.

If it were so "clear" it should be a no-brainer to just post it, shouldn't it.

I've been waiting to see it since last January. And still waiting.

Your long period of pouting is over.

NBC Doubles Down on ‘Racist’ Smear for Teens, Ignores Death Threats

Predictably, you will claim NBC's actions are harmless.

This is why I keep saying, Reading is fun-DUH-mental.

You may not know this but I get Brent Bozo's MRC droppings in my email, have for years. They're hilarious.

Let's have a look under the hood. Want to?

In the link behind the link their evidence quotes NBC thusly:

>> “A troubling scene many are calling racist, played out in Washington yesterday.... <<​

In the interest of reading comprehension let's run that back with the crucial words highlighted. Ready?

>> “A troubling scene many are calling racist, played out in Washington yesterday... <<
​

Did you catch it? Was it too subtle?

Now class, WHO is doing the calling here? Is it ---- NBC?




Shall we continue?

>> Kentucky high school students accused of mocking Native American elder Nathan Phillips... <<​

"Accused" by ------------ who?

If this is having trouble seeping in, here's what it would have looked like if the TV network had asserted it. Ready?

"Kentucky high school students were mocking Native American elder Nathan Phillips..."​

WOW. Words mean stuff huh??

And then immediately after this part the Brent Bozo writer LITERALLY writes:

>> Allen singled out junior Nick Sandmann by seemingly suggesting he was the one who started everything.... <<​

Get that? "It seems to me he's suggesting" wants to grow up to be "NBC SAID".

FUCK outta here.

Pogo, I am having trouble finding where NBC has presented who Nick really is, which should be something that is relevant to your challenge . Did NBC make it clear as the story unfolded, that Nick was a Catholic minor who did not initiate any trouble? If the media falsely presented Nick as sombody who initiated a racial confrontation, it would be VERY damaging to the child's future.

 

[EvMetro]

Okay, there were multiple threads at the time, last mid-January. It may take some searching by now but I'll see what I can find.

No problem, I just want to respond in the most appropriate and relevant thread. I jumped the gun with one question in post 52.

 

[Pogo]

Okay, there were multiple threads at the time, last mid-January. It may take some searching by now but I'll see what I can find.

No problem, I just want to respond in the most appropriate and relevant thread. I jumped the gun with one question in post 52.

Found a thread where the libel suit had started and I believe at least part of it was linked so it could be read.

My post 20 here sums up where I was/am.

Post 30 of the same thread fleshes out the reference to a fake Sean Spicer suit:

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.

And then post 40 from the same thread, from a poster on the other side of the issue, put it lucidly and I agree with this:

>> "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.

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

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 sure what "Smollett Hoax" refers to but I think he nailed the criterion right on the head (emphasis added).

It is of course, common, everyday, basic Journalism 101 to couch events in "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to..." for exactly that reason. It appears to be a fading practice to actually read those words intentionally placed there.

 

[Billiejeens]

This is the part where we discover what pricks run NBC.

That's already within the public domain

 

[EvMetro]

Okay, there were multiple threads at the time, last mid-January. It may take some searching by now but I'll see what I can find.

No problem, I just want to respond in the most appropriate and relevant thread. I jumped the gun with one question in post 52.

Found a thread where the libel suit had started and I believe at least part of it was linked so it could be read.

My post 20 here sums up where I was/am.

Post 30 of the same thread fleshes out the reference to a fake Sean Spicer suit:

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.

And then post 40 from the same thread, from a poster on the other side of the issue, put it lucidly and I agree with this:

>> "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.

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

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 sure what "Smollett Hoax" refers to but I think he nailed the criterion right on the head (emphasis added).

It is of course, common, everyday, basic Journalism 101 to couch events in "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to..." for exactly that reason. It appears to be a fading practice to actually read those words intentionally placed there.

I understand less about your challenge now than I did before. I had the impression that you were simply looking for evidence that various msm sources did harm to Nick with their biased and dishonest reporting.

I don't fully understand your challenge, but I know it would be VERY harmful to the innocent Catholic minor to be wrongly presented to the entire world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation. If the msm presented him to the world as initiating a racial confrontation without making it clear that he is only an innocent catholic minor who did not initiate it, they would do this child a LOT of harm.

 

[westwall]

As predicted, today Judge Bertelsman entered an order allowing the Nickolas Sandmann case against NBCUniversal to proceed to discovery...

(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...

Let6 hope Nick's lawyers can SCALP THE FUCKING LYING PEACOCK!!!

Interestingly I laid out a challenge right here, last January, for anyone to show any evidence of this alleged defamation --- from NBC or from anywhere else in the so-called "mainstream media", including any and every entity in his McConnell-subsidized silly lawsuit.

