Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation
from the pro-se-but-for-retained-legal-representation dept
Lawsuits were threatened after students from a Kentucky Catholic school were portrayed as engaging in racist behavior during an anti-abortion march at the nation's capital. An edited video swiftly circulated the internet, showing student Nick Sandmann facing off with a Native American protester while wearing a seemingly-smug file on his face and a Make America Great Again hat on his head.
More footage of the incident appeared later providing a bit more context, making the obvious racism seem less obvious. But the Twitter ship had sailed and there was little hope of turning it around. Lessons could have been learned from rushing to judgment, but Nick Sandmann and his family's lawyers have decided this lessons should be taught via libel lawsuits. They've got an uphill battle as nearly everything said about Sandmann and the incident was protected opinion, but a lack of credible arguments has never prevented lawsuits from being filed.
As Buzzfeed reports, one of the first targets is the Washington Post. Sandmann's complaint [PDF], composed by attorneys Lin Wood and Todd McMurtry, is about half op-ed, half federal complaint. Here's the lead off:
The Post is a major American daily newspaper published in Washington, D.C. which is credited with inventing the term "McCarthyism" in an editorial cartoon published in 1950. Depicting buckets of tar, the cartoon made fun of then United States Senator Joseph McCarthy's "tarring" tactics of engaging in smear campaigns and character assassination against citizens whose political views made them targets of his accusations.
In a span of three (3) days in January of this year commencing on January 19, the Post engaged in a modern-day form of McCarthyism by competing with CNN and NBC, among others, to claim leadership of a mainstream and social media mob of bullies which attacked, vilified, and threatened Nicholas Sandmann (“Nicholas”), an innocent secondary school child.
The Post wrongfully targeted and bullied Nicholas because he was the white, Catholic student wearing a red “Make America Great Again” souvenir cap on a school field trip to the January 18 March for Life in Washington, D.C. when he was unexpectedly and suddenly confronted by Nathan Phillips (“Phillips”), a known Native American activist, who beat a drum and sang loudly within inches of his face (“the January 18 incident”)
Moving along…
The Post ignored basic journalist standards because it wanted to advance its well-known and easily documented, biased agenda against President Donald J. Trump (“the President”) by impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the President.
[Scrolls to the bottom of the filing to make sure it wasn't composed by Larry Klayman...]
In this country, our society is dedicated to the protection of children regardless of the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, or the cap they wear.
But the Post did not care about protecting Nicholas. To the contrary, the Post raced with a reckless disregard of the facts and truth because in this day and time there is a premium for being the first and loudest media bully.
The Post wanted to lead the charge against this child because he was a pawn in its political war against its political adversary – a war so disconnected and beyond the comprehension of Nicholas that it might as well have been science fiction.
Let's just try to find the factual allegations. It's established that Sandmann's lawyers wish to offer their opinion that the Washington Post is a bully that targeted Nick Sandmann because he supported a president the Post dislikes. But that's all that's been established -- despite the use of the term "defamation" here and there -- by the time the lawsuit drops its first mention of damages. Some weird eye-for-an-eye demand is being made by Sandmann's attorneys.
In order to fully compensate Nicholas for his damages and to punish, deter, and teach the Post a lesson it will never forget, this action seeks money damages in excess of Two Hundred and Fifty Million Dollars ($250,000,000.00) – the amount Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, paid in cash for the Post when his company, Nash Holdings, purchased the newspaper in 2013.
Eight pages in, we finally have an allegation that doesn't sound like an angry blog post:
On January 19, 20 and 21, the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
Seems straightforward except for a number of inconvenient facts. As the lawsuit admits, these reports were based on an edited video that led many, many people to the same conclusions. The lawsuit claims the Post acted carelessly by not acting on information it became aware of four days after it published its first article.
By January 23, the Post conceded that the @2020fight account that was largely responsible for the edited video going viral on social media may have been purchased from Shoutcart.com for that specific purpose.
With no investigation into the @2020fight account, the Post actively, negligently, and recklessly participated in making the 2020fight Video go viral on social media when on January 19 at 9:21 a.m., Post reporter Joe Heim re-posted the 2020fight Video.
The lawsuit says the Post recklessly published a piece on the incident on January 19th, four hours after the edited video went viral. Somehow this is defamatory because the Post "recklessly" did not act on information it didn't have (the extended video posted a day later) prior to publishing this article. Then the lawsuit wanders off to discuss the investigation of the incident by a firm hired by the Catholic school Sandmann attends, as though this should have some bearing on an article published prior to an investigation the Washington Post wasn't involved with.
When it comes to narrow down the alleged defamation, the lawsuit somehow gets even worse. It spends four paragraphs enumerating "false and defamatory gists" -- a legal concept usually offered as a defense, rather than an accusation. Then it accuses the Washington Post of defaming Sandmann by publishing statements made by other people to the Post reporter.
In its First Article, the Post published or republished the following false and defamatory statements:
(a) The headline “‘It was getting ugly’: Native American drummer speaks on the MAGA-hat wearing teens who surrounded him.”
(b) “In an interview Saturday, Phillips, 64, said he felt threatened by the teens and that they suddenly swarmed around him as he and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave.”
(c) “Phillips, who was singing the American Indian Movement song of unity that serves as a ceremony to send the spirits home, said he noticed tensions beginning to escalate when the teens and other apparent participants from the nearby March for Life rally began taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd.”
(d) “A few people in the March for Life crowd began to chant ‘Build that wall, build that wall,’ he said.”
(e) “‘It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’ Phillips recalled. ‘I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.’”
(f) “‘It clearly demonstrates the validity of our concerns about the marginalization and disrespect of Indigenous peoples, and it shows that traditional knowledge is being ignored by those who should listen most closely,’ Darren Thompson, an organizer for the [Indigenous Peoples Movement], said in the statement.
(g) “Chase Iron Eyes, an attorney with the Lakota People Law Project, said the incident lasted about 10 minutes and ended when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
(h) “‘It was an aggressive display of physicality. They were rambunctious and trying to instigate a conflict,’ he said. ‘We were wondering where their chaperones were. [Phillips] was really trying to defuse the situation.’”
(i) “Phillips, an Omaha tribe elder who also fought in the Vietnam war, has encountered anti-Native American sentiments before . . . .”
From there, it discusses about a second article by the Washington Post, alleging it was somehow defamatory for the Post to publish a statement from the Covington Diocese decrying the teen's behavior. It also says a third article from the Post was defamatory -- again listing only things other people said to the Post's reporter. Then there's more stuff about "defamatory gists." And on it goes for several more pages, highlighting each Post article about the subject while failing to point out any defamatory statements actually made by the Washington Post.
This is a garbage lawsuit. It makes zero credible defamation accusations, spending its entirety either stating its own opinions about the paper or attempting to hold it legally responsible for statements made by other people. It's not winnable. Its sole purpose appears to be to exist loudly, hoping to create a deterrent effect simply by banging about the place self-importantly. It will go nowhere, but it will do so as noisily as possible. If this is all Sandmann's parents wanted from their legal representation, they should have accepted the pro bono offers being made, rather than sink money into this ostentatious waste of time.
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: defamation, free speech, jeff bezos, lin wood, nick sandmann, protest, todd mcmurty
Companies: washington post
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Umm... yeah? In this context, that is the very definition of reckless. There was more information that was relevant to the story, and they did not wait until they had that information, even though any competent journalist should reasonably have known that more relevant information would come out soon because that's what always happens in cases like this! But instead of waiting and making sure they got the story right first like a responsible journalist would do, they rushed to publication (and to judgment) and smeared the kid like they were some sort of cheap supermarket tabloid.
If that's not reckless, what is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since when is it reckless to not include information that you don't know you don't have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When you're in a situation where all relevant past experience ought to tell you that that information is out there and will most likely emerge within a few days at the most. Which is exactly what happened in this case, just as it always does.
Reporters, of all people, ought to be familiar with the maxim that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth is even finished putting on its shoes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You must have no idea of how news media works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I know all too well. That doesn't mean I have to accept that it's right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So reporting a story too early is unjust, but pointing guns at innocent people is okay. You have messed up priorities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who mentioned guns?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In this case, it's a reference to comments on another techdirt article:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190217/08240241618/deputies-sued-after-false-alpr-hit-l eads-to-guns-out-traffic-stop-california-privacy-activist.shtml
Mason spoke out in defense of law enforcement in the comment threads here. The AC disagrees with this, as law enforcement approached with guns out for a license plate that came up as a stolen car. Read and review for yourself, to make an informed judgement call on all the things here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It sounds like at least you're claiming that's your personal ethical opinion, not that it's what defamation law says.
