Lawyer Steps Up To File Doomed Lawsuits On Behalf Of Catholic School Teens Called Racists On Social Media
from the at-least-he-won't-be-charging-for-these-failures dept
Over the past few days, a social media shit-storm formed over footage of Catholic private school students in MAGA hats apparently engaging in some bigoted behavior while attending an anti-abortion march at the nation's capital. As more footage of the incident was released, the formerly crystal clear narrative of bigoted, privileged white dudes antagonizing a Native American demonstrator became a bit more muddied.
By the time the additional footage came to light, it was too late. Decisions had already been made about the mindset of the Catholic school teens, most of which were posted to Twitter. Some journalists and celebrities were in the mix as well, including a few that went so far as to ask for the kids to be doxxed.
What was made of the situation seemed to come down to preexisting notions of what kind of person would wear a Make America Great Again hat. Most of those notions were in agreement: a person wearing that hat is a racist. In some cases, this is probably true. It's unknown whether the students being called racists on Twitter are actually racist, but there's hardly enough clear evidence on hand to declare this a fact.
Whatever you make of the situation (and the hats), there's an article written that comes down firmly on your side. Robby Soave's article at Reason says everyone calling these kids racist is wrong because the extended footage shows details that don't align with the skewed narrative created by edited clips. Over at Deadspin, Laura Wagner says don't doubt your preconceptions: the footage shows exactly what people thought it showed.
The end result was a handful of teens being called racists, along with their private school, parents, and school administrators. Naturally, someone wants to sue about this. That someone is stunt lawyer Robert Barnes, who was previously seen here at Techdirt declaring a court's indication it would dismiss Chuck Johnson's lawsuit against Twitter a victory for his client. He also represented a person who trolled reporters into calling her a racist when she sued the trolled reporters who called her a racist.
Barnes says he will take any Covington student's case pro bono to sue anyone who called this student a racist. Barnes graciously gave everyone threatened by this uber-vague threat 48 hours to remove the supposedly libelous content. Some have complied. Others have doubled down. Most people appear to not care one way or the other.
Barnes has been making his way around right-leaning press outfits (Fox News, PJ Media) to inform everyone about his intent to sue. So far, he has yet to name any secured clients, but that hasn't stopped him from claiming he's going to sue people for forming an opinion.
So a lot of these journalists have been saying false statements about these kids, false statements about the kids that were at the Lincoln Memorial, false statements about kids that were in various photographs related to the school, slurring and libeling the entire school and all the alumni for the school, and all you have to prove is they were negligent in doing so and by this standpoint, by this point in time, it is clear that anyone who continues to lie and libel about these kids has done so illegally and can be sued for it.
Barnes' statement about the intricacies of legal law are a little vague. While it's true none of these minors could be considered public figures -- thus lowering the bar for bringing claims -- it's a bit more difficult than claiming anyone calling these kids racists are engaging in libel. Given the context presented by the original edited video that circulated throughout social media, it was a common opinion to form.
A far more rational take can be found at the Volokh Conspiracy, which notes the bar is lower for private figures, but not so low Barnes can step over it simply by alleging libel per se.
My guess is that the plaintiffs would have a hard time showing specific damages stemming from a particular Tweet or even a statement in an out-of-town newspaper. They may well be damaged by the controversy as a whole, but that doesn't mean they can show such damage stemming from a particular defendant's speech. They would therefore need to claim presumed or punitive damages; and that requires more or a less deliberate lie, not just a negligent mistake.
Will these teens suffer harm from being called racists? Most likely, there will be some fallout, but it will likely be localized and short-term. The bar Barnes needs to reach in Kentucky (where the students go to school) says defamation per se includes false attributions of "having a repulsive disease, criminality, incest, or promiscuity and uninvited seduction." None of those seem to fit the characterization most frequently seen in any of the nominal litigation targets' social media posts.
Truth is the absolute defense, of course, but it's unlikely the court will try to determine whether or not the students being called racists are actually racists. Possibly some of them are, but even racists get offended when they're called racists.
It's another cautionary tale about reacting too quickly to social media stimuli, but this time there's a bonus threat of mass litigation. Unfortunately, Fox News has clouded the issue by stating this will be a "class action defamation suit," which is, of course, a legal impossibility. Each plaintiff will have to file their own lawsuit as libel is -- with a few rare exceptions -- an individualized tort. Barnes is likely aware of this, but that hasn't stopped the impossible idea from taking hold. For added fun, visit the comment thread for the Volokh post, which contains 280+ highly-partisan comments (both sides!) and a large number of people incorrecting each other about the nuances of libel law. Oh, and it appears the parents of the student featured most prominently in the videos have decided it would be smarter to pay for their own legal representation, not that this guarantees a victory Barnes would be unable to secure pro bono.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: covington catholic high school, defamation, robert barnes, social media
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Support for the House Theory continues to mount.
