As Expected: Covington HS Teen's Lawsuit Against The Washington Post Is Dismissed
from the with-prejudice dept
This was not unexpected. As we easily predicted back when it was filed, Nick Sandmann -- the MAGA red hat wearing teenager from Covington Catholic High School who was briefly at the center of a viral social media Rorschach test -- has now lost his laughably bad defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post. As we pointed out, he never alleged any actual defamation, and federal Judge William Bertelsman did not seem at all pleased with Sandmann's legal arguments.
As Bertelsman notes, at this stage (the motion to dismiss stage), all he needs to do is see whether or not an actual claim has been presented: were statements of fact made about Sandmann that were defamatory. There's plenty of explanatory text before we get to the crux:
... the statements that Sandmann challenges constitute protected opinions that may not form the basis for a defamation claim.
That's it. That's really all that matters here. The court goes into some more details to explain this, even though it's barely even necessary. However, as an example:
First, statements 1-3, 10, 13, 16, 17 are not actionable because they do not state or imply "actual, objectively verifiable facts."...
Instead, these statements contain terms such as "ugly," "swarmed," "taunting," "disrespect," "ignored," "aggressive," "physically," and "rambunctious." These are all examples of "loose, figurative," "rhetorical hyperbole" that is protected by the First Amendment because it is not "susceptible of being proved true or false."
This is the crux of basically all defamation law and why this case was going to lose from the beginning.
The above terms are also "inherently subjective," like "dirtiest"... or "squandered" and "broke," ... all of which are "not so definite or precise as to be branded as false."
There's a lot more along those lines, highlighting how you can't just take vaguely negative statements implying something and declare them defamatory. From there, it gets even worse. The judge notes that even if these were negative statements about Sandmann "there is no allegation of special damages," which dooms the case a second time. The court also calls out Sandmann's legal claims as overstating (by a lot) what the Washington Post actually did.
Finally, the article does not state that Sandmann "engaged in racist taunts." The article makes vague reference to teens and other participants "taunting" the "indigenous crowd" and them merely states that "[a] few people . . . began to chant build that wall," a political statement on an issue of public debate and often associated with party affiliation. This is not defamatory.
Even if false, attributing to an individual "membership in a political party in the United States that is a mainstream party and not at odds with the fundamental social order is not defamatory."
And thus, the case is dismissed, with prejudice.
The Court accepts Sandmann's statement that, when he was standing motionless in the confrontation with Phillips, his intent was to calm the situation and not impede or block anyone.
However, Phillips did not see it that way. He concluded that he was being "blocked" and not allowed to "retreat." He passed these conclusions on to the Post. They may have been erroneous, but, as discussed above, they are opinion protected by the First Amendment. And the Post is not liabile for publishing these opinions, for the reasons discussed in this Opinion.
We see so many of these lawsuits these days, where people insist that saying something that you don't like is somehow defamatory. That's not how it works. Of course, it would have been nice if Kentucky had an anti-SLAPP law (it has none) or if there were a federal anti-SLAPP law (there is not) to discourage this kind of frivolous, free speech chilling, lawsuit.
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: 1st amendment, convington catholic high school, defamation, free speech, nick sandmann, reporting
Companies: washington post
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Is this a premature decision?
My argument here is poached from Viva Frie, who does a much better job of explaining the potential issues with this dismissal. The main crux of the argument is that when there's a dismissal, there's no evidence. Dismissals are based solely on agreed upon facts of the case. This dismissal, however, appears to be based on what should have been admitted as evidence.
The decision seems to hinge on evidence that had not yet been adduced. For example, as you note above, the court cites how Phillips felt during the incident, but it's not like the court is basing that on any sort of testimony given by Phillips. The court also seems to be overextending its dismissal of the language that's used; I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the court might be able to determine whether someone is being "swarmed" by a crowd, just as the court seems to be perfectly fine with accepting that Phillips felt like he was "blocked" by Sandmann. Likewise I don't think it's necessarily outside the realm of possibility that a court could come up with reasonable thresholds for what might constitute "taunting" or "aggressive." Or maybe the judge is right and the court can't figure that out. To be fair, I do agree that these are terms that are not easily defined and are therefore matters of opinion, but the point is that determination ought to have made in court after reviewing the evidence.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Between lawyer fees and the cost of the PR firm Sandmann's parents hired, I'd say justice has been served.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was DISGUSTING what these Leftist so-called News channels did. Cutting the clip to fit their narrative. It wasn't news. It was attacking a kid that did nothing wrong. I know they filed a number of cases, this is just one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Themes some sour ass grapes hamilton. Has any case you’ve ever supported not gone down like your mom in Richard Brandon’s convertible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The suit was dismissed - with prejudice. So any further suits would be frowned upon. (They could file a completely different suit, but the new judge will look at this case.)
