The Rorshach Test Of The Covington Catholic Boy's DC Encounter Now Extends To Bogus Lawsuits And Confidential Settlements
from the everyone-sees-what-they-want-to-see dept
Buckle up folks, because this story takes a few twists and turns, and some of them may make you angry -- though I hope people will hold back their kneejerk reactions, because that kind of thing is what created this mess in the first place.
As you probably recall, a year ago, there was a whole viral media shitstorm regarding an encounter in Washington DC between some kids from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky, Native American activist Nathan Phillips, and a bunch of other people, including members of a group known as the Black Israelites, who appeared to be egging everyone on. A first video that made the viral rounds on Twitter just showed the encounter between CCH student Nick Sandmann, clad in a red MAGA hat, and staring down Phillips who was banging a drum. Later videos added in more context, including the Black Israelites and their role in the whole thing. One of the points a few people raised is that your interpretation of the whole thing is very much a Rorschach test for what you already believe. You can reasonably argue that people completely misrepresented the encounter and you can reasonably argue that they did not.
It is a subjective issue. You see it through your own context and experiences, and it comes down to each and everyone's opinion. I'd personally argue that there was a little bit of truth in nearly all of the viewpoints, and not having the entire context is not akin to false statements, but rather simply not having the full picture. As more context was added, many people changed their views, and that's cool too.
But given that these are subjective opinions, the idea that one might sue over them is simply batshit insane. And yet, people rushed to sue. In particular, we highlighted how the CCH student at the center of all of this sued the Washington Post, and later both NBC and CNN, for their coverage. Sandmann was represented by L. Lin Wood and Todd McMurtry. (For what it's worth, Wood recently lost that high profile defamation case against Elon Musk on behalf of cave diver Vern Unsworth). We found little in the lawsuits to be compelling, and were not at all surprised when a judge tossed out the one against the Washington Post, noting that everything they published was protected by the 1st Amendment. However, that case has been reinstated on fairly narrow grounds, following an amended complaint that targets some very specific language used by the Post. I'd still be surprised if he won, but the more narrow claims do at least have slightly more validity to them, especially if the court agrees that Sandmann is not a public figure (which would lower the bar for a defamation claim).
Earlier this week, news broke that CNN and Sandmann had agreed to settle that complaint -- and once again we had a bit of a Rorschach test. The terms of the settlement appear to be totally confidential, which is disappointing, but not at all uncommon. It is, in fact, possible that no money exchanged hands at all. However, many people who support Sandmann are insisting that this is vindication for him, even if that's not at all clear. Some are even saying that CNN must have paid "in the millions." Again, no information on the settlement is public, and to say that this was vindication or to speculate on any settlement amount seems ridiculous -- especially given that the entire thrust of the lawsuit was about news media commenting on issues without knowing the full details or context of the story.
But the story then got even stranger. Because on Wednesday, PJ Media had a headline trumpeting that author Reza Aslan would "face the music" for tweeting that Sandmann had "a punchable face." Already that should have raised alarm bells, because there is literally nothing at all defamatory in saying someone has "a punchable face." PJ Media -- who at times pretends to support free speech -- acted as though this was a legitimate lawsuit. Of course, tellingly, even though they said they had a copy of the complaint, reporter Tyler O'Neil did not link to or publish the lawsuit. Perhaps because it's utter and complete garbage. You can read it here.
It was actually filed last August. And here's where we'll go back a bit. Right after the original Sandmann incident, we had noted that infamously silly lawyer Robert Barnes, who has filed multiple trollish lawsuits that have flopped spectacularly, announced that he would represent any of the Covington kids pro bono in filing lawsuits.
Yet, you will note that Sandmann's lawsuits were not filed with Barnes as his lawyer, but Lin Wood and Todd McMurtry. However, the lawsuit that PJ Media was trumpeting, about a comment on Sandmann, was filed by Barnes. So this lead to some head scratching. Had Sandmann retained both lawyers for different cases? The answer is no. Barnes simply filed lawsuits on behalf of the Covington kids as John Does.