On the TV show House, you'd see the same thing happen every time:
Racism in America is like lupus on House.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lupus
Except in this case it turned out to be Lupus afterall, as the kids were clearly doing the tomahawk chop and mocking the old guy - which is, as we learn, what they were taught to do at their racist school where they would wear blackface at sporting events to mock minorities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lupus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lupus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lupus
But hey, you're a liberal after all, you're ready to swallow everything no matter how obviously expelled from a bull's rear end as long as it supports your delusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lupus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lupus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lupus
Or Cleveland.
Or Washington, D.C.
Or any other city with a sports team of any kind that uses “Chiefs”, “Redskins”, or any other nickname — and any associated symbology, to boot — that is blatantly racist toward Native Americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lupus
> uses “Chiefs”, “Redskins”, or any other nickname — and any
> associated symbology, to boot — that is blatantly racist
> toward Native Americans.
Except every poll taken of *actual* Native Americans (as opposed to their non-Native liberal white knights) shows that 90%+ have no problem with those sports teams, don't consider them racist, and are not only not offended, but find them to be complimentary.
It's only a very, very tiny minority of Native activists, who clearly do not come anywhere close to representing the thoughts and feelings of the whole, that make all the noise about how 'racist' those team names are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lupus
Exactly, dood! Remember when we were kids, and we were taught that stuff like that was a way of honoring other cultures and celebrating the cool parts of them? There was never any hint of malice in it, and anyone who says otherwise is a disgusting slanderer trying to create offenses where none exist for political gain.
I for one can't wait, because it's getting worse...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lupus
See also: Japanese reactions to Scarlett Johansson being cast in the movie adaptation of the anime Ghost in the Shell. While a bunch of American busybodies were getting all outraged about "whitewashing," most of the Japanese anime fans couldn't see what the big deal was, with "the character was white in the original anime" being a common response when anybody actually bothered to ask them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You wanna know why? Because Japanese people aren’t American people. The cultural issue of whitewashing is more of a thing in the U.S. than it is in Japan because American culture tends to reflect the image of Whiteness more than any other, for reasons I hope I need not explain.
Ghost in the Shell is a story written by a Japanese man, rooted in Japanese culture, and set in a futuristic version of Japan. You would think that a Japanese person — or at least a Japanese-American — would have landed the lead role of a female character named Motoko Kusanagi who was actually Japanese before being put in a robotic body. But nope, Scarlett “I’m here to audition for the role of Michelle Obama” Johanssen landed the role, so Motoko Kusanagi became “The Major” and (in the film’s canon) the mind and soul of a Japanese woman was put into a “superior” robot body that just so happened to look like a White woman.
If you want to dismiss a cultural issue based on how people from an entirely different culture who have no real experience with the issue at hand talk about said issue, at least have the courage to admit that is what you are doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you totally missed the part where the Japanese people said that the character was meant to be white? Your reading comprehension ducks, dood!
The strongly Japanese name is irrelephant. Anime portrayal of Western cultural details generally tends to be about as authentic as The Mikado was going in the other direction, and for the same basic reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I didn’t miss the part where, in the Scarlet Johansson-starring live-action adaptation, she played the role of a Japanese woman implanted into a cybernetic body that happened to resemble a White woman. ["Hanka Robotics is making a being that's the best of human and the best of robotics. For some reason, the best stuff they make happens to be white." — Atsuko Okatsuka; citation below] Say what you will about all the other adaptations and whatnot; the ScarJo version had a White woman playing an ostensibly Japanese character — and this was revealed only after Johansson explicitly said “I certainly would never presume to play another race of a person” (despite doing exactly that) a month before the film’s release. And none of that even covers the (verified by Paramount[!]) reports that the filmmakers had initially tested the use of CGI and other visual effects to make ScarJo look more East Asian/Japanese, nor does it get into the fact that they pulled the same damn twist with the film’s villain, Kuze (played by Michael Pitt), whose real name is revealed to be Hideko (which itself suggests at least an East Asian ethnicity).