I can respect that. There are plenty of examples of media outlets jumping the gun and making mistakes because they prioritized being first over being right.
But that doesn't make it defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...sorry, that first sentence might come across like I'm accusing you of being insincere; that's not what I meant. Let me try again:
It sounds like at least you're just saying that's your personal ethical opinion, not claiming that it's what defamation law says.
Hopefully that's clearer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, how long did they need to wait before publishing the information they already had available?
For one more video? Two more? Ten more?
For one day? Two days? A week? A month?
You don't know what journalism is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think it is reasonable to wait till 100% of the details are known. I will be creating my own news site to show how it can be done. Currently just waiting on that story that I will have 100% of the details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can always tell the person in the argument who knows they've got nothing: they're the first one to abandon logic and reason and turn to mockery as a desperate attempt to distract the audience from the paucity of his position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Satire is a legitimate form of debate. And you are deserving of mockery. He did both in one post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their point is solid(if you have to wait until you have all the details, then you're not going to be able to report on squat), yours, not so much.
Now personally I'm interested in seeing you quantify your position by answering the person they responded to, asking how long they(WaPo) should have waited and how many other videos they should waited to see before reporting on the matter, keeping in mind it's always possible that there will be unknown data that could change the interpretation/situation currently believed to be accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At no point did I say "100% of the details" or anything even close to that. If someone is going to disagree with what I said, I can respect that, but if they're going to come up with a ridiculous strawman that was not at all what I said and try to mock it, I'm going to call them on it. It's dishonest and it's lazy.
What I said was that there was obviously going to be more to the story, because there always is, and for them to fail to take that into account--particularly on a story that ends up damaging someone's reputation!--is the very definition of reckless journalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't even comprehend what you're typing.
You want reporters to wait for "more to the story" because there "always is."
Somehow, you can't grasp that this is an impossible standard that you want reporters to follow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't comprehend what I'm typing. Because all you're doing here is restating the original trollish point that I literally just took apart.
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't comprehend what I'm typing.
Did you consider that's because what you're typing doesn't make sense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You took it apart...by repeating the exact same thing.
This really isn't complicated: your argument falls apart under even basic scrutiny, at which point you throw a tantrum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You don't comprehend what I'm typing. Because all you're doing here is restating the original trollish point that I literally just took apart."
delusional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I said was that there was obviously going to be more to the story, because there always is..
Sure Mason. If we follow your thought process, we'd have no reporting on anything Hillary Clinton could possibly be accused of since there'd always be more information available.
Your argument is seriously full of shit here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You said it was 'reckless' of them to report on the matter before knowing all the details, under what appears to be the idea that they should have known that there would be more details that would change the underlying story. Since there will always be the possibility of currently unknown details becoming known later changing a story it may be hyperbolic to spin it as needing to know ''100% of the details' before it's no longer 'reckless' to report, but not by much.
That said, I'm still looking for answers to the question the AC asked and I repeated in order to better draw the line between 'reckless' and 'not reckless'. How long should they have waited before reporting on the matter, and/or how many videos should they have waited to see?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I did not. I said it was reckless of them to report on the matter before knowing any of the details beyond the original video. They had one side of the story and nothing else, and instead of investigating and digging into it and finding out anything else at all, they rushed to publish.
That's not journalism; it's gossip, and malicious gossip at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now you're just digging.
Where is the line between "enough details" and "not enough details" to write a story for the local paper?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They had one side of the story and nothing else, and instead of investigating and digging into it and finding out anything else at all, they rushed to publish.
Damn right Mason! We need to hear both sides of the story prior to publishing!
I for one would suggest not publishing any details about anyone getting arrested until after a trial and conviction. Because by publishing only the police's side of the story, we're missing out on important details the other side might have to offer.
And if that person's out on bail and living next door to you, so be it. Small price to pay so you get the whole story the first time.
Does your idea still seem good now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll just copy/paste the second half of my comment then shall I?
That said, I'm still looking for answers to the question the AC asked and I repeated in order to better draw the line between 'reckless' and 'not reckless'. How long should they have waited before reporting on the matter, and/or how many videos should they have waited to see?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More than zero!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is not in any way a useful answer, as I'm looking for an actual metric that would still allow reporting on current, ongoing events.
How many hours/days, how many videos? I'm not looking for specific numbers, a general ballpark number will suffice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I'm refusing to play that game. The way this works is that you get someone to commit to something specific, and then pull out a carefully-chosen example to make that look ridiculous, thereby discrediting them. Even if it's not what you, specifically, are trying to do, do you really think none of the other people on here would do exactly that?
My argument is that you do not need to know precisely where the line is in order to recognize that certain extreme examples (such as this one) are waaaaaaay off on the wrong side of it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And we're back to your usual trick, which is to make an argument and then run away as soon as anyone challenges the details, which you refuse to provide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My "usual trick" is to make principled arguments. You appear to be back to yours, which is demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the concept of a general principle in the abstract, and how adherence to them can be valuable even in specific situations where they might produce an outcome you find unfavorable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And there's your classic projection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then make an actual argument about the principle of how long journalists should have to wait before reporting on a given story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They don't have to wait, but they might have to pay the price of not waiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I.e. - egg on their face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tl;dr
You know, Mason, when multiple people make similar criticisms about your behavior, the wise thing to do is to consider that there may be something to those criticisms.
If you're bluffing on purpose, it's not working; nobody's buying it; you look like a fool.
If you're not actually aware that you're doing it, then perhaps examine your behavior and see if you can figure out why multiple people have observed a pattern of coming in, stating a firm position, refusing to answer very simple questions about that position but doubling down on it anyway, and then responding to criticism by becoming belligerent, running away, or both.
Maybe you should put less of a priority on getting the first comment and more of a priority on thinking things through before you form an opinion.
You know, exactly the thing you're saying the Washington Post should have done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: tl;dr
The Covington teens, gun-happy cops, Brett Kavanaugh, Gavin McInnes, "censored" right-wing voices on social media...
Let's be honest: the subjects of Mason's stunningly bad takes exhibit, shall we say, a pattern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
Yes, there's a real pattern there, but it's not the one you're insinuating. Namely, there's a pattern of Techdirt stories covering cases where people "on the right" are treated unfairly.
When we have stories on here about modern-day lynch mobs going after people "on the left," you'll see me here in the comments defending them just as strongly. But I haven't seen a story like that in a while. Have you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
Yes, there's a real pattern there, but it's not the one you're insinuating.
Yes it is.
Go ahead, explain your defense of Kavanaugh again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
You mean the one where I pointed out that it's important to apply principles consistently even when it means defending people you don't like?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
Yeah, because you believe the accusations against him were nothing but a "smear job" - lies designed to bring him down. If you were able to watch those accusations made by Blasey Ford and immediately, wholeheartedly believe that - then you are a dried up worthless husk of a human being, with no fucking soul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
Wow, projecting much?
I didn't immediately believe anything. I took my time, waited for more evidence to become available, and considered the entire picture in context. Immediately believing things is how we get into messes like this in the first place!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
I took my time, waited for more evidence to become available, and considered the entire picture in context.
And yet somehow reached an incorrect conclusion based on your pre-existing biases that exposes you as a piece of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: tl;dr
It's not just what's being said, dood, it's who's doing the saying. They say you can judge a man by his enemies. If the people consistently opposing Mason are you, Steven Stone, and the rest of the local feces-flinging hate monkey mob, that ranks him pretty highly, dood!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
Meanwhile, your support of him should fill him with shame, dood!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
Hey, leave the noob alone before I pick him up and throw him at you! :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
Please, do it. It would mean he's unconscious until someone pays to revive him, and we'll be blessedly rid of his particular brand of input.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
feces-flinging hate monkey mob
Damn right! When are crusty old white guys gonna finally get a break?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
When they wash their hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
adherence to them can be valuable even in specific situations where they might produce an outcome you find unfavorable
But you refuse to actually own up to any of the unfavorable outcomes your principles produce - you just get extremely defensive and hostile and then leave whenever they are mentioned.
Nobody is impressed by a man of principle who runs and hides from the consequences of those principles. Many would call that pathetic and cowardly rather than calling it "principled" at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Excuse me?
First off, someone hiding behind an AC tag has no right to call somebody going by their real name while expressing controversial opinions cowardly. Zero.