It's not even clear that any of the Covington kids are actual clients of his. They may be, but the filing doesn't confirm that this is actually true. And the key Covington kid, Sandmann, has made it absolutely clear that he is not a Barnes' client, and that this lawsuit is obviously bullshit -- because with regards to Aslan's statement, it only references Sandmann (and his allegedly "punchable face") rather than any of the other Covington kids:
If you're unable to see that image, it's Sandmann asking Barnes on Twitter:
... would you like to explain why you’re suing for me without my permission? You’ve blocked my lawyers on twitter and now claim you’re suing over the Reza Aslan tweet? Retract and stop lying to the public.
Yes. Barnes can claim all he wants that he’s filed it on behalf of the covington kids but we both know that isn’t true. Reza’s tweet references only one kid, and i take up a majority of the picture. The article he even linked (now deleted) stated this.
It clearly states it’s about me in the title!
And we're not done with the strangeness yet. The lawsuit itself was filed last August. So why was it making news now? Because Aslan just deleted that tweet. Why did he just delete that tweet now, a year later? Because Barnes only just now served Aslan:
It's unclear why Aslan even bothered to delete the tweet, other than perhaps a kneejerk reaction upon being served. There's nothing defamatory at all in what he said. The lawsuit itself is ridiculous. Beyond Aslan, there are a bunch of other plaintiffs who merely stated various opinions about Sandmann (mostly, rather than the supposed "John Does"). Aslan's co-defendants include Elizabeth Warren, who tweeted "Omaha elder and Vietnam War veteran Nathan Phillips endured hateful taunts with dignity and strength, then urged us all to do better." What's defamatory about that? Barnes' suit claims that she "omitted the true facts." But that's not how defamation works. Other defendants include NY Times reporter Maggie Haberman, ABC News commentator Matthew Dowd, Mother Jones Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery, historian Kevin Kruse and more. None of what any of them said was defamatory.
And, again, the entire lawsuit is completely laughable, and it's not even clear who Barnes' clients really are. Yet, when PJ Media (and Barnes) framed it in a way that suggested to people that the lawsuit against Aslan (who supposedly is going to "face the music") was on behalf of Sandmann, the Rorschach test continued, with tons and tons of Sandmann's supporters cheering on a nonsense lawsuit. Indeed, some of the commentators even appear to believe that the CNN settlement was done by Barnes:
It goes on like that for a lot longer, but you get the idea. Notice that basically all of them are doing exactly what Barnes and Sandmann/Wood/McMurtry are suing over: commenting enthusiastically about a story where they only know a small piece of the details, and possibly have the large crux of the situation wrong. Particularly silly is that many of those commenters egging on a completely bogus attack on free speech pretend to be "free speech supporters."
And, of course, then Sandmann's actual lawyer Lin Wood had to go on Twitter and demand that Barnes cease and "correct his prior false statements." It includes what appears to be a threat to take legal action:
Again, here's the text if you can't view the screenshot:
Nicholas Sandmann has many legitimate defamation cases remaining for resolution through litigation. @ToddMcMurtry & I prefer to focus on those matters & not be forced to take legal action against another lawyer but Robert E. Barnes crosses line with his claims about Nicholas.
Barnes has been previously warned to stop publicly suggesting or stating that he represents Nicholas. In response, Barnes “blocked” @ToddMcMurtry & me on Twitter. Barnes apparently cannot control his desire to garner publicity by falsely using Nicholas’ name.
For those who can access @Barnes_Law & support his legal efforts for others, please remind him that he cannot “block” a formal demand letter, a civil complaint, or an ethics complaint. I hope he finally gets the message.
If Barnes does not cease publishing & then correct his prior false statements, Nicholas’ attorneys are fully prepared to take legal action against him. So Barnes can take the easy way out or he will get out the hard way - we will sue him. His choice.
Later, Wood (hilariously) claimed that Barnes is "on the right side of CovCath issue." Which, uh, no.
But, once again, this is all a form of a Rorschach test, and everyone seems to view the story through their own particular prism -- as did all of the initial commenters that Wood/Sandmann/Barnes/whoever are suing. And that's why all of those lawsuits are such bullshit. People reacting to news is not defamation. People not having the full context is not defamation. People expressing their opinion, or explaining how they view things, is not defamation. And the people who have responded to all of the news this week are doing exactly the same thing they seem to think others should be sued over.