Doubly interestingly I have yet to get even a single example of any such evidence in response.

Literally not one.

By the way how's that Sean Spicer "lawsuit" coming, speaking of frivolous legalistic posturing? Anything yet? Anything at all?

You choose to defend these assholes because you're an asshole. The defamation was clear to see after the full video was made available to the various media outlets who then instead of saying we are sorry continued to push their lying agenda. Normal people know what these assholes did. And so do you, but you're an asshole too.

If it were so "clear" it should be a no-brainer to just post it, shouldn't it.

I've been waiting to see it since last January. And still waiting.

I posted a bunch of them clown boi.

 

[Pogo]

Okay, there were multiple threads at the time, last mid-January. It may take some searching by now but I'll see what I can find.

No problem, I just want to respond in the most appropriate and relevant thread. I jumped the gun with one question in post 52.

Found a thread where the libel suit had started and I believe at least part of it was linked so it could be read.

My post 20 here sums up where I was/am.

Post 30 of the same thread fleshes out the reference to a fake Sean Spicer suit:

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.

And then post 40 from the same thread, from a poster on the other side of the issue, put it lucidly and I agree with this:

>> "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.

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

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 sure what "Smollett Hoax" refers to but I think he nailed the criterion right on the head (emphasis added).

It is of course, common, everyday, basic Journalism 101 to couch events in "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to..." for exactly that reason. It appears to be a fading practice to actually read those words intentionally placed there.

I understand less about your challenge now than I did before. I had the impression that you were simply looking for evidence that various msm sources did harm to Nick with their biased and dishonest reporting.

I don't fully understand your challenge, but I know it would be VERY harmful to the innocent Catholic minor to be wrongly presented to the entire world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation. If the msm presented him to the world as initiating a racial confrontation without making it clear that he is only an innocent catholic minor who did not initiate it, they would do this child a LOT of harm.

Actually it looks like you understood it exactly. To sum it up it's been alleged that "NBC" or "Washington Post" or "the networks" (or whoever applies) defamed the boy with false reporting. So I asked the board, last January, to show any evidence where they did so. Links, videos, screenshots, whatever. I have still received nothing in response. There were responses but nothing showing any actual such evidence. As noted above there were reports of quotes, "this person said this, that person said that". There were subjective interpretations. But I have yet to see any news medium issuing false declarative-sentence statements that could be basis for libel. Not a one.

That doesn't mean they don't exist, but after ten months on a board that will willingly scrape up anything no matter how specious, it sure doesn't make much of a case. And if some report could be found, the fact that it took ten months or more to dig up strongly indicates it wasn't influential anyway.

And as also previously noted the recent suit (I think it involved WaPo) was dismissed exactly for that reason --- lack of any evidence.

What's going on at base here is that some people are conflating what they perceive was being said, with what was actually being said. Feelings over facts. And of course most of this indistinct snarling, if not all of it, came from antisocial media, Nosebook et al, which as one of today's links noted, killed the account that posted misleading videos that led to it, which seems like due diligence.

To winnow it down even further this is basically a lot of wags frothing at the mouth over suggestions made in the blogosphere, and then blaming news media for their own froth instead of themselves for said frothing. Jumping to conclusions while failing to ask questions or wait for clarifications. News media knows full well not to do that.

 

[EvMetro]

Okay, there were multiple threads at the time, last mid-January. It may take some searching by now but I'll see what I can find.

No problem, I just want to respond in the most appropriate and relevant thread. I jumped the gun with one question in post 52.

Found a thread where the libel suit had started and I believe at least part of it was linked so it could be read.

My post 20 here sums up where I was/am.

Post 30 of the same thread fleshes out the reference to a fake Sean Spicer suit:

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.

And then post 40 from the same thread, from a poster on the other side of the issue, put it lucidly and I agree with this:

>> "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.

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

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 sure what "Smollett Hoax" refers to but I think he nailed the criterion right on the head (emphasis added).

It is of course, common, everyday, basic Journalism 101 to couch events in "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to..." for exactly that reason. It appears to be a fading practice to actually read those words intentionally placed there.

I understand less about your challenge now than I did before. I had the impression that you were simply looking for evidence that various msm sources did harm to Nick with their biased and dishonest reporting.

I don't fully understand your challenge, but I know it would be VERY harmful to the innocent Catholic minor to be wrongly presented to the entire world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation. If the msm presented him to the world as initiating a racial confrontation without making it clear that he is only an innocent catholic minor who did not initiate it, they would do this child a LOT of harm.