Second, define "own up." Yes, I understand that these principles may, at times, produce unfavorable outcomes. If I didn't, I wouldn't have mentioned that fact right there in the thing you quoted. But I also understand something that the people on here who appear to be arguing in favor of situational ethics don't seem to get: a principle-guided life, (if guided by good principles, of course) produces more good outcomes than bad ones.
If nothing else, there's one point that ought to be utterly obvious to anyone with the mental maturity of an adult: if you abandon your honor and do underhanded, dirty things to your opponent, even to gain what appears to be a desired outcome, you are legitimizing those tactics to be used against you in the future. That's what's at the root of most of my arguments on here: de-escalation. Don't let this garbage become mainstream. When people are despicable enough to employ them, make an example out of those people to show that we do not consider cheating and dirty tricks acceptable, that we're still better than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First off, someone hiding behind an AC tag has no right to call somebody going by their real name while expressing controversial opinions cowardly. Zero.
Aww is that so? Is that the rule, is it? Did I violate the rule? You going to go tell on me? Get me disqualified from your debate?
Grow the fuck up, man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If nothing else, there's one point that ought to be utterly obvious to anyone with the mental maturity of an adult: if you abandon your honor and do underhanded, dirty things to your opponent, even to gain what appears to be a desired outcome, you are legitimizing those tactics to be used against you in the future. That's what's at the root of most of my arguments on here: de-escalation. Don't let this garbage become mainstream. When people are despicable enough to employ them, make an example out of those people to show that we do not consider cheating and dirty tricks acceptable, that we're still better than that.
Right - like bogus libel lawsuits. Except that's already mainstream, and there's an army of assholes like you defending it (well, as long as the person filing the lawsuit is a one of the MAGA jackasses that you love)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny how you never seem to get upset when it seems to be left wing issue that are slighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When was the last time you saw a story on Techdirt that would allow you to test that theory? Maybe it's just too early right now, but I can't recall anything recently about left-wing people being the victims of this sort of lynch mob. Can you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
".general principle in the abstract, and how adherence to them can be valuable even in specific situations where they might produce an outcome you find unfavorable."
Meaningless word salad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It seems to have a perfectly clear and relevant meaning to me.
Maybe you're just having a stroke or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So it’s your personal judgement of not enough information to go on. Versus a trained professional’s personal judgement with presumably decades of experience who decided to run the story. Yeah bro I’m going with the person with a degree(s) in journalism. Keep digging though. It’s entertaining watching you try to make other people abide your personal biases while you pretend that’s not what you’re doing while everyone calls you out on it. On a related note you still a proud boy or did you resign your membership?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bloody hell, it's bad enough when John pulls that stunt(and he's reached auto-flag for that, and similar things), and now you're doing it again?
Well, thanks for demonstrating it's a waste of time to try to get you to back up claims if doing so requires some gorram specifics(or even general ranges) rather than vague 'you'll know it when you see it' rot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The way this works is that you get someone to commit to something specific, and then pull out a carefully-chosen example to make that look ridiculous, thereby discrediting them.
Mason, for the love of god, it's not a "game" - it's called exploring an idea and its implications in greater detail.
It is so telling that you perceive the basic examination of an idea as some sort of scheme to fuck you over. Shows how much faith you have in your own intelligence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Four hours is more than zero. I'd suggest providing an actual answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"More than zero!"
wigglin' much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"under what appears to be the idea that they should have known that there would be more details that would change the underlying story."
Yes...basic journalism 101 is to TALK to both sides before publishing if at all possible. Did WaPo or any of the other mainstream publications that smeared the Covington kids do any of that? Nope is the only correct answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes...basic journalism 101 is to TALK to both sides before publishing if at all possible.
Interesting. So how would you apply this standard to a live news report?
Active shooter? No live coverage until we hear from both sides.
President Shitforbrains wants to deliver a message? No live coverage until we get the response from anyone not on the same page as him.
Do you see yet how your proposed Journalism 101 standard doesn't work for shit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Failure to follow basic tenets of journalism" is not an actionable tort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe not as such, dood, but reckless disregard for the truth is!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes...basic journalism 101 is to TALK to both sides before publishing if at all possible.
This is true for SOME types of news stories, but nowhere is it a requirement. If you are reporting on what is seen in a video, then it is reasonable to report on what appears in the video. And the question of speaking to "both sides" certainly has no bearing on the question at issue in the lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The idea is to get the whole story in case what they run with is libelous. They're free to run with the story, but at the risk of being sued if they get it wrong, hence the general principle of waiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not hyperbolic at all; in fact, it understates the absurdity of MW's argument. Even if a news publisher does have 100% of the relevant details, MW's standard would still require them to hold publication until they can prove that there is no more relevant information out there somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes you did:
A policy of waiting because there is "more information" out there inherently requires waiting until "100% of the details" are in. QED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To be fair your stance deserves a little mockery. It's like you've never heard the phrase 'breaking news' before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I have. All too many times. As I said above, that doesn't mean I have to accept that it's right just because I know it's a real thing that exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can always tell the person who is just wrong, because it's you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was about to point out how both of you appear to not know what that actually means, despite linking to the definition. Then I looked at the article and was very sad to find out that someone screwed it up several years ago and it's been sitting like that ever since. That's really annoying!
What reductio ad absurdum actually means is demonstrating that a logical absurdity (aka a contradiction) follows from a premise, and therefore that premise cannot possibly be true. For example, "there's no such thing as the biggest natural number, because if there were such a number, I could add 1 to it and have an even bigger number."
It doesn't mean "reducing" an argument to an "absurd" (aka silly) looking strawman. That's not a valid form of argument and never has been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait for more details is an open ended wait, especially as something that changes how an incident is viewed may not come out for years or until science gives the tools to find out some truth. Hence Reductio ad absurdum was being employed, and just because videos that changed the story came out a few hours or days latter does not mean they would have if the papers had waited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, you're really just incapable of admitting that you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“I was about to point out how both of you appear to not know what that actually means, but I am waiting for more information to come out.”
Fixed that to your standards bro.
You are welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For example, "there's no such thing as the biggest natural number, because if there were such a number, I could add 1 to it and have an even bigger number."
I'm actually kind of impressed by the fact that you found an example from the world of mathematical logic that is nearly identical to the point people are making to you, and which you think you're discrediting. Yes, there can be no biggest natural number - just as there can be no "complete" news story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm waiting to see if there is any more information out there before jumping to any conclusions on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can always tell the person in the argument who knows they've got nothing: they're the first one to abandon logic and reason and turn to mockery as a desperate attempt to distract the audience from the paucity of his position.
I dunno, in my experience a much more likely suspect is the first person to start policing the means of argument, and to attempt to declare victory on the basis that someone broke their "rules" of discourse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An investigation must be investigated with orders pertaining to the investigation signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.
Only then may a provider of news be able to publish said news based on the information at hand post-investigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Smeared him with his words and deeds. How recklessly horrible. Also I don’t quite remember a tort for “reckless” can you point me to one bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There was more information that was relevant to the story, and they did not wait until they had that information, even though any competent journalist should reasonably have known that more relevant information would come out soon
If it was "reckless" to publish without having all the relevant information, then we wouldn't have found out that JFK was assassinated until 54 years after it happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wait, what! How did I not know this, I only use the most reputable new sources!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your own post is reckless, because you are not including information you have no idea about and might not even exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tell me about this newfound disdain for "reckless" behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The obvious problem here is that the kid could have set the record straight before the Post article even printed (they weren't even close to the first to write about this).
Instead he chose to wait a few days to consult with lawyers and PR people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hey Mason. The Washington Post continued to post stories on this, including the [results of the fuller investigation into the whole incident] (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/diocese-reverses-course-clears-covington-catholic-high-scho ol-students-of-wrongdoing-after-investigation-of-viral-incident-on-mall/2019/02/13/c11195f8-2fa7-11e 9-8ad3-9a5b113ecd3c_story.html?utm_term=.1a7368bcd94a).
Notably in this particular article, all the WaPo does is report what people are saying about it.
Unfortunate the Wapo's paywall is preventing me from digging to find the original article, but there is an [interview with the Native american depicted in the clip] (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/20/it-was-getting-ugly-native-american-drummer-speaks -maga-hat-wearing-teens-who-surrounded-him/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.30aa5beeaea1) - and while I can't read it because of paywalls (ugh), it's likely to, again, be a report of what he's said, and thus any defamation would rest purely with Phillips.