The Hollywood Reporter did an excellent interview with four Japanese-American actresses about the whitewashing of The Major and the Japanese reaction to said whitewashing soon after the film’s release. The Atsuko Okatsuka quote I used above comes from that article. I suggest giving it a read and noting how much any disagreements you may have with their points of argument are rooted in something other than pure logical reasoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what reason, other than “but they’re just a loud minority”, should we ignore them if they feel that their cultural heritage and their ethnic identity are being mocked and used to excuse racist feelings and actions toward Native Americans? Queer people make up a minority of all Americans; should we ignore them when they speak out about homophobia/transphobia because they’re just a small segment of the population as a whole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know if Mason Wheeler is right or not, but that's the analogy that works, not queer people speaking out about bigotry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> minority”, should we ignore them if they feel that their
> cultural heritage and their ethnic identity are being
> mocked and used to excuse racist feelings and actions
> toward Native Americans?
Because as stated, the vast majority of Natives seem to think the team names are not only not racist, but complimentary. (You don't name your team after something you denigrate, after all.)
Why should the feelings of the overwhelming majority of Natives be ignored and have something they feel paints them in a good light taken away from them because of a tiny number of grievance mongers who use the issue for their own dubious self-promotion?
How small a group are we going to allow to override the feelings the of the entire whole? Does there have to be literally 100% agreement among every single Native American before a team name is acceptable? If even one person objects, their feelings win the day over everyone else's?
Given that standard, plenty of other team names would need to be shit-canned, too. I bet I could find at least a few cowboys who don't like Dallas's team name. I bet there's one or two people of Nordic descent we can find to object to Minnesota's Vikings. And a handful of orthodox religious people for whom New Orleans' team name is offensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lupus
As for Covington - apologists can argue they were "singing along" with the native Veteran, but it's pretty obvious (to me at least) they were mocking him with their chant as they were doing their own thing, not keeping time or following the song, and it degenerated into a type of sports crowd chant. Then, of course, facial expressions don't lie and the "smirk of ridicule" look is all too obvious. But yes, the Black Hebrew guys were being deliberately provocative; but that wasn't the natives.
Personally, I liked the guy with the one-wheel gizmo rolling around the crowd.
And lawsuits? There's a fake motivational poster - "Sometimes maybe your purpose in life is to be an object lesson to others..." I doubt there's a problem here that can be solved by suing anyone.
But for damages - I wonder what that one guy's university application letter will look like? "I participated in a national covered event and am personally recognizable. Select me and I will attract untold attention to your institution..." Good luck, buddy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lupus
Too much retconning going on now. Baby it's really stupid outside sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lupus
Doing the chop at a sportsball event is offensive to many, but opinions differ. ("History says it wasn't always bad, so we can keep doing it" seems to be the main argument.)
Getting into a native american's face to jeer and chop seems pretty offensive to me. Many have stepped forward to defend this behaviour so I guess everyone doesn't feel as I do.
Like pussy grabbing - nothing wrong with that. Or wearing blackface as a sportsball game - good fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The most dangerous phrase in the English language is “we’ve always done it this way”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lupus
The notion of someone wearing dark makeup means they are racist and/or making fun of colored people would have never crossed my mind.
Is it ever OK to wear dark makeup?
Can a Navy seal on a night mission put black on his face or does that make him a racist?
Can dark people wear light makeup?
I just do not get how wearing makeup is racist.
My young white children play with their colored friends and all of them call EACH OTHER the N word.
OMG They are racist!
No, they use that word because they see other people of color greeting each other that way on TV and in person at school. To them it is a greeting you say to your close friend, not an insult. The concept of people not liking someone of another race makes no sense to them.
Seeing a colored child greet his white friend with 'Hey Ni---!' shows just how much racism is a thing of the past.
But post a video of a white child saying the same thing to a colored child on the internet and dumb adults will have their heads explode from all the racism depicted.
Not everything you see as racist is performed with the intention of being racist.
Intention is what matters here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lupus
Bad execution overrides good intent. And speaking as an American who has seen numerous blackface scandals play out in the news in just the past few years alone — hell, there was such a scandal just this week involving Florida’s now-ex Secretary of State — if you really think the intent of a group of White students wearing blackface at sporting events where the visiting team has people of color on the roster was not “ha ha, dumb n⸻s”, you need a proper education on the subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lupus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lupus
I mean, if your defense is that you're staggeringly ignorant, then...that's...a defense, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lupus
But your fellow travellers have been doing it for years already anyway and you don't see anything wrong with that. Are you by any chance a racist in denial?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lupus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lupus
King, for example, says "what's wrong with talking about white nationalism, white supremacy"? Well, white power meant subjugating negro ex-slaves, and restricting other non-white races. Black power means overcoming that subjugation. The concepts are not context free. They come with a heavy baggage. Two kids bantering may not come with that baggage, but as they get older, it will. Intent may lay a part, but to the casual observer, intent is hard to grasp in some contexts. We assign meaning, and hence intent, based on the social concepts embodied in the terms based on who is saying them.