The article includes quotes from people who were actually on the scene who backed up the article. So the coverage wasn't as biased as you are making it out.
Of course the kids were bused in to slut-shame pregnant women so we know their motives were pure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they’re all as bad as this one, they’ll all fail like this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I’m with ya hamilton no iceberg is big enough!!!
Oh I hoped they filed a bunch and the donations run out and actually have to suffer financial consequences for their actions as social shaming haven’t seemed to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was DISGUSTING what these Leftist so-called News channels did.
Perhaps you can go on twitter and whine with the "president" about it. I mean, that's all you guys do, right? Whine? You don't do anything, but you've sure got the whining down pat.
Poor, poor, over privileged white kids. When will they ever catch a break?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That’s not true.
Some of them shoot up concerts, theaters, schools, and churches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And garlic festivals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Apparently the Gilroy shooter did seem obsessed with racial superiority, and posted a link to a white power book just before the shooting. :(
But throwing milkshakes - that is the work of a real terrorist group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which was mass shooting 246 according to the BBC report, but their reference site Gun Violence Archive has already bumped the counter to 247.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fixed that for the author.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You really want to see the snowflakes melt, ask them to back up el Cheetos lies. A little fact checking and they lose their shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this a premature decision?
My argument here is poached from Viva Frie, who does a much better job of explaining the potential issues with this dismissal. The main crux of the argument is that when there's a dismissal, there's no evidence. Dismissals are based solely on agreed upon facts of the case. This dismissal, however, appears to be based on what should have been admitted as evidence.
The decision seems to hinge on evidence that had not yet been adduced. For example, as you note above, the court cites how Phillips felt during the incident, but it's not like the court is basing that on any sort of testimony given by Phillips. The court also seems to be overextending its dismissal of the language that's used; I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the court might be able to determine whether someone is being "swarmed" by a crowd, just as the court seems to be perfectly fine with accepting that Phillips felt like he was "blocked" by Sandmann. Likewise I don't think it's necessarily outside the realm of possibility that a court could come up with reasonable thresholds for what might constitute "taunting" or "aggressive." Or maybe the judge is right and the court can't figure that out. To be fair, I do agree that these are terms that are not easily defined and are therefore matters of opinion, but the point is that determination ought to have made in court after reviewing the evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this a premature decision?
The evidence was adduced in the Post article itself. Phillips stated what he felt at that time, and it's not within the court's purview to say he didn't really feel that way. Whether his feelings were reasonable might be something the court could rule on, but for defamation that's irrelevant. If your feeling is completely irrational and unreasonable you're still entitled to say you felt that way and your statement of how you felt can't be defamatory to the other party.
Note that saying how you felt is something different from falsely saying the other party did some specific thing to make you feel that way, but Sandmann couldn't point to anything Phillips said he did that he didn't clearly do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this a premature decision?
Very well put.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this a premature decision?
Or no accusation of anything illegal.
If I sue you for putting a funny hat on your dog, my suit is going to be dismissed. Even if I have 100% ironclad proof that you put a funny hat on your dog. Because putting funny hats on dogs is not actually illegal. The evidence doesn't matter if the thing I am accusing you of is not illegal. I can refer to putting a funny hat on your dog as "arson" if I want, but that's not the legal definition of arson.
Similarly, if I were to say "Nick Sandmann is a big stupid doodoo head," and Nick Sandmann were to sue me for defamation, that suit would be dismissed. Because even if I did say that about him, calling someone a big stupid doodoo head is not defamatory.
Which is more or less what happened here. The judge determined that even if 100% of the accusations in the lawsuit were 100% true, none of them broke any laws.