You can dislike the WaPo all you want, but the problem with this suit that actual defamation has not occurred. To support this lawsuit is to support attacks on the press in general, and while the press in general may not be doing what we want them to, slamming them with spurious libel or defamation lawsuits is not the way to fix things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I apparently fail at markdown linking. Le sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
To get it right, don't put a space between the [text] and the (url). It should just go ]( with nothing in between.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cool.
Any response to the actual post, though?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Markdown advice
Preview everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And always, always use the 'Preview' option if your comment includes anything beyond unformated text. Far too easy to miss something and have a comment come out looking wonky as a result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No space between the brackets and the parens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WaPo paywall
Mozilla Firefox's incognito mode seems to help, as does Firefox Focus on mobile. Helps with NYT too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have a really low bar for recklessness. Fortunately for those engaged in protected speech, the courts aren't generally inclined to use the Wheeler Standard of "zero publication until all the facts are in" to adjudicate lawsuits like these.
The Washington Post published at least six articles about this incident, strongly suggesting it continued to update its coverage as new facts came to light. This is the opposite of reckless. The newspaper sought comments from people involved in the incident and published the diocese's condemnation of the students' alleged behavior. These are not the acts of an irresponsible press, even if you disagree with the slant of the coverage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
False equivalence, dood. It doesn't matter all that much what you write after the damage is already done. Just look at how many people still believe in the gist of the original report, despite everything that's come to light since.
Retractions or updated statements never get the same level of coverage and mindshare as original stories do. This is basic human psychology, dood, and it's super disingenuous to imply otherwise!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Basic human psychology isn't being litigated here. The accusations in lawsuit say the paper defamed the student. But the only thing the lawsuit details are quotes from people the paper interviewed. You having strong feelings about this doesn't change that fact. And I did not imply anything about human psychology in my response to Mason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is just sad, dood. You make an appeal for moderation and immediately get dogpiled by a bunch of Sith dealing in absolutes and extremes. This community is turning more toxic by the day...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then why do you keep coming back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
To make sure it stays toxic, naturally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That may be the intent, but all they really do is stress-test the flagging system, provide shooting-dead-fish-in-a-barrel debate practice, and the occasional unwitting comedic relief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"There was more information that was relevant to the story, and they did not wait until they had that information"
That's some time travel shit going on right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny how he isn’t going after all the other newspapers and journalism outlets that reported all the same based-on-the-originally-released-video facts as the Washington Post reported. Maybe he wants to empty Bezos’s bank account a little before going after all those other journalists with the same vigor and determination~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm, this lawsuit is only the beginning. Around 50 more is on the list, including other news outlets and celebrities (Alyssa Milano & Jim Carrey if I'm not mistaken).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That’s a bold strategy Cotton.
So he’s determined to bankrupt his family then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
Only problem with the case is getting it past the "Extreme Legalist" analysis that self-annointed expert minion tries here.
But IF goes to trial, it WON'T go to trial: WashPo will bargain it down. Not. Winnable.
Remember, Techdirt predicted the Gawker / Hulk Hogan case WRONGLY too. And today it's Gawker which is a rotting hulk of its former self.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you point to a single defamatory statement about Sandmann that was made by Washington Post reporters? If you can, I would agree that WaPo could not win the case. If you cannot, I would wonder what makes you think WaPo would settle when it could fight — and win — the case based on the fact that Sandmann and his attorneys have not shown how WaPo journalists personally defamed Sandmann.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, unless you take the Extreme Legalist position (like minion), it's OBVIOUS that the story WashPol told was FALSE.
I'm not going to split hairs like defining "defamation" when you're advocating that a prominent national newspaper has zero responsibility in attacking a high school kid.
WashPo has already lost the case in public and rightly so, as even you admit, now just a matter of geting it on the docket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The story was not “false” in the sense that it was a complete fabrication of events. It was “false” (and I use that term charitably) in the sense that it was a story based on a narrow set of facts that were gleamed from watching a single edited video that showed only a portion of the event in question. Reporting known facts is not defamation; neither is having to change that reporting later based on newly discovered facts.
Of course you won’t. You give no fucks about fairness when it involves your ideological enemies. But me? I give a shit about actual details. The Washington Post’s reporting in this situation was flawed and initially incorrect; that much I can grant. But if the legal filing from Sandmann’s attorneys cannot show any actual defamatory statements made by WaPo reporters themselves, and you cannot do the same, I side with WaPo until someone can show me exactly how they defamed Sandmann.
I admitted no such thing, and you can stop forcing words into my mouth like they’re your dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's false-light defamation, which is also actionable. Explicitly false statements are NOT the only basis for a libel action.
They might be able to say their reporting was opinion based on what they had heard but that's difficult as well. Settlement is very likely in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False light defamation
False light defamation has a higher standard of proof than public figure defamation. They'll have a devil of a hard time making that stick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except, yeah, they are, because the truth is an absolute defense against a charge of defamation. If WaPo reported facts — even if the facts were incomplete yet accurate based on the video seen by WaPo staff — it cannot be guilty of defamation. WaPo reported Nathan Phillips’s recounting of the event; unless WaPo reporters put words in his mouth, Phillips said [X] and WaPo reported “Phillips said [X]”, not “WaPo says [X]”.
What Phillips said, and the factual recounting of the original video, may have hurt Sandmann’s feelings. But hurt feelings do not mean you have been defamed. While you can make an argument that his reputation has been harmed by the original video, the blame for said harm lies with the people who released the video, not with the Washington Post for reporting on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“I'm not going to split hairs like defining "defamation"”
That’s because much like the term “common law” you have no fucking idea what it means. See your next comment below about Smollet for an example of how you don’t have clue one what definition means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If that's the line you're drown for WaPo to lose then Fox, Breitbart, TownHall, Daily Caller, etc are all doomed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
drown = drawn.....naw maybe 'drown' works. You can drown in stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
By the way, let's see you excuse Jussie Smollet for defaming at least half of America, besides proving that Extreme Fringe Left will believe any story put out.
Same thing. The story that WashPo told is FALSE and obviously malicious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
And do you hold all journalism outlets to this standard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
Like the legal standard that says news outlets can actually lie, never mind simply have half a story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
Sure.
You should of course keep in mind that Techdirt is not "journalism" but partisan opinion for entertainment purposes only, yet even so, I try to hold it to The Truth by hooting its stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: speaking of the truth
Why you still here bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
Keep posting. It's fun to un-hide your comments so I can flag them and hide them again. And being hidden I know there's no point in reading them. Just toss in another flag and hide them again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
Here's the big question, does your opinion carry the same weight as a fact?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You seem awfully pleased to watch a Black man’s downfall. Gotta wonder why that is.
(And no, I will not excuse his actions. He made it harder for real victims of hate crimes — be they based on race, sexual orientation, gender, or religion — to be taken seriously by the proper authorities and the media. But by the same token, I will not openly crucify the man and take pleasure in his suffering like you seem to be doing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Accusing someone of racism... typical strategy for someone that has to mindbend to defend the left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No such thing as "group libel."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So now it's racist to talk about a lying racist hoaxer who lied about something that easily could have gotten innocent people arrested or even killed, all because he didn't think people were paying enough attention to him despite being a star on a hit TV show?
The guy is a piece of shit and it's not racist of me to point it out. He's a piece of shit because he's a piece of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
I can't find the original story, but reporters are trained to use language like, "The video shows Sandmann accosting Phillips," or, more likely, "The video appears to show Sandmann accosting Phillips."
Which isn't false or malicious - that's exactly what the video shows (or seems to); it has merely been edited to do so.
To prove defamation, the Post would, at the very least, have had to not use that kind of wording (which seems unlikely, given the way that journalists write), or that description would have to be an unreasonable interpretation of the events depicted in the video (which, as it was the prevailing interpretation in multiple news stories, seems unlikely to prevail).
Does someone have a copy of the WaPo article as originally posted? As I said, I can't seem to find it, and either Tim or Wood and McMurtry didn't do me the favour of including a copy in the complaint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
Okay, I think I found the one at issue:
Here's the claim in the lawsuit:
Here are the quotes I can find, in context:
I cannot find the words "accost," "suddenly," or "physically" in that article, nor "Trump2020" or "go back to Africa," but I've found:
Later:
So, in that story, which accounts for most of the quotes that were taking issue with, every single one of the "defamatory" quotes are attributed not to the Post itself but to someone being interviewed by the Post.
Why is it defamatory for the Post to accurately report the remarks of someone that they interviewed? I get why they might want to sue Nathan Phillips or Chase Iron Eyes for defamation for those statements, but why the Post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
That'll teach me to click on my linked stories before clicking "Submit."