So two black kids, or two young innocent children, or even close friends of different races, might seem ok calling each other "Mah Niggah!" When some random white person says that to some black person, it carries the whole baggage of slavery, Jim Crow, police shootings, and civil rights struggles against repression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lupus
CNN Attempts Damage Control for Covington Misreporting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_dnOtv9FOw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm...still seeing plenty of cases where racism turns out to be racism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With respect to T2…
“How many?”
“Uh, all of them, I think.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there some legal nuance I'm missing here, or is that a really fancy way of saying "rape" without actually using the word?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You missed the moms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You missed the moms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You missed the moms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You missed the moms
Nor does it excuse the fact that the Covington assholes escalated the situation when they could have done something else — like, say, kneeled in prayer or, more simply, ignored the Black Israelites.
Nor does it excuse one of the people in the Covington group (who may or may not have been from Covington) saying “It’s not rape if you enjoy it”.
I can grant that the Black Israelites “started” the situation. But that fact does not, and should not, excuse the behaviour of the Covington group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You missed the moms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You missed the moms
> situation. But that fact does not, and should not, excuse
> the behaviour of the Covington group.
Everyone is quick to "grant" what is euphemistically referred to as the "bad behavior" of the Black Israelite group, right before they brush it aside and spend all their time vilifying a couple of high school kids.
The fact is that the Black Israelites' behavior was horrifically and blatantly vile, foul, and undeniably both racist and homophobic, but it's routinely brushed aside with barely an acknowledgement in the rush to roast the high school kids over a spit.
However much racism was present in the kids' behavior, it was spectacularly overshadowed by that of the Black Israelites. If a person is of the mind to be outraged over racism, it beggars the imagination why they would focus on the kids while barely acknowledging the behavior of the Black Israelites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You missed the moms
It doesn't "beggar the mind" at all, dood; the reason why it happened that way is blatantly obvious: because the Black Israelite are... well... black, and the Covington kids are white. And calling out black people for being more racist than white people flies in the face of the narrative they want to push.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You missed the moms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You missed the moms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You missed the moms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You missed the moms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You missed the moms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You missed the moms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not condone the actions or the rhetoric of the Black Israelites who instigated the situation. That said: This group apparently has a history of doing this sort of thing, so I could equate them with the Westboro Baptist Church in that both groups are a bunch of provocateurs who go around looking for attention.
The Covington kids could have done what counterprotestors to the Westboro assholes do and countered with less hateful rhetoric. They could have kneeled in prayer. They could have turned their backs and ignored the Black Israelites as best they could. All of those options were on the table. The kids chose to instead escalate the situation, and now here we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The simple fact is, you're still arguing that, while the Black Israelites may have done something wrong, what the Covington kids did was so much worse. Well, no. No it wasn't. Stop saying ugly, disgusting things and slandering innocent children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, I am not, and I would appreciate you not shoving words down my throat that did not first come from it.
The Black Israelites acted like assholes. The Covington group acted like assholes. The only possible thing that makes what the kids did worse than what the Israelites did is simple: The kids escalated the situation (twice, if you count what they did to Nathan Phillips). And even that is still a matter of subjective opinion, not of objective fact. (And no, neither your opinion or mine are facts.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> worse than what the Israelites did is simple: The kids
> escalated the situation
They're KIDS.
Kids do stupid shit.
The Black Israelites are ADULTS.
We expect more from adults than kids.
That makes the behavior of the Black Israelites worse than that of the high schoolers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Does it matter? The Covington group outnumbered the Black Israelites by a sizeable margin. Those kids had no good reason to metaphorically “fight back” against the Israelites other than “we were provoked by the mean language”. They could have ignored the taunting and jeering or kneeled in prayer. They chose to escalate the situation instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> this sort of thing
So because the Black Israelites are racist and bigoted all the time, they're somehow less worthy of condemnation and disapproval than a bunch of high school kids who aren't racist all the time?
How exactly does that work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You missed the moms
They were white and wearing a MAGA hat.
If instead of Black Israelites spewing filth it had been a white group, and instead of white kids from KY it had been a group of people of color from say Baltimore or NY the whole narrative would have been different from the start.