There's no need to make any determinations about evidence if the plaintiff is accusing the defendant of doing things that are legal. The judge doesn't need to go to trial and put my photos of you putting a funny hat on your dog before a jury, so they can evaluate whether or not you really put that funny hat on your dog, thereby committing arson. The judge can just say "that's not what 'arson' means" and dismiss the case. At that point, whether or not I can prove you put a funny hat on your dog is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this a premature decision?
The main crux of the argument is that when there's a dismissal, there's no evidence. Dismissals are based solely on agreed upon facts of the case. This dismissal, however, appears to be based on what should have been admitted as evidence.
I can't believe I just sat down and watched that entire video. I've never heard of that guy and have no idea his experience in defamation cases, but his analysis seems very, very flawed. His description seems to confuse some of the basics of civil procedure in such cases, focusing on the standards in a motion to dismiss and arguing that the case should have moved further on.
But, as the judge correctly noted, even assuming that everything in the original claims are accurate, there still is not enough to state a claim of defamation, and that's why it's entirely proper to dismiss at this stage.
The analysis by that lawyer feels a lot more like wishful thinking from someone who wanted the case to at least go further into the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this a premature decision?
Oh dear God.
A quick search for "Viva Frei" pulls up the following results:
Mueller's Press Conference Raises SERIOUS Questions
Why Twitter is Poking the Legal Bear
Is YouTube a PLATFORM or a PUBLISHER? A Lawyer Breaks It All Down.
Cham-pain! Father finds the most middle class way to remove his daughter’s friend's tooth – by using the cork from a bottle of fizz ("He has previously videoed tooth pull videos using a drone and a squirrel")
And while he does appear to be a lawyer, his practice is in Montreal.
Not to say that there aren't Canadians who are well-versed in US law, but...this man does not appear to be one of them.
I don't have a lot of faith in his credentials as a dentist, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this a premature decision?
He sounds like a lawyer joke somehow got it’s wish to become a real attorney at law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this a premature decision?
LOL.
Now I watched his "Is YouTube a platform or a publisher" video and whooo boy. He should get a refund on his legal degree. He jumps back and forth between CDA 230 and DMCA 512, which is fine on its own, but he does it in a misleading way. Because you can lose DMCA 512 protections, he acts as if there are similar conditions under which you can "lose" CDA 230 protections, but that's not how it works.
He also COMPLETELY ignores (c)(2) of CDA 230 which is the part where sites are encouraged to moderate content and are told that they will not be held liable for doing so -- and instead pretends that doing moderation somehow puts them at risk of losing 230 immunity, which is literally the opposite of what the law says.
Yikes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this a premature decision?
...Holy shit you guys, I think we found John Smith!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Viva Frie CDA 230 position
Yeah, I've been pretty critical in his comments section of his CDA 230 stuff. I think he gets it completely wrong.
In fairness to him, he seems to offer somewhat of a conceit in a later video where he acknowledges that the point of CDA 230 is to encourage moderation, but then he doubles down on his argument that CDA 230 immunity can be revoked. He cites case law, but when I looked into it, it seemed pretty weak.
Source
Frie seems to attempt to argue that Magedson's editorialization of comments left on the site constitute a form of moderation, and therefore certain forms of moderation can lead to the courts revoking CDA 230 immunity. I remain unconvinced of his argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Viva Frie CDA 230 position
"...he seems to offer somewhat of a conceit..." -- oops, I meant "concession." I'll pretend it was autocorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Viva Frie CDA 230 position
Frie seems to attempt to argue that Magedson's editorialization of comments left on the site constitute a form of moderation, and therefore certain forms of moderation can lead to the courts revoking CDA 230 immunity. I remain unconvinced of his argument.
Yeah, unless the moderator is writing those defamatory messages, I don't see that one working out, as while 230 protects against content posted by a third party it doesn't shield a site/moderator from content that they create or are significantly involved in creating themselves.
However that still wouldn't be 'revocation' of 230 protections, it would instead be dealing with content that 230 simply doesn't cover and therefore wasn't protected by from the start. You can't 'revoke' a protection that wasn't there to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this a premature decision?
Thanks for the clarification, and thanks to everyone else. As a non-lawyer, I don't always recognize the weaknesses in legal arguments. But that's also why I tried to frame my comment as more inquisitive than conclusive.
I think some of you guys are being a little too hard on the guy, though. I don't think it's fair to suggest that he's a terrible or unqualified lawyer. Yikes. But maybe I'm just biased because I'm a fan of the dude's content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this a premature decision?