Here's the story for context:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190120191803/http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/20/ it-was-getting-ugly-native-american-drummer-speaks-maga-hat-wearing-teens-who-surrounded-him/
I also forgot to put "to retreat" in bold and close the quote afterwards.
My kingdom for an edit button.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
No Section 230 protection for offline publications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
Just like the editors of this site are protected by section 230 for what they write. They are protected from liability for what you write by section 230, and without that protection why would they let you post comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
How does Section 230 come into it?
Truth is an absolute defense against defamation in US law.
I can understand what might be untrue (and therefore defamatory) about "the teens and other apparent participants from the nearby March for Life rally began taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd" (to pick one quote). However, that's Phillips' characterization of the encounter, not the Post's.
Let's assume that the Post didn't put words into Phillips' mouth, and has records of what he said that more-or-less match up to what was reported in that article (if it turns out otherwise, I will immediately withdraw my objections to the defamation suit against the Post).
If "Phillips said 'X'" is the truth, and truth is an absolute defense to defamation, then how can the Post be sued for defamation for reporting "Phillips said 'X?'" If 'X' is false, then why is the Post liable for truthfully reporting on what Phillips said, rather than Phillips being liable for his inaccurate depiction of events?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
This one is like, triple hilarious.
1) The amount of MAGA hat Trump voters is nowhere near "at least half of America."
2) If the story was actually true, it would be an indictment of...exactly two people.
3) The news media that reported the original story based on Smollett's provided information also reported on inconsistencies that arose from his story, and then on the police investigation of his story, and then on the police determination that the attack was staged. This is literally just how reporting works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
This just goes to show you have no fucking idea of what defamation means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
What half?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
The white half. Two white attackers. Note skin color was said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
I don't feel defamed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My bet is BIG out-of-court settlement.
Except there isn't even anything in the filing listed as the purported defamation. This is a bit of a problem.
Hey, it's possible there was something defamatory but, if so, someone did a very poor job for their client.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bro your track record speaks for itself
“Prenda will appeal and they will win.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bro your track record speaks for itself
Oh, I'd say becoming enshrined in legal history (and the fun isn't over yet, kids!) could be counted as a win. Somewhere, I'm sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bro your track record speaks for itself
You're mixing up out_of_the_blue and horse with no name/Whatever/MyNameHere, but to be fair those two are so hopelessly romantic on an incestuous level I don't blame you for thinking their both conjoined at the hip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bro your track record speaks for itself
I thought I might be. But I thought “hey it’s not like he’s gonna remember.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bro your track record speaks for itself
On the contrary.
He has to remember it so he can dismiss it as yet another of those pesky million anomalies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The kind of action that affirms prior prejudice.
Better to be thought a fool and remain silent something something speak and remove all doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Folks seem to think you can pretend all kinds of things are racism or sexual assault that are not. We've got a seriously broken Media with serious mental problems. A red hat isn't automatically racist no matter how moronic a president is. It isn't racism automatically just because your feelings were hurt, or you believed the fake story by the biased nutball.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And a pillow case isn’t racist calling card until you put it on. I’m sorry you don’t like thing being called racist of rape when they are. Might I suggest that ou go find a safe space back at breitbart if the mean old libbles are hurting your feel feels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That doesn't even make basic linguistic sense. And who said anything about rape?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's such a mystery why you're offended by people pointing out racism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nice kafkatrap there buddy. "Gee, he's upset about false accusations of racism, he must be a racist!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"A red hat isn't automatically racist no matter how moronic a president is."
You really think it's the color of the hats that was the issue here? You that ignorant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
red hats trigger a lot of folks these days, buddy. seemed to be the case here, or at least that is what the Mob Mentality Media jumped on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since we're being deliberately obtuse, I'll spell it out.
The color of the hat is less important than the "MAGA" printed on it - the slogan itself has been used and has immediately recognizable affiliations with a campaign, and people, that are broadly recognized as and considered to be racist.
You can argue that they aren't, if you wish, though you'll have an uphill battle. Public perception, regardless of your personal views, is that MAGA is now a signal of "racist."
The blame for this, in my opinion, lies with the people who coined the slogan and the shit they said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
so the acronym for the president's campaign slogan on a red hats trigger a lot of folks these days, buddy. was the case here and what the 24/7 gossip endorses.
...but it is not the real problem, just a distraction.
all nation states are built on racism. you can argue that they aren't, if you wish... why pick and choose your moral discontentment... let's discontinue These United States of America as it was founded by racists... surely we can do better than continue to support such a racist institution as the nation state is!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well you almost tried...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
so the acronym for the president's campaign slogan on a red hats trigger a lot of folks these days, buddy.
Yes, because it's being used by those who support racist ideology. The campaign was predicated on fears about immigration that lack a factual basis, rallied around an idiotic idea of building a wall on the southern border and making the other country pay for it, and generally being exclusionist and racist. When the campaign said "Make America Great Again" it was not difficult to realize that in this context, "great" meant "whites only."
Due to the demonstrated attitudes of those who coined the slogan and used the slogan, the slogan is now tied to racist ideologies, and wearing it is a signal of support for those racist ideologies. Again, if you dislike this, go yell at the people who made it so.
all nation states are built on racism.
All or most, certainly. Racism has been a long-standing historical problem, one of the failings of humanity that plagues people of all colors and heritages. Japan has a long history of racism. China has a long history of racism. Same for the US of A. Acknowledging this is correct and right.
let's discontinue These United States of America as it was founded by racists... surely we can do better than continue to support such a racist institution as the nation state is!
But this is not. You don't discontinue a government solely due to problems in its origin. If we were doing that, we might as well just take everyone who ever said a racist thing and shoot them, and that's obviously beyond the pale (while there are those who may advocate for this, I consider them to be part of the problem, not the solution).
When you have a problem, the problem must be acknowledged and worked on. Racism is a problem. It must be acknowledged, recognized, and fought against. Don't discontinue the government, but fight against continued racism in it. Doing so supports the government, because if you can excise the poison of bigotry, you make the body it poisoned stronger.
I love my country. That means I want it to be the best it can be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red hats
Not all white hoods are Klan, and not all swastikas are Nazi (to the chagrin of some Hindus and Buddhists). But those who wear these things in US culture are expected to know the social risks of doing so.
(Rainbows too, though hippies and ravers seem less concerned.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red hats
I have a white hoodie (complete with a white hood!) that I've worn in public several times, and never had anyone look at me like I'm some sort of Klansman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
White hoods
One that covers your face and has eye holes like a balaklava?
Though with an actual white balaklava you might be mistaken for a skier or a Danish ninja.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ooooh oooh. Can I play too?
Folks seem to think you can pretend all kinds of things are racism or sexual assault that are not. We've got a seriously broken Media with serious mental problems. A red hat isn't automatically racist no matter how moronic a president is. It isn't racism automatically just because your feelings were hurt, or you believed the fake story by the biased nutball.
Folks seem to think you can pretend all kinds of things are defamation or libel that are not. We've got a seriously broken litigation system with serious abuse problems. An opinion or statement based on disclosed facts isn't defamation no matter how moronic the statement eventually looks. It isn't defamation automatically just because your feelings were hurt, or you don't like the media's spin on a story because you're a biased nutball.
What do I win?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Come on, Mike, that's a strawman argument and you know it. Look back at the historical roots of where the notion of defamation came from. It's not about hurt feelings; it's about damaged reputation.
I think somewhere along the line, we've kind of lost sight of that. Someone decided that freedom of speech is just so important that the harm engendered by having it restricted outweighs practically any possible harms engendered by abusing it. Someone thought of that, and someone repeated it, and things gradually snowballed to the point where now we've got intelligent people like you giving a full-throated defense of a scenario where a massive, multimillion-dollar entity destroys the reputation of a high school student, causing real, tangible harm to his present and his future, up to and including death threats! You defend this scenario and you mock and belittle people who point out that this is wrong!
You know the old cliche about missing the forest for the trees? It would seem that we've heard that one enough to get so good at averting it that we fall into the opposite trap. You are so focused on the "forest" of the big picture here that you are missing the trees of the horrific real-world impact this is having.
The purpose of defamation law is to prevent people from unjustly tarnishing the reputation of others with impunity. Any legal rules of defamation that allow that to happen are badly broken and abuseable, and need to be fixed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Section 230 allows search engines to tarnish people's reputations in perpetuity, even if it is clear the statements are false (in the US only).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No.