So, maybe, just maybe, the best thing here would be stop filing so many bullshit defamation lawsuits, and recognize that free speech sometimes includes speech we don't like, and that includes people not fully understanding the context. But, of course, that's not going to happen. Indeed, Sandmann's other lawyer, Todd McMurtry has instead promised to get back to suing more people:
Sigh.
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, cch, covington catholic high school, defamation, elizabeth warren, free speech, l. lin wood, lin wood, nathan phillips, nick sandmann, opinions, resa aslan, robert barnes, rorschach test, todd mcmurtry
Companies: cnn, nbc, washington post
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Lovely standards there
Argue that 'they have a punchable face' is worthy of a lawsuit, while dishonestly using the 'victim' of that as a prop for attention, despite them and their actual lawyer telling them to stop. The only thing sadder than that pathetic play for attention is that it apparently worked on a good number of gullible people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lovely standards there
And of course the fact that Reza Aslan apaarently suffers from a total lack of self awareness - given his face looks almost but not quite as punchable as Ajit Pai's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lovely standards there
Of course, Shkreli wins the prize for the most punchable face of all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lovely standards there
...what do you look like, anyways?
All I could find online was a big boob, with your name on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lovely standards there
Well, I have no idea whatsoever what you’re talking about, and it’s really none of your business.
Was that supposed to be an insult or something? Because if so, it’s a pathetic one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the "punchable face" statement that's the issue
From what I understand, what Robert Barnes filed doesn't claim that "punchable face" is defamatory. Rather, it claims that the tweet which contained "punchable face" also was a retweet of a news article about the Covington Catholic High School encounter, and retweeting a news article implies that everything in that news article is true, and thus Reza Aslan is liable for defamation for all the statements in the news article. Which is as least as absurd, if not more, than saying that "punchable face" is defamatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the "punchable face" statement that's the issue
So, it's up to the reader of an article to make sure it's 100% factual before passing it on to others? That should be the responsibility of the writer, shouldn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not the "punchable face" statement that's the issue
You would think so. But even here on TD the regulars here in the comments section twist the opposite direction when it's on a topic with which they disagree. It seems this is just human nature, as mentioned in the article above:
We are (almost) all afflicted by this, not just the nutjobs on the fringes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not the "punchable face" statement that's the
"it's up to the reader of an article to make sure it's 100% factual"
Why would you think that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that I fundamentally disagree with your comment, but if you’re going to argue against someone’s point, argue against their actual point instead of a strawman you made via otherwording.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the "punchable face" statement that's the issue
Oops, that wasn't quite correct. Reza Aslan retweeted a new article separately from the "punchable face" tweet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the desk of Robert Barnes, ESQ.
" ...stop filing so many bullshit defamation lawsuits..."
Ya'll calling my filing bullshit? Such defamation will not be tolerated! I shall see you in court, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confusing at first...
When I first read through this, I thought that the lawsuit was because Barnes holds copyright on the phrase "punchable face". I see now that this is somehow not the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confusing at first...
yeah, it takes a very close read of the article to decipher the main point.
Apparently there are three points:
(no mention of libel/slander/defamation laws themselves or why they should/shouldn't exist in present form and process)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Confusing at first...
*fewer defamation lawsuits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Confusing at first...
This is true of every event everywhere that ever happened or will happen. The moment you apply a description to the event you introduce your bias, and we all have bias. Descriptions and summaries are, by nature, subjective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Confusing at first...
...so we all dwell in a mystical world with no objective reality that can be observed and reported?
this silly subjective-opinion notion here was injected to excuse the blatant bias of the media reporting on the Sandmann event.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Confusing at first...
…what? No, no it is not. Reasonable people can disagree on how reasonable the original articles were based on information available at the time. Thus, there’s subjectivity involved. And opinions are protected by the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Confusing at first...
"Reasonable people can disagree on how reasonable..."
No, reasonable people analyze the causes of any disagreement and seek the truth.
'Reason' means logical, rational, factual and analytic thought.
claiming that heavily biased subjective opinion is reasonable ... is transparent nonsense.
invoking the 1st Amendment to excuse false news reporting is also transparent nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reporting on the situation involving the Covington students was incomplete, not “false”. Reporters did what they do when a breaking news story hits their desk: They wrote about the facts they had at the time. When more facts came to light, journalists reported those facts as well. Being right is more important than being first, but someone’s still gotta be first.