There never would have been the claims of the kids "bullying" anyone. It would have been all about the provocative language being directed towards them.
No one seems to want to face up to the fact that right now the whole racism thing is one sided.
If a white person is against something, like increased "social" programs they're racist because they want to keep people of color down, if they are for it they are condescending and saying people of color have no value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You missed the moms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You missed the moms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You missed the moms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You missed the moms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just about "opinions"
For instance, that they "surrounded" or "blocked" Nathan Phillips or anyone else. And that they "mocked" anyone, or made "tomahawk chops" or said "build the wall." These are not matters of opinion, these are factual assertions. And the video proves none of them is true.
I'm not saying he is bound to win a libel judgment, but he won't fail because he is suing anyone for his mere opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not just about "opinions"
The fact that Barnes is throwing around "libel per se" doesn't give me much confidence that he's skilled/smart/restrained enough to act in such a limited fashion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not just about "opinions"
So you're saying your didn't watch the longer video. Phillips walked up to them and was surrounded within a few minutes.
Phillips said he heard them say build the wall. The video shows them doing tomahawk chops. The longer video shows them engaged in mutual mocking with the Black Israelites.
Even if the video didn't show them doesn't mean they aren't true. Lack of evidence is not proof of non-occurrence unless you're claiming the videos captured every single moment and spoken word throughout the length of the various encounters in that space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not just about "opinions"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not just about "opinions"
Clever to use the passive voice there. Obviously, Phillips is capable of surrounding himself with other persons if he so chooses. The accusation that the boys surrounded him is false. The boys stood right where they were, waiting where their chaperones told them to wait.
Yes he was the first to give voice to that lie. But anyone who repeated with ample proof of its falsity is just as much a liar.
No it does not. It shows them making various motions in time to the drumming, because they were enjoying it. (See, they thought Phillips was a cool friendly guy, very much misjudging his motives.) But not one of them did any "tomahawk chops."
Yes. All the various videos from various angles that have been published do collectively record the encounter from long before Phillips arrived to after it ended. So if something you are alleging cannot be seen in any of them, it is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not just about "opinions"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defamation vs "article on your side"
If the question were approached legally, a legal review of the facts at hand would come down firmly on the side of Soave. Wagner's article is a mess of preconceived bias, whereas Soave's article is dense on particulars and facts. Soave seems far more reasonable and open-minded than Wagner, whereas Wagner exhibits the same type of preconceived prejudice that created the whole mess in the first place. She simply wants to believe what she originally believed and will continue to edit the facts the same way the original video was edited to suite someone's preconceived notions.
Caitlin Flanagan's article in the Atlantic is also far more reasoned and fact based than Wagner's or any of the other attempts to explain how media and many progressives launched a hate fest against a teenage boy.
While I agree with you that a lawsuit seems doomed, your equivalence between Wagner and Soave perpetuates the same mess that started this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When even The Atlantic admits the narrative of racism was made up and this entire thing is a massive failure of journalistic ethics that will cost everyone who reported it credibility, you know "there's no 'there' there," as they say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is with commenters not understanding how editorials work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
they got thrust into it against their will by unscrupulous media
Absolutely!
It's definitely feasible they were unaware that they were in a public place.
It's certainly feasible that they were somehow unaware of all of the people with cell phones all around them.
It's also feasible they were unaware that cell phones were capable of taking video.
And it's also feasible they were unaware that cell phones that captured video in a public place could somehow make its way onto social media.
And I'm nearly certain they would never know that something on social media could spread beyond a few people.
Poor, poor things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
BTW, are you happy with the idea anything you do in a public place can at anytime become the center of a national news event?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given how one of the kids did a TV interview at the behest of the Republican-connected PR firm hired by his parents to help spin the situation such that he was just a poor boy who needs your sympathy and Nathan Phillips was an evil Injun with a criminal record? At least that one kid is a public figure now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point is that these kids are not public figures, and arguing otherwise erases that distinction.
There's no distinction to begin with. They're no different than Permit Patty, or any other douche who did something stupid in public, got filmed while doing it, then found themselves trying to explain on the Internet afterwards.
Are you arguing that they were too stupid to be aware of this?
BTW, are you happy with the idea anything you do in a public place can at anytime become the center of a national news event?