Section 230 allows people to upload content that is deliberately false and tarnishes another person's reputation, or is otherwise illegal, without destroying the platform they upload it to, like how a person can attempt a bank robbery without the bank, the building around it, the owner of said building, the city that building is in, and the country that city is in, being responsible for the robbery itself.
That should be true everywhere because destroying literally anything because someone unrelated to the thing in question did something illegal is idiotic.
Also, true information can't be defamation, by definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
👍👌👏
Well said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Come on, Mike, that's a strawman argument and you know it.
It's a strawman to accurately describe the law of defamation and how it will be applied in this case? Oh, do tell!
Look back at the historical roots of where the notion of defamation came from. It's not about hurt feelings; it's about damaged reputation.
The historical roots of defamation are not how the courts will judge this case. They will judge by the standards that courts have used to judge defamation cases for decades. I mean, if you want to go to "historical roots" then copyright would be a monopoly right granted by the king to publishers. But, that's not how we use them, right?
I think somewhere along the line, we've kind of lost sight of that. Someone decided that freedom of speech is just so important that the harm engendered by having it restricted outweighs practically any possible harms engendered by abusing it.
That's an ahistorical -- and almost absurd -- reading of what happened. What actually happened was that people realized that reputation is an opinion, and it is entirely absurd to punish someone for explaining details about someone that harmed their reputation, because under such a standard accurately portraying someone, or giving your opinion of someone, in a manner that damages their reputation would lead to punishment -- and that would stifle speech massively.
The Supreme Court understood this clearly and ruled accordingly. As has every court since.
Justice Thomas's random recent musings aside, there is NO serious movement among judges to change this standard. And your rewriting of history, anonymously in a comment is not changing that either.
The purpose of defamation law is to prevent people from unjustly tarnishing the reputation of others with impunity. Any legal rules of defamation that allow that to happen are badly broken and abuseable, and need to be fixed!
This is a laughable construction of the law and one not recognized by any court, but okay. It's also completely unworkable. People tarnish one another's reputation all of the time. You are "tarnishing" my reputation by calling my accurate description of things (in a joke comment) a "strawman." Should I be able to sue you over it? Of course not.
And, more to the point, the "tarnishment" argument is less and less compelling in the modern era, where everyone has access to ways to get their story out. It maybe made some sense (barely) in the days when there was a limited press and no ability for an individual to respond and explain their side of the story.
Indeed, the CCH story displays why "tarnishment" is such a laughable concept these days. Within days of the original story going out, more details and other perspectives came out, and many people shifted their opinion. In other words, the marketplace of ideas worked as it should. Making the initial reporting against the law doesn't help. It just leads to silencing people. Your position is anti-free expression and, in my opinion, despicable as supporting the suppression of fundamental freedoms. You are, of course, free to make such silly statements, just as I am free to mock them mercilessly. If that "tarnishes" you, well, too fucking bad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: incorporation of the Bill of Rights
Thus the 5th reads "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..." As taught in our grammar schools for a hundred years, an "infamous crime" is where the accusation destroys the reputation, therefor the Secret Grand Jury of peers. Because 'Health and safety laws' subsume the US bill-o-rights; burning down a city block and burning up dozens of children (M.O.V.E. Philadelphia 65 homes, Commissioning the Commander of Presidio to burn SF in 1906 or FBI Vs ATF, Waco & whole LA neighborhoods under 'Gang injunctions') or some Cop dragging you in for some supposed illegal plant; never work again & shunned by family and friends. SCOTUS says the 5th doesn't apply to the States. The damaged reputation is an opium poppy on a USPS stamp & US troops protecting the 800% increase of opium production since 2000. Mike's straw man has been burned at the stake. Blowing up weddings and the reputation of the dead from a trailer on Nellis AFB i will leave for another rant. And, i have zero drugs in my own history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: racism
But it doesn't matter for defamation--calling or implying someone is racist is not a statement of fact. It's an opinion. You need false statements of fact to sustain a defamation claim. That's sorely lacking here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are starting to see these victims of "woke" media twitter warfare striking back. The best thing that could happen is the Washington Post gets sued out of existence like Gawker did. They are trash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can't look it up right now because I'm at work, but I saw a very insightful video on YouTube a while back lamenting how there's a worthless, not-funny TV show that's been on the air for well over a decade now that's still going on, not on any actual merit of its own, but simply because it's called The Simpsons, which was also the name of a show that was actually pretty funny waaaaaaay back in the 90s, even though the one today is nothing like that show was.
I'd respectfully submit that they're not the only such cultural institution that's coasting by today on name recognition despite having long since lost the original "spark" that made them worthwhile in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Toyota, for example. The 20R/22R was an amazing motor. Indestructible. Their engineering was solid. In the mid-70s. They've been coasting on that rep for a very long time now and there is nothing left in their vehicles to warrant continuing. They're crap.
All of them should die a nice, quiet death such that a decade from now people suddenly ask "I wonder whatever happened to _____."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
20R & 22R; yep, you could run them without oil. Never did, but i was told i could. Matt Groening, (The Simpsons) used to to come by my film studio on Ventura Blvd bugging me to help him make rubber rabbits (Life Is Hell) like Gumby. So, that makes me a www green democrat/ or a www green republican/ ? Pro-Bezos or Pro-MAGA ? Gad, i am so lost here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is the problem with many SJW: they can't handle losing a debate or argument, so they resort to defamation, harassment, or outright threats/intimidation.
The real question is what is at stake here that some people are willing to risk prison or lawsuits just to win an internet argument?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Courts take a dim view of minors who are libeled Or slandered.
There are two things in play here.
Courts take a dim view of minors being slandered or libeled. That’s why you don’t hear a lot of cases about minors and defamation. The Post has an additional hurdle to clear in that most people don’t think it’s right for a teenager to be smeared in the national media for doing something he actually didn’t do.
You could also make the case that Bolles v Gawker shouldn’t have been lost by Gawker, but we all know how that turned out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Courts take a dim view of minors who are libeled Or slandere
Citation needed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only “hurdle” that must be cleared by the Washington Post is the one that asks whether any WaPo reporter themselves wrote and published something defamatory. Quoting other people’s version(s) of the same event is not defamatory, no matter how much it may hurt Sandmann’s feelings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's distributor liability at best, and there is no Section 230 to shield WaPo here. Settlement is likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Courts take a dim view of minors who are libeled Or slandere
Well it’s a good thing that WAPO didn’t slander OR libel him, isn’t it. Otherwise they would be in real trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Courts take a dim view of minors who are libeled Or slandere
Congratulations, you just put AMI and Fox News out of business. Since by your standard they also defame minors by publishing inaccurate information about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sits back with the popcorn Its fun watching all these internet lawyers telling us how this is a solid case & all actually about Trump. Y'all sound like those lovely people who still think there is a secret pedophile ring operating out of the basement of a pizza place that does not actually have a basement. Even seeing the cops arresting the guy who shot the place up demanding people go into the basement to save the kids flat out saying there is no basement... you still obsess about the basement.
No matter the outcome (protip: the kids losing because offering no evidence supporting what you claim & expecting it to work only works for POTUS) the battle lines are drawn & we'll blame the liberal courts, who appointed the Judge, the Deep State, and a cast of 1000 other people to blame that we always blame things on.
Kid got bad media coverage because of the spin applied along the way. The raging hardon here isn't you feel bad for the kid, it is because Mango Mussolini told you the Post is the enemy & you believe him even when he tells you he never said that as they play back the video where he said it. The kid is just a handy way of hiding that you hate the Post because you were told to by a man who dislikes the things he says and does being reported accurately and not with the spin his staff applies later to try to undo the damage.
If you cared so much about 16 yr olds, perhaps you could show half the fire & brimstone for all of the 16 yr olds who've died in shootings and all the kids who no longer have a chance to make it to 16. But mean newspaper was mean, we have to shout our outrage... dead kids aren't trendy enough.
DIAFIRL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Could be a false-light case, or maybe they'll settle. It's enough to get a trial, but winning is another story. They also might win nominal damages of $2 like Food Lion did, or Trump's $1 award against the NFL, trebled under Antitrust laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It really isn’t. Sandmann’s attorneys did not point out a single statement made by WaPo writers themselves that could be considered defamatory; practically everything they listed in the filing were statements quoting other people. That might — might — give Sandmann a better case against those people, but it gives him no leverage over the Washington Post. The only reason Bezos would possibly settle a case he could win (or get tossed out before it goes to trial) is…uh…shit, there really isn’t any reason for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since the students were not public figures beforehand, the students do not have to prove actual malice. That would obviously kill the lawsuit.