If you can point to a single part of the reporting from either CNN or WaPo that was a 100% factually false statement based on a complete set of facts and not a statement of opinion or statements made with an incomplete set of facts, do it. If you can’t, don’t call it “false reporting”. Call it “sharing an opinion” or “incomplete reporting” instead.
And yes, the First Amendment protects opinions and incomplete reporting. That’s more than I can say for you, apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The initial reporting on the situation involving the Covington students was absolutely false.
The media's lmmediate, collective condemnation of Sandmann and his classmates was overwhelming, based merely upon a brief cherry picked video snippet/photo and a totally false narrative concocted by politicql activist Phillips.
CNN/NBC/Washpost blithely rushed to condemn Sandmann even though the full 2 hour exculpatoryvideo was available, as was the extensive news documentation of Phillips as an extremely unreliable witness.
The media deliberately ignored any serious journalistic look at the available facts.
1st Amendment is a legal restriction on "Government" interference with speech -- not some general protection against criticism for false speech and lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The initial reporting on the situation involving the Covington students was absolutely false.
You have yet to highlight a single provably false statement of fact.
The media's lmmediate, collective condemnation of Sandmann and his classmates was overwhelming, based merely upon a brief cherry picked video snippet/photo and a totally false narrative concocted by politicql activist Phillips.
None of that involves provably false statements of fact. They show, as people said, that the reporting did not have full context. Those are different things. Some of what you complain about is also opinion, not fact.
CNN/NBC/Washpost blithely rushed to condemn Sandmann
Condemnation is opinion. Not fact.
... even though the full 2 hour exculpatoryvideo was available
No, it became available later, and when it did, most publications updated their reporting accordingly.
was the extensive news documentation of Phillips as an extremely unreliable witness.
For what it's worth, you claiming that Phillips was an "unreliable witness" is also condemnation based on limited facts. It's opinion, but if what you claim the news orgs did was defamatory, what you just did would be defamatory as well. See why it's good that neither is defamatory?
The media deliberately ignored any serious journalistic look at the available facts.
There is no evidence to suggest this is true. And, even so, not reporting the entire story is not defamatory. Not reporting the story in the way you want it reported is not defamatory.
1st Amendment is a legal restriction on "Government" interference with speech -- not some general protection against criticism for false speech and lies.
It is a restriction on using the power of the state -- i.e., the courts -- to silence someone or punish them for their speech.
Your understanding of the 1st Amendment is lacking and you should probably stop trying to opine on a subject you are clearly ignorant of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We are indeed fortunate that others, and not you, serve as judges and juries on matters such as this. The former is typically able to accurately articulate the prevailing and controlling law, and the latter are counseled to wait until the conclusion of evidence being presented before forming opinions that will help decide such matters.
From the “get go” this specific matter was reported by the majority of the press based upon their assumptions of patently ambiguous information. Rather than investigating to resolve such ambiguities before reporting, they acted upon their subjective views of ambiguous facts and proceeded to report their impressions of such information to the public at large, which impressions were later shown to be significantly off the mark and untrue. In the process they fed a social media mob that tried and convicted the students for terrible things that never actually happened, as well as disseminating personally identifiable information of at least Nick Sandman that was used by some pathetic individuals in wholly inappropriate ways. Frankly, ever since first learning of this incident I have wondered if it would have even been deemed newsworthy by the national media had the students wearing MAGA hats worn something else that was nondescript? I suspect the answer would be “no”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We are indeed fortunate that others, and not you, serve as judges and juries on matters such as this. The former is typically able to accurately articulate the prevailing and controlling law, and the latter are counseled to wait until the conclusion of evidence being presented before forming opinions that will help decide such matters.
Dude. You were the idiot who insisted the law meant something it absolutely does not. You STILL have not highlighted a single false statement of fact.
From the “get go” this specific matter was reported by the majority of the press based upon their assumptions of patently ambiguous information.
At the time it was not in any way "patently ambiguous." You are rewriting history.