I think some of you guys are being a little too hard on the guy, though. I don't think it's fair to suggest that he's a terrible or unqualified lawyer.
Terrible? Not really enough to say either way at this point, though based upon the two comments above it doesn't look too good.
However if he's getting basic things wrong on the subjects he's covering then I'd say it's fair to say he's unqualified to give anything more than 'this is how I think the law should be...' statements regarding those subjects, as good or even accurate legal advice/discussion that is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this a premature decision?
I think it’s less of a “bad lawyer” and more “a Canadian lawyer discussing US law in a way that suggests ignorance of US law”. Since he’s a Canadian lawyer, his ignorance regarding US law is understandable and does not shape my opinion of him as a lawyer. He may be well versed in Canadian law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this a premature decision?
If a lawyer has a side business publicly opining about laws in a country whose laws he does not understand, then he meets my standard for "bad lawyer".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Media
If media actually cared about reputation anymore, things like this wouldn't happen. But shoddy journalism used to drive peoples emotions and further a narrative seems to be par for the course these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Media
Well thankfully you still have InfoWars to tell it to you straight, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Media
At lease infowars didn't spend years trying to sell a fake story about russian collusion, so they are already ahead of MSNPC and CNN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Media
You... They... What? Everything Infowars peddles is false. Everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Media
Selling snake oil male virility pills to paranoid racists and conspiracy theorists is better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
InfoWars did spend a lot of time pushing the notion that Sandy Hook was a “false flag operation” and those who died were mere “crisis actors”. Unlike the Mueller investigation, InfoWars had no proof of their claims being even remotely factual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Have you tried digging up bro?
You really want to go there? Ok we can go there. They did spend years however downplaying the cold hard facts, the many of Donnie’s inner circle were/are in bed literally and figuratively with known Putin operatives. I mean it’s not like several of his people had to recuse themselves or went to jail for lying about working with the Russians. And just remember the whole Fusion GPS thing was originally paid for by GOP operatives and Mueller is a lifelong republican. So apparently “fake” means facts that you don’t. Shit you’re probably dumb enough to still buy into all that birther garbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quoting at length from The Weekly Sift:
From the beginning of the Trump/Russia investigation, I’ve had two questions about the Trump campaign and Trump transition team:
Those two questions have formed my standard of judgment ever since: If I ever felt like I could confidently answer them, I would believe we had gotten to the bottom of things.
I don’t think we have good answers to those questions even now.
I can imagine a relatively innocent answer for the first one: The Russians were trying to infiltrate the campaign, so they repeatedly contacted Trump’s people. But that answer just makes the second question more difficult, because then Trump’s people could have given perfectly innocent answers, like: “I wondered about that at the time. It seemed so weird that these Russians kept wanting to talk to me.” It would have been so easy to say: “Yeah, I talked to the guy, but I never figured out exactly what he wanted. I had a bad feeling about it, though, so I didn’t see him again.” Instead, they either made false denials, manufactured false cover stories, or developed a convenient amnesia around all things Russian.
Why? Innocent people don’t act that way.
Trump and his defenders have not offered an answer of any kind about the lying, and instead have done everything possible to distract us the question. All the wild conspiracy theories about the Steele dossier, the “angry Democrats” in Mueller’s office, Mueller’s supposed “conflicts”, the “witch hunt”, and so forth — it all has nothing to do with the two basic questions: Why meet with so many Russians? Why lie about it?
We still don’t know.
[…] One reason we don’t know more about those questions is that President Trump obstructed the investigation. This is pretty clear if you read the Mueller report: Volume 2 examines ten instances that might be obstruction, and finds all three elements of the definition of obstruction in seven of them.
(Source)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On second thought maybe you should stick to the birther crap
Wait, so what you are saying is if the media cared about it’s reputation this dipshit wouldn’t have been forced to destroy what’s left of his reputation by filing an utterly doomed lawsuit, because of reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leftist article
As usual techdirt takes the defense of a leftish Jimmy Carter appointed judge then admitting the truth. This is why the right as to go to the source and start dealing with reporters like some of the garbage that lying techdirt writes. Anti police, anti family, anti gun, that is leftdirt. Silicon Valley funded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Washington Post did go to the source, though — the source being Nathan Phillips, who described to WaPo how he felt that day during the standoff with Nick Sandmann. Everything Phillips said to WaPo was his opinion of what happened, not WaPo’s. WaPo can’t be considered “guilty” of defamation if it didn’t defame anyone, and Phillips’s statements were protected opinion that WaPo reprinted and attributed to him.