Maybe the (original) headline could be construed as defamatory? It's only a little bit of a stretch.
"‘It was getting ugly’: Native American drummer speaks on the MAGA-hat-wearing teens who surrounded him".
That makes it sounds like the teens walked up to him and surrounded him (especially given the context of the article.) That part isn't a quote and doesn't say something like "allegedly"; it presumes as a fact that the teens did this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So it’s almost like they were reporting breaking news is what you are saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And you would be wrong. Let’s look at that headline again:
The headline begins with what is clearly a quoted statement (“It was getting ugly”). The colon and the next three words connect that statement to a speaker — in this case, a “Native American drummer”. The verb “speaks” attributes the quote to the speaker. The remainder of the headline is a description of what the speaker was talking about when he said “it was getting ugly”.
The headline quotes a Native American drummer describing his thoughts about a situation where he was surrounded by MAGA-hat-wearing teens. It relays a completely factual statement. What is defamatory about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You keep asking for proof. People have done a good job explaining the situation and why this lawsuit has merit, but you ignore those people and you only reply to rhetorical statements. Don't bother trolling here, if you're not serious about reading replies to your questions.
Yes, you are a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or WAPO takes em to the cleaners and they bitch about how unfair the courts are in addition to the mainstream media and open up a fundraiser to grift the rubes. It’s the Murican Way!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It sure worked for ballsy fraud didn't it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pizzagate could easily have been a deflection to discredit those who were getting too close to the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
walks over and tases you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure there are "very fine people" on both sides...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The great thing about this case is ...
The great thing about this case is that it brings awareness to large group of people about what is really going on with our media today. This is roughly the equivalent of being “woke” to a leftist. Waking up and understand that what you read in the newspaper and what you see on TV has very little to do with reality. Waking up and seeing clearly that there is an agenda being pushed by very powerful people, and that agenda is the basis of what they report and how they report it. Waking up to see that a large part of the country already knows this (and is happy about it). When I was a young student, they used to teach “critical thinking” in grade school. That is, read something, think about it, think about who wrote it, why they wrote it, and if it sounds credible to you, based on your experience.
There was a time, long ago, when this practice of critical thinking was commonplace. Then the government started handing out unlimited money to teachers to babysit our children, and this kind of teaching was replaced with less stressful propaganda and “safe spaces”. Then the government printed a lot of money we didn’t have, shamelessly routed it to people like Bezos, and here we are, with Newspapers that are shamelessly promoting the agenda of a very flawed individual.
Personally, I was “woke” in the final coverage of the Trump election. When I saw CNN claiming proudly that Trump had no chance because he was inexperienced and had no “ground game” before the votes were even counted, I became critical. When they cried openly after he lost, I understood I was no longer watching a news organization, but a religious organization with a specific political agenda. Since that time, they have only gotten worse.
Not that I defend Fox News completely, either, they often get it wrong. But the great thing about this case is that perhaps everyone will think a little more deeply about what they hear or what they read, we need more of that and less rush to judgement.
MAGA. More Critical Thinking. MCT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tl;dr
Stop it, you're killing me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: tl;dr
Ok, maybe my bad - teaching institutions. They handed out unlimited money to teaching institutions in the form of “free” financing. In most institutions, the teachers only got a small cut of the take of “free” government money.
Thad, you’re a thoughtful fellow. Do you remember the articles on Techdirt that promoted the idea that there is a single “truth”, and there is really no reason to even consider other sides of issues? That the individual opinion of the reader is not important, and that there was no sense in trying to bring a persuasive argument forward, because the “truth” stands inviolate.
Your comments are usually thoughtful and sometimes persuasive. What do you think of Critical Thinking? Do you think Critical Thinking is promoted here, or repressed here (on Techdirt)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed like daaaaaaaaaaaaamn]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
According to Make Lemonade, there are more than 44 million borrowers who collectively owe $1.5 trillion in student loan debt in the U.S. alone. The average student in the Class of 2016 has $37,172 in student loan debt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Still trying to get Noam Chomsky on the jury I see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Try to focus now, please. Critical thinking, reasoned arguments. Are you in favor of that, or opposed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you in favor of that, or opposed?
Of students being buried in debt?
Opposed. Existing debt should be voided and college should be free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, so when it's a confrontation you can't win, now you want to talk about focusing.
So you were being an asshole by pissing and moaning on the news of John Steele's arrest!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sup jHon. How’s that prison rape thing going that I hear so much about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You first bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Without a citation that shows me where I can find these facts, and without an explanation of your interpretation of said facts, you have not provided proof that the government “handed out unlimited money to teaching institutions in the form of ‘free’ financing”. Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I believe you are insincere in your request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s fine; I believe you’re insincere in your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have any basis for that belief? Can you share it with the class?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exhibit 1: your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You done fucked up homeboy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You were asked for a citation. Instead of providing one, you said [paraphrased] "I don't believe you actually want one."
I believe you don't have a citation and are simply pulling arguments out of thin air. If you would like to disabuse me of this notion, feel free to provide citations. Otherwise...
You're just another liar on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Citation needed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The great thing about this case is ...
There was a time, long ago, when this practice of critical thinking was commonplace.
It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.
During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet.
Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents, Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans that can save her people and restore freedom to the galaxy.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The great thing about this case is ...
Yes, your post goes to a very real part of the difference between the news media and the entertainment industry. Fantastical stories are fine if they are presented as such, they are fun to watch and harmless. However, fantastical stories that are presented as "News" fact are neither fun nor harmless.
The fantastical story of that black asshole who wrote a phony script about white Trump supporters putting a noose around his neck and pouring bleach on him and then submitting his script to the police and the public as fact is not harmless. I hope he goes to prison and stays there for some period. Have you considered that even with the publicly disclosed facts, by the Chicago police department, he still has his job and is getting paid his famous actor salary. Wow. Explain that to Rosanne.
The fantastical story about the Covington student is only slightly less disgusting, the "facts" were completely distorted for the same reasons they were for the black asshole - they fit the narrative about violent Trump supporters. The animus and bias in the media is unmistakable.
Can anyone tell me the difference between a fantastical Hollywood production and a modern News production? I'll tell you - only one thing: your ability to think. That's it. Use it wisely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, you seem awfully happy about the downfall of a Black man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is not his blackness that is at issue. It is the falsity of his claims, and their impact on society. It is the false charge and false image and real fuel fed to the fire of hatred that is at issue. Quit hating so much, asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You kept referring to Smollett not by his name, but by the descriptor of “black asshole”. You brought up Roseanne Barr unprompted. You whined about the Covington boys and implied that Smollett somehow defamed or insulted “white Trump supporters”. For someone who says “it is not his blackness that is at issue”, you sure do a lousy job of hiding it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Referring to a gay black man as a “black asshole” is somehow offensive? Call a straight man “a dick” is a very common reference. Why is calling a gay man “an asshole” or a black gay man “a black asshole” uncommon or unusual? Same goes for you, right? If I called you a black asshole, it would be kind of like how one negro can call another negro a “nigger”, because they are black, and that makes the same word innofensive, depending upon who uttered it. Open Racism, in other words. And you’re not a racist, right? So if I call you a black asshole, or a nigger, even, you would not interpret that in the way a racist would interpret it, would you? Because actually, I’m black. Well, I identify as black, nigga.
Pointing out a gay man’s asshole isn’t demeaning, is it? Any more than call a straight man “a dick” is demeaning. It’s not demeaning, its descriptive and accurate and direct. If you don’t think so, then you’re a racist. Or a homophobe, or both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m White, you racist dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But otherwise you agree with me, right? Calling a black gay man a black asshole is no more demanding than calling someone “a dick”. I’ve been called “a dick”, a LOT of times, believe me. I used to manage a staff of about 50 software and electrical engineers, hired and fired, and handed out raises and promotions. I got called a “hard-ass” a lot, too, believe me. I heard about it. Never took much offense, sometimes you’ve gotta do things that some people will not like, oh well, you’re “a dick” or “a hard-ass” in some people’s mind. Or an asshole, maybe I got called that a few times too. I can be a little insensitive sometimes, I acknowledge that. Oh well. You have the right to call me an asshole, I have the right to you an asshole, right? This is America, right, asshole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goddamn, Hamilton, I though you’d finally fucking left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And I thought you were black. Right? RIght?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
G.F.Y.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The truth is you are all fakers, right? All you guys with over 10,000 posts, you’re no more real than the MAGA attackers that Smollett made up. Fakers, all of you, fake names, fake backgrounds, one lie on top of another. Without fakers, there would be no “radical left”, just a few deluded individuals similar to Smollett posing as people they are not. Just like you pose sometimes white and sometimes black, right, faker?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey AC, you're wearing blackface, right? You're painted up like an old-timey play, with the paint all over your face and fake lips on, like a racist asshole would be. You jerk off to the thought of lynch mobs and miss when the KKK sort of ran things. You yearn for the return of Jim Crow laws and segregation, have a confederate flag on your truck, and sleep with a body pillow of General Lee.