Rather than investigating to resolve such ambiguities before reporting, they acted upon their subjective views of ambiguous facts and proceeded to report their impressions of such information to the public at large, which impressions were later shown to be significantly off the mark and untrue.
An impression is an impression. It is, as the law states, "neither capable of being proven true or false." It is my impression that Elvis was a bad musician. You can disagree. Perhaps it's because I don't have all the info. But it cannot be defamatory because it is an impression based on what I know.
In the process they fed a social media mob that tried and convicted the students for terrible things that never actually happened, as well as disseminating personally identifiable information of at least Nick Sandman that was used by some pathetic individuals in wholly inappropriate ways.
I am still asking you to designate a single false statement of fact. You don't, because you cannot. You do not appreciate the outcome and claim (incorrectly, fwiw) that things were done in wholly inappropriate ways (this ignores, of course, that basically all of the publications in question put out follow up stories that walked back the initial claims once they witnessed the longer videos and that, to date, there has not been a single example presented of any harm done to any of the CCH students, but alas).
Frankly, ever since first learning of this incident I have wondered if it would have even been deemed newsworthy by the national media had the students wearing MAGA hats worn something else that was nondescript? I suspect the answer would be “no”.
You might be right. That makes literally not a single difference in the world regarding whether or not what the news publications did in legal terms. You are free to criticize them. But you are not free to stamp out their right to speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think the main problem here is that you are confusing unethical, sloppy, and/or biased journalism with illegal, defamatory, and/or actionable speech. Even if all the reporting was unethical, sloppy, and/or biased, that doesn’t make it defamatory or otherwise unlawful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is your $64,000 question: How did any of what you describe break any laws, defamation or otherwise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A more fruitful endeavor would be for you to put aside your opinion and look at all the ways that what was done might be problematic for the media. The ability to look at a situation and see all sides is something you should strive to develop, Its easy to jump to a conclusion. Far harder is to consider plausible alternatives that are contradictory, something that in this instance was missing from the majority of media reports.
By way of a trivial example, why did Sandman have a smile on his face? Was it because he was a smug know it all who was being rude to the drummer, or could it have been that as a 17 year old high schooler he wasn’t sure how to react when the drummer came up and began an incomprehensible chant? Perhaps something else? Who knows? The only thing we know for sure is he stood there in silence and the drummer did not. Yet, from this slimmest fact the media concocted a narrative that the kid was rude, condescending, smug, arrogant, etc., etc., setting off what became an internet feeding frenzy having negative consequences for the high school students.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an answer to my question. What, specifically, did the media say or do to break any laws, including defamation laws, that would necessarily require the involvement of a court of law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Try reading at SCRIBD the complaint filed against CNN in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. If you have access to PACER, you might consider reading CNN’s Motion to Dismiss the complaint that was filed in May 2019. I do not know what action has been taken on the motion, but a settlement typically suggests that such a motion is experiencing problems with the court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That’s a whole lot of words to say “I can’t answer your question.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why waste time typing and risking inaccuracies when you can simply refer someone to a source document? Answers to his question are contained in the complaint that kicked off the lawsuit against CNN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do…do you not know how to copy-paste text?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.scribd.com/document/401742248/Nicholas-Sandmann-v-CNN-Complaint-With-Exhibits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m happy to see you acknowledge your ignorance. Your further contributions will be read accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why waste time typing when I can watch Stephen embarrass you for free. A potentially good point bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You still didn’t answer my question. What did the media specifically say or do that broke the law, according to a court of law?
Anything but a direct answer to the question will be considered an explicit acknowledgement of your ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you happen to have any fact-based sources, though?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The charges initially made by armchair lawyers here is that the media did nothing that could be considered defamatory. A logical source to find out some of what the media did would be to review the civil complaint to determine what was considered to be defamatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We can review the civil complaint all you want, but a complaint isn’t a conviction. No court has yet ruled, and may not ever rule, that anything in the complaint rises to the level of defamation. And you have yet to point out any single statement of fact from any specific media outlet that rises to the level of defamation in this case.