Whether you agree with Phillips or side with Sandmann is irrelevant to the matter. The court ruled, correctly, that WaPo didn’t print a goddamn thing that could count as defamatory in this case. If you can explain how any part of the court’s ruling that could (or should) be overturned on appeal, I would sure as shit love to see you pull off that magic trick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stephen I think he said "Go to the source" of the news and deal with them like garbage - not the source of the complaint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In this particular case, I’d have to assume they meant both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Leftist article
This is why the right as to go to the source and start dealing with reporters like some of the garbage
Yes, we understand that Putin is in bed with Trump, who wants to jail/kill his critics like Putin does. No bad news if there is no news, right?
Why do Trumnpers get their diapers in such a bunch so badly that they have to start threatening free speech the moment someone starts fact-checking?
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blueballs is sore
Thems grapes is almost as bitter as Hamilton’s. You got anything but whining there bro? No didn’t think so. Now piss off, the adults are talking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Leftist article
As usual, trolls will come trolling and can't refute the facts of the article but come in and pull some stupid political team argument instead and insist that the Judge is wrong as he was appointed by somebody on the wrong team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They could at least come up with new school-yard insults...
When the law is on your side, pound on the law.
When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.
When neither the law or the facts are on your side, make childish, tribalistic accusations/insults and hope that that distracts from how you've got no credible counter-argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It belongs in a museum
Is that an honest to goodness whataboutCarter in the wild?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please
Infowars reported on NSA spying way before techdirt did which is why people heard of infowars but NEVER HEARD OF TECHDIRT. TECHDIRT IS LEFTIST TECH TALK. SILICON VALLEY IS AN ADMITTED TECH INDUSTRY AND TECHDIRT IS A SPONSERED SILICON VALLEY LEFT WING WEBPAGE. THAT IS THE FACTS. TECHDIRT LIES, JUST ASK RON WYDEN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why don’t you go back with “those” people
Sir, I’m sorry but I’m going to have to ask you not to use the CAPS LOCK key as we can’t understand what you are trying to say. Perhaps you would be better off back at infowars as you don’t seem to have the social skills we require of below average twelve year old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please
"SILICON VALLEY IS AN ADMITTED TECH INDUSTRY"
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please
SILICON VALLEY IS AN ADMITTED TECH INDUSTRY
You don't say? What are you gonna tell us next?
It's in California?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As far as I'm aware they didn't, actually. I'm not able to find any stories from them on it before the Snowden leaks.
And even if they did, it wouldn't have been because they had actual evidence of that or actually thought it was really going on. They just made it up out of thin air because it made for a good conspiracy theory story, which is what the entire site is about.
If you make up enough crap, eventually something will resemble something in real life.
Lots of people have heard of TD. More people have heard of Alex Jones and Infowars because he's a nut-job, con man whose only claim to fame is peddling conspiracy theories; outrageously priced questionable health supplements; screaming "they're making the frogs gay!"; and because he got national attention after he claimed that the Sandyhook shootings were faked, claimed no children actually died, accused all the grief stricken parents of being government paid actors and incited many of his followers to subsequently threaten the lives of the grieving families.
Seriously, there is not one honest bone in the guy's entire body. The sad thing is, he's been running such a long con, he's gone native and has started to believe the crap himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please
I should mention after CISPA passed to protect cyber security TECHDIRT CRIED HOW YOU GOING TO BE ARRRESTED AND IT WOULD WRECK THE INTERNET..... WHAN NOTHING HAPPENED BECAUSE CREDO MOBILE AND OTHER LEFT WING RADICAL SILICON VALLEY GROUPS PAID THEM TO LIE. FACTS ARE FACTS. NAME ONE NEWS STORY OF SOMEONE INNOCENT BEING TARGATED BECAUSE OF CISPA. NEVER HAPPPENED, JUST MORE LEFT WING UNRESPONSIBLE NEWS BY THIS LEFT WING NEWS SITE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who paid you to write this crap? I want to tell them that they’re not getting their money’s worth out of the deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please
When did this happen? When did CISPA pass?