Every night, you say a prayer to a God that abhors what you stand for, wishing that Lincoln had never made that damnable proclamation that freed those sub-human assholes. You yearn for the days when you could use those slurs instead of having to restrict yourself to "black."
Clearly everyone who disagrees with you must be a fake account, set up specifically to mess with you. Clearly you're the center of the goddamn universe, and all this inability to have people licking your boots and your lack of ability to own others is a perdition sent specifically to fuck with you and make your own life hell.
Clearly you're a goddamn racist idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I’ve been called “a dick”, a LOT of times, believe me."
don't have to convince me bro
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, stop it.
You sound like Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee when she stepped in it and showed off her ignorance on a national stage when she asked the director of NASA why the Mars Rover wasn't landed closer to where the astronauts had landed back in the 60s so we could see the artifacts they left behind.
When the inevitable mocking ensued, she huffily complained that those making fun were just racists trying to make an accomplished black woman look stupid.
No, Sheila, you made yourself look stupid because you're stupid. No racism required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I’ll tell you the difference right now bro
A felony charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The great thing about this case is ...
I thought Trump said Mexico was going to pay for the wall. Or arrest Hilary. Those didn't turn out so well now did it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The great thing about this case is ...
Is this the part where you start telling about how vaccines are murdering our children and we should give them all measles?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The great thing about this case is ...
Me thinks you never read a local newspaper in the 1960s or 1970s or ever. " OVER 1,000,000 JAPS PERISH IN TOKYO FIRES 50 SQUARE MILES OF BURNT-OUT CITY New York, May 30, 1945 " (the numbers now are 80-90,000 & 15 square miles)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The great thing about this case is ...
I totally appreciate that you wish to criticize the government; I'm a libertarian so I expect the government to fail and make things exponentially worse even when the intentions and goals were good and principled. However, I criticize the realities of these failures. I don't parrot conspiracy theories, or the ramblings of a sociopath, or concoct some crazy list of people to blame that belies my fundamental misunderstanding of how government and law works. I don't care how old you are, if you went to public school then you were fed propaganda. Our history is filled with flawed individuals and ugly things that we are ashamed of but not so much that we are willing to openly discuss and be criticized for. Your "lessons" in critical thinking were no different than what kids learn today as you were led to conclude what teachers wanted you to. Just because the pendulum has swung the other direction doesn't mean public education has suddenly morphed into an indoctrination machine, it always was. The news is not peddling false information that doesn't reflect reality. It's called perspective and people gravitate towards the reporting that best reflects their perspectives on the world. A story can be factually accurate and biased at the same time. And CNN predicting that Trump would lose was based on poling that was highly respected and historically accurate. But this election cycle was different. They didn't really have their fingers on the pulse of the voters, nor did Clinton. I thought she was going to win but I never counted him out. People cried when he won because he stoked so much hatred and otherism, because he wasn't just inexperienced, but wilfully and stubbornly ignorant. Because if you read any transcript of his interviews or speeches, his incoherence, misinformation and outright lies are so outstanding that one would think they were the ramblings of a schizophrenic if they didn't know better. And as for this case, I certainly think there's room for some slack because the kid is a kid, slack that should be afforded to all kids, not just a white Catholic school boy. But I don't understand how any of the additional footage and context makes his shitty little smirk and passive-aggressive path blocking, while being fully aware that several people were filming this uncomfortable scene, into nothing more than a confused and scared boy that didn't know what to do. He saw the Native Americans music and singing as a joke, not worthy of his respect or reverence, so he stood there smirking and obnoxiously blocking where the man was trying to go (but didn't want to stop his song to say excuse me) as his friends filmed him. Certainly the kid is not deserving of violence or threats, but checking his white privilege for his fully public stunt, absolutely. This lawsuit, all the crying over how he is just an innocent child, deserving of a safe space without drumbeating Native Americans and judgement of mature and empathetic society, means he learns it's acceptable to treat marginalized people however he wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Props for audacity, but a blatant attempt at money grab to avoid having to actually work is obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Entitlement is a hard thing to give up, posters and catholic school boys alike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh, what is he claiming as actual damages? Was he turned down for a job at mcdonald's? Can he show a loss of future earnings because his "reputation" has been damaged? If not, he has no damages to claim. He has to show that he has some actual damages before he can ask for punitive damages. Hurt feelings and other people thinking bad things because of what someone said, whether true or false, is not grounds for defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh I don’t know - do you consider multiple death threats damaging? Do you consider someone depicting you being fed into a wood chipper damaging? Do you have a child? Can I depict them being fed into a wood chipper and then promote that image across the world as what should happen to you child? There is not so much difference between the radical Taliban and the radical Left, is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Masnick gets death threats on a semi-regular basis. Same with the wood chipper; it's a masturbatory fantasy of average_joe/antidirt. Yet that doesn't seem to ruffle your feathers, but a judge ruling that the inventor of email cannot be defined and therefore cannot be proven to be Shiva Ayyadurai sure put a massive knot in your thong. Now why is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How would you know what Masnick gets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's called reading the comments left behind on the site. Granted, I know reading anything on this site is beyond the capabilities of you John Steele fanboys, but type in ''wood chipper'' in search terms and you'll find some.
Oh, right, I forgot that you sad sacks are allergic to search engines, too. Because Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh I don’t know - do you consider multiple death threats damaging?
I'll be sure to send some thoughts and prayers - it works for every other crisis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can sue because I didn't get the job I want for loss of future earnings? Jeesh.. America is GREAT! I LOVE MY NEW BUSINESS MODEL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Libel per se assumes damages, as does libel against a private individual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
libel per se
Uh, no. No, it doesn't. Or, well, libel per se eliminates the burden of proof that the statement is damaging, which is slightly accurate, but libel against a private individual emphatically does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ $250,000,000.00 sounds like they want the Post! Why not take all of Bezos? What's he worth now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“In this country, our society is dedicated to the protection of children regardless of the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, or the cap they wear.”
Unless they’re shot in their schools. Those kids are just the price you pay for freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kids shot in schools
Kids in the US are actually pretty safe from homicide despite the terror we feel seeing rampage killings in the news that occasionally go through schoos. We have more suicides than homicides, and more unintentional deaths than homicides and suicides put together.
Once we're talking adolescents, the number of suicides skyrockets, as does the number of unintentional deaths.
So...more safety nets?
I still think taking mental health seriously would serve to reduce both suicides and rampage killings and may even have an affect on recklessness and thrillseeking, far more than trying to reduce guns, which only makes scarce one means by which teens might express themselves. Take away guns and they'll still be angry and miserable and inclined towards destruction. And there's still and they'll rediscover acetone peroxide and countless readily-available fire accellerants.
But few people are interested in addressing how we systematically make our kids feel like isolated loner deviants (and perverts, once they start getting sexual interests). Nor do we address how we throw kids under the proverbial bus once signs of abuse or cruelty might jeopardize the institutions we use to contain them. Churches, schools and law enforcement have all been consistent in their desire to make victims disappear rather than besmirch their sacred edifice.
That seems to set the stage for kids not only killing themselves, but also rampaging against a world that gives no fucks about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“If this is all Sandmann's parents wanted from their legal representation, they should have accepted the pro bono offers being made, rather than sink money into this ostentatious waste of time.”
That assumes that Sandmann is a real person and not a crisis actor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is an acronym for people like this: LIEN
Litigious Indignant Entitled Narcissist
They rely others trying to engage in a good faith negotiation (which it turns out isn't possible, because a LIEN's faith is completely self-centered so will never result in a fair compromise). Or barring that giving up and choosing to pay some money up front just to avoid what could end up being a long, stressful, and expensive legal conflict. IP trolls are LIENs. So is Trump.
I hope that the WaPo will be able to counter-sue (SLAPP even?) and recover damages or set some sort of precedent that might deter such frivolous legal action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]