Your ignorance is acknowledged and your further contributions will be read accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The complaint attributes numerous specific statements to CNN. Apparently you missed those many statements, or you are being deliberately obtuse for reasons that can only be conjectured.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The problem is those statements are by the plaintiff. It's not an objective (meaning not having any stake in the issue, not some kind of god-like vantage point) source of information. There is no particular reason to think any of those claims are true at this point, because anyone can put anything in a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what? That doesn’t make any of those statements defamation by default. Please stop flaunting your ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A more fruitful endeavor would be for you to put aside your opinion and look at all the ways that what was done might be problematic for the media.
Yes, that would have been fruitful. And, indeed, if you paid attention to what happened in the week after the Sandmann incident you'd know that that's exactly what happened. The "mainstream media" actually had a pretty thorough and extended discussion about jumping to conclusions/framing/context and the like.
But you seem to ignore all that.
Besides the news here is the lawsuit. So that's what we're talking about. And the lawsuit is bullshit.
The ability to look at a situation and see all sides is something you should strive to develop, Its easy to jump to a conclusion.
And yet you refuse to "see all sides" of this story and continue to insist that the defamation claim was valid. You fail the same test you demand of others.
Yet, from this slimmest fact the media concocted a narrative that the kid was rude, condescending, smug, arrogant, etc., etc., setting off what became an internet feeding frenzy having negative consequences for the high school students.
Again, you have done the same thing. You also ignore the follow up from the media that admitted that they were too hasty and the attempts to learn from that.
So, again, you fail your own test.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know Mike already eviscerated you, but I’m always happy to kick a troll while they’re down. 😁
Prove it.
In the specific context of the defamation claims: So what? The media is allowed to express opinions in addition to reporting facts. The condemnations of the Covington students — which Mike correctly notes are opinions — came about because of incomplete reporting. They’re not outright lies that rise to the level of slander.
As for that comment about Phillips: The Covington students were there to attend the pro-life/anti-abortion March for Life rally. In the context of that situation, what does that make those students?
That equals defamation…how, exactly?
And we can thus condemn the media for its mistakes and adjust our views of those outlets accordingly. But…
…what nobody can (or should be able) to do is use the courts as a means of silencing media outlets for saying things somebody doesn’t like. That includes opinions based on an incomplete set of facts.
And besides, you can’t separate bias from journalism. Someone must decide what to publish, what to distill out of the mass of available data, and what facts to check. You can say the people who reported on this situation first did some shoddy reporting because of their biases. I won’t begrudge you that opinion. But you can’t seriously suggest that all biases should be left at the door before a journalist enters the room. Not only is doing so impossible, but even if it were, it would ultimately be the end of Fox News.
You can find media outlets with as little bias as possible. But their biases will still sneak into their reporting. To believe otherwise is to believe a load of bullshit…in which case, I suggest you keep watching Fox News, since that seems like your kind of media outlet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My turn to kick you in the balls
You sound like this guy bro.
https://www.theonion.com/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-consti-1819571149
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Confusing at first...
That’s based on hindsight after all the facts are in.
Reasonable people could disagree on how much information needed to be gathered before reporting as there’s no telling how long it would take before all facts on a situation become available or even if all relevant information and reports can be obtained. When is a good time to publish your first report on a story is highly subjective, as is the amount and kind of research necessary for that initial report.
Furthermore, when the information available is incomplete, which conclusions to draw is also highly subjective. It will largely consist of opinions. (And choosing to wait before drawing any conclusions is not the only reasonable choice.)
Besides, all opinions are based on bias and subjectivity (that’s why their opinions and not facts), yet some opinions are reasonable. “Reasonable” doesn’t necessarily mean “factual”, “analytic”, or “rational”, and it can include elements besides logic.
Finally, reasonableness is not a black-and-white thing. Not only is it subjective, there are many degrees of reasonableness between “unavoidable”, “logical”, “unreasonable”, and “completely ridiculous”. Some things may be more reasonable than others, even if both are reasonable or neither are reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The United States military, under the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, killed Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian Major General in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, via drone strike on the 3rd of January 2020. This is an objective fact.
Whether you consider the killing to be justified/morally righteous, or whether you consider the killing to be a political assassination, is subjective opinion. The biases we bring to the table will always affect how we interpret a given event. You can’t be unbiased, no matter how hard you try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's actually not objective fact that they killed him. It's objective fact that they triggered a series of events that may have contributed to his death, but they didn't, in fact, actually kill him. Since you're such an anal-retentive pedant, I knew you'd appreciate the correction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Confusing at first...