Absolutely. It helps show where all the assholes in this country are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not sure public-figure status matters here anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rhia also puts the burden on the other side to file the suit, to be litigious, and to waste court resources. It is often the most effective means of stopping defamationm, and one which is approved by most courts: counterspeech. It's also a lot cheaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
*This
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many in media have made that error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The threats made against them is clearly against Twitter & Facebook guides. Yet the posted threats remained after days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this continues, social media will completely fuck up our society. People need to chill out a bit. It was wrong when it happened to the Central Park 5 and it is wrong now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You best start believin’ in post-Twitter societal apocalypses, honey — you’re in one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know plenty of horrible people who supported both Trump and Clinton, and I also know nice people who supported both. Just knowing someone's politics is not enough to know who they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It’s one thing to support a candidate/political party who may not always vote the way you want them to, but generally leans in your political direction and tries not to fuck everything up over a pet project announced during the campaign.
It’s another thing to support a candidate who refers to an entire segment of a foreign population as criminals and rapists, has no problem talking about how he sexually assaults women, (allegedly) conspires with a foreign government to attack his political rival, openly talks about jailing his political rivals, and attacks the media for reporting facts that make him look bad — and to support the political party that consistently backs him regardless of his scandals, his spewing of bullshit, and his ridiculous pursuit of an impossible campaign promise (one that led him to partially shutdown the government!) because he won the presidential election and could thus help turn that party’s political orthodoxy into the law that affects everyone in the country.
Never mind the “very fine people on both sides” bit, the fact that most Trump rallies were a sea of White American faces, the fact that White Americans were the largest segment of the population to vote for Trump, and that at least one Trump voter is dismayed by the government shutdown because “he’s not hurting the people he’s supposed to be hurting”. Anyone who voted for Trump, regardless of how they feel about their vote now, voted for what Trump promised to do and has since done. If they are dismayed by the cruelty of his administration, they have no one to blame but themselves; Clinton voters sure as shit didn’t put that orange buffoon in the White House, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's an outright lie
True
Here in America "allegedly" means nothing. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard we civilized people hew to.
Clinton's criminal conduct would be criminal completely independent of anything Trump did. Him not having the spine to follow up on this is a far greater moral failing than whatever you are trying to insinuate here.
True again
Why does everyone keep saying this? If the ancient Chinese could build a wall much bigger than the one being discussed here, and over far worse terrain to boot, using pre-industrial technology, why in the world should any thinking person believe it's beyond the grasp of modern America?!?
Most of America is a sea of white American faces. That's literally what "majority" means!
So every candidate is responsible for everything any random supporter says? Because if you name any candidate, of any party, I can find you something loathsome from someone who believes in them!
Yes
No, seeing as how the two have not been particularly similar. (Just like any other politician.)
No, Clinton herself and her campaign did, first by all their dirty tricks to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders, who would have beaten Trump, and alienating so many of his voters, who would have given the election to her otherwise, and second by being just so generally loathsome, slimy, and offensive that as terrible as Trump is--and he really is pretty awful--he was literally the lesser evil compared to the monster that is Hillary Clinton. Trump was not put into office by people voting for him as such, but by people voting against Clinton.
You are coming across as completely unhinged here, and throughout this entire post comment section. Why don't you go take some time off, take a few deep breaths, and try and re-center yourself a bit. It'll do you good, and it'll do all the rest of us good too, for not having to read what you're posting right now. You're usually better than this. Get your emotions back together, man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that humor? Steven T. Stone is usually the total shit smear that makes this whole forum reek of unhinged hatred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey!
…it’s “Stephen” — no “v”, but pronounced as if there is one. I swear, the educational system in this country is a shitshow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open and shut. Sympathetic plaintiffs / unprovoked vile attacks.
Took Techdirt minion a week to figure how to slant this for maximum clickbait effect: he actually states the intent up there by asserting that "both" sides have good points. -- Though of course omits undermining the alleged "Vietnam vet" who went AWOL and ranked all of private when got out.
But no jury will start with minion's total bias: they'll just see confused kids deliberately attacked, and any "surrounding" of the provocateur was because they were curious what he was saying. Period.
Scoop: `Defamation Dream Team' Of Five Law Firms Assembling To Take On Journalists, Media Outlets, And Celebrities Who Attacked Covington Kids
thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/scoop-defamation-dream-team-from-five-law-firms-assembling-to-take -on-journalists-media-outlets-and-celebrities-who-attacked-covington-kids/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nick-sandmanns-family-hires-a-libel-attorney/ar-BBSK5um?ocid= spartandhp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's never your fault after all, they are all antitribesmen, everyone knows that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one is perfect and everyone has faults, yet very few are capable of admitting it. Oh well, just another day in paradise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(If the school kids win, will yall report it? What are you afriad of?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]