That's right, it didn't. It got shot down a half-dozen times, and then finally died an ignoble death.
So while you're right that no one is ever going to find one news story of someone innocent being "TARGATED" because of CISPA, it's because CISPA doesn't actually exist as a law that can be enforced.
Also, I suggest you take your keyboard back to the manufacturer: it looks like one or both of your Shift keys is broken (or perhaps your Caps Lock). It's putting your whole post into caps and making you look like a deranged conspiracy theorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: UNRESPONSIBLE is not an actual word.
Sir I’m going to have to stop you again. You’ve been warned about CAPS LOCK. But also in this case I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to look up the meaning of the word citation and write a new post (sans caps, sans means without) about how the use of such, would substantially (that means a whole lot) increase the readability of your posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please
I should mention after CISPA passed
CISPA didn't pass. You shouldn't have mentioned it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Always good to have a reminder that just because there's a lawsuit, doesn't mean there's merit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Important Thing Is
America still got to see what unethical pieces of shit Amazon's Blog (formerly the Washington Post) are. That's what's really important. We saw wapo misrespresent and attack a kid and make themselves look like the racist, race-baiting shitrag they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that makes them any different from our current sitting president…how, exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Important Thing Is
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Important Thing Is
Let's see, who's more trustworthy?
An independent entity with investigative reporters and in-house fact checkers, that stands to lose much if they were to ever publish a falsehood, and thus take great pains to achieve truthfulness amd accuracy (as we saw with Projecting Falsitas's failed sting attempt)...
Or the dime-a-dozen liar-for-hire propaganda laundering bloggers Zof favors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Important Thing Is
The Important Thing Is
...you guys got more stuff to whine, complain, and do nothing about!
Impotence abound from the president on down! And I'm right here to laugh at you and wash my balls with your conservative tears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Important Thing Is
Why you still here bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Important Thing Is
Because false propaganda doesn't spread itself, apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's more important than upholding the right to freedom of speech? Get your priorities straight.
When did this happen? They reported the facts as well as opinions of some people who were present. They didn't attack anyone and as far as I know and it was the right-wing outlets that made it up into an "attack" on the kid.
Weren't you leaving and never coming back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sadly, the fact that 30% of Americans are willing to vote for authoritarianism, regardless of the damage it causes, makes me think that finding enough reasonable jurors to secure such a judgement might not be possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The GOP isn’t at odds with the fundamental social order. If it was, it wouldn’t have control of nearly every branch of the federal government — or be in a position to have such control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This was never about the lawsuit
This was never about the lawsuit and I suspect everyone involved knew they never stood a chance.
This suit was all about getting the lawyer's and plaintiff's foot in the door of the far-right outrage machine. They are going to make plenty of money with speaking fees and appearance fees detailing how they were "Denied Justice!" and railing against "the Deep State(tm)" and "Liberal Media(tm)".
This was never about the Washington Post and was always about milking the poor dupes on the right who will eat this up as proof of their twisted world view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
8 Covington Catholic Teens Sue ‘Most Egregious High-Profile Individuals’ for Defamation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Re: Is this a premature decision?
Or no accusation of anything illegal.
If I sue you for putting a funny hat on your dog, my suit is going to be dismissed. Even if I have 100% ironclad proof that you put a funny hat on your dog. Because putting funny hats on dogs is not actually illegal. The evidence doesn't matter if the thing I am accusing you of is not illegal. I can refer to putting a funny hat on your dog as "arson" if I want, but that's not the legal definition of arson.
Similarly, if I were to say "Nick Sandmann is a big stupid doodoo head," and Nick Sandmann were to sue me for defamation, that suit would be dismissed. Because even if I did say that about him, calling someone a big stupid doodoo head is not defamatory.
Which is more or less what happened here. The judge determined that even if 100% of the accusations in the lawsuit were 100% true, none of them broke any laws.
There's no need to make any determinations about evidence if the plaintiff is accusing the defendant of doing things that are legal. The judge doesn't need to go to trial and put my photos of you putting a funny hat on your dog before a jury, so they can evaluate whether or not you really put that funny hat on your dog, thereby committing arson. The judge can just say "that's not what 'arson' means" and dismiss the case. At that point, whether or not I can prove you put a funny hat on your dog is irrelevant.