Actually it looks like you understood it exactly. To sum it up it's been alleged that "NBC" or "Washington Post" or "the networks" (or whoever applies) defamed the boy with false reporting. So I asked the board, last January, to show any evidence where they did so. Links, videos, screenshots, whatever. I have still received nothing in response. There were responses but nothing showing any actual such evidence. As noted above there were reports of quotes, "this person said this, that person said that". There were subjective interpretations. But I have yet to see any news medium issuing false declarative-sentence statements that could be basis for libel. Not a one.

That doesn't mean they don't exist, but after ten months on a board that will willingly scrape up anything no matter how specious, it sure doesn't make much of a case. And if some report could be found, the fact that it took ten months or more to dig up strongly indicates it wasn't influential anyway.

And as also previously noted the recent suit (I think it involved WaPo) was dismissed exactly for that reason --- lack of any evidence.

What's going on at base here is that some people are conflating what they perceive was being said, with what was actually being said. Feelings over facts. And of course most of this indistinct snarling, if not all of it, came from antisocial media, Nosebook et al, which as one of today's links noted, killed the account that posted misleading videos that led to it, which seems like due diligence.

To winnow it down even further this is basically a lot of wags frothing at the mouth over suggestions made in the blogosphere, and then blaming news media for their own froth instead of themselves for said frothing. Jumping to conclusions while failing to ask questions or wait for clarifications. News media knows full well not to do that.

Pogo, I realize that we are on opposite sides of the aisle, but I see the merit in what you say about the need to wait for clarification. Not enough people vet their news and propaganda before believing what is said, and the media are used to exploiting this problem.

Would you agree that it would do a lot of harm to an innocent child if the media were to wrongly present him to the world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation?

 

[Pogo]

Okay, there were multiple threads at the time, last mid-January. It may take some searching by now but I'll see what I can find.

No problem, I just want to respond in the most appropriate and relevant thread. I jumped the gun with one question in post 52.

Found a thread where the libel suit had started and I believe at least part of it was linked so it could be read.

My post 20 here sums up where I was/am.

Post 30 of the same thread fleshes out the reference to a fake Sean Spicer suit:

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.

And then post 40 from the same thread, from a poster on the other side of the issue, put it lucidly and I agree with this:

>> "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.

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

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 sure what "Smollett Hoax" refers to but I think he nailed the criterion right on the head (emphasis added).

It is of course, common, everyday, basic Journalism 101 to couch events in "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to..." for exactly that reason. It appears to be a fading practice to actually read those words intentionally placed there.

I understand less about your challenge now than I did before. I had the impression that you were simply looking for evidence that various msm sources did harm to Nick with their biased and dishonest reporting.

I don't fully understand your challenge, but I know it would be VERY harmful to the innocent Catholic minor to be wrongly presented to the entire world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation. If the msm presented him to the world as initiating a racial confrontation without making it clear that he is only an innocent catholic minor who did not initiate it, they would do this child a LOT of harm.

Actually it looks like you understood it exactly. To sum it up it's been alleged that "NBC" or "Washington Post" or "the networks" (or whoever applies) defamed the boy with false reporting. So I asked the board, last January, to show any evidence where they did so. Links, videos, screenshots, whatever. I have still received nothing in response. There were responses but nothing showing any actual such evidence. As noted above there were reports of quotes, "this person said this, that person said that". There were subjective interpretations. But I have yet to see any news medium issuing false declarative-sentence statements that could be basis for libel. Not a one.

That doesn't mean they don't exist, but after ten months on a board that will willingly scrape up anything no matter how specious, it sure doesn't make much of a case. And if some report could be found, the fact that it took ten months or more to dig up strongly indicates it wasn't influential anyway.

And as also previously noted the recent suit (I think it involved WaPo) was dismissed exactly for that reason --- lack of any evidence.

What's going on at base here is that some people are conflating what they perceive was being said, with what was actually being said. Feelings over facts. And of course most of this indistinct snarling, if not all of it, came from antisocial media, Nosebook et al, which as one of today's links noted, killed the account that posted misleading videos that led to it, which seems like due diligence.

To winnow it down even further this is basically a lot of wags frothing at the mouth over suggestions made in the blogosphere, and then blaming news media for their own froth instead of themselves for said frothing. Jumping to conclusions while failing to ask questions or wait for clarifications. News media knows full well not to do that.

Pogo, I realize that we are on opposite sides of the aisle, but I see the merit in what you say about the need to wait for clarification. Not enough people vet their news and propaganda before believing what is said, and the media are used to exploiting this problem.

Would you agree that it would do a lot of harm to an innocent child if the media were to wrongly present him to the world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation?

Sure.

Would we also agree that it would to a lot of harm to legitimate news media to characterize them as "fake news" and "slanderous" when they did no such thing?