"This is true of every event everywhere that ever happened or will happen."
Because there is an ass in every crowd? Some like to go out of their way just to be a thorn in side of others, some like to watch the world burn. Does that really mean that the rest of us cannot communicate as a result?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At this point news organizations can use shoddy journalism as a defense against irresponsible reporting causing harm to someone. Until the actual truth came out, these kids faced multiple death threats and fear of harm, not to mention just being treated like pariahs. They really didn't ask for any of this. News organizations just really don't care because reputation these days means far less than the narrative that they are trying to push.
So when does this shoddy reporting cross the line? At what point can someone really claim damages for actual harm caused by a news organization just not caring enough to do basic research to verify a story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As soon as you can explain with sane logic why those who actually caused the harm are somehow not the correct ones to go after instead of the news that said things those people are using as a dumb excuse to go out and hurt others over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If person A paints a target on someone, and persons B-Z shoot at the victim specifically because there's a target painted on them, who bears the greatest responsibility for the harm done? Sane logic says it's the painter. With great power (and influence!) comes great responsibility, and when that power is abused, they must be held responsible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
neat scenario but first let's figure out what happens when person A expresses a critical opinion of someone, and persons B-Z also express critical opinions of them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Never mind the media, millions of people do this all the time. The criteria here is credible threats, and has nothing to do with defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"If person A paints a target on someone"
You mean like a political poster where your opponent's face is shown with a rifle scope cross hairs and a message that implies your opponent should be targeted - you mean like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
At best, you described reckless endangerment or speech directly causing or threatening imminent violence. That would not be defamation. Defamation doesn’t follow the same standard as those.
Also, I would still say in that particular scenario, persons B-Z still bear more responsibility because they shouldn’t be firing at anyone just because a target was painted on them. Don’t fire at people unless you’re in the military and are ordered to, in self-defense, or there is no other option. Sure, person A should also bear some responsibility for increasing the risk, but I wouldn’t say it’s the majority of the responsibility. So that’s just a bad example, anyway. Not only is it a poor metaphor for this situation, it doesn’t even prove your point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The person who painted the target bears more responsibility for someone getting shot than the people doing the shooting. And you call that sane?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If I push you in front of a train, does all of the blame go to the train for hitting you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Uh, in this case, the “train” would be the news media, and the person pushing would be the people quoted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“So when does this shoddy reporting cross the line?“
That’s a really good question that you completely failed to answer bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
not that you have ever contributed a rational thought to this site, bro
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Womp Womp bro
At least I’m not the person who spent an entire paragraph trying and failing to answer his own question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They really didn't ask for any of this.
Then they have learned an important lesson about going to public protests while proudly displaying prominent symbols of their exclusionary political beliefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not the fault of those kids that leftist are so violent. Just because one side uses violence to silence speech that they dont agree with and justifying it by equating the people who believe that with Nazis, doesnt make it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
sorry, what violence occurred?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
just look at what happens to people like andy ngo and you will see a pattern that the left shuts down speech that they dont like with violence. So when people receive death threats from these same people, you must take it seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you believe Andy Ngo you aren't qualified as an arbiter of what anyone should take seriously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
its on video. Its obvious that you are so arrogant that you have the same thought process as these types of people: "I don't agree with them, so they deserve what they get from violent people." The arrogance stems from the fact that you can't fathom that you just aren't right. You must equate those who don't share your view of the world with evil. We no longer live in a world where people say "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it". We no longer can have an honest debate, because those on one side don't have reason behind what they believe, only emotion. It is a religion to many, because they have nothing else to believe in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We no longer live in a world where people say "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it"
This entire post is about how you can't sue people just because you disagree with them, because they have a right to say what they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“The arrogance stems from the fact that you can't fathom that you just aren't right.“
You’re sooo close to figuring it out bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes it is obvious to 100% of the readers here that honest views that don’t agree with certain people are not welcome here.
Sad, but obviously true.
Witness the censorship above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Techdirt leftist cowards can only censor dissent.
They have no arguments.
Tyranny is the tool of the intellectually inferior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you somehow miss the arguments made here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're projecting - it's all they have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since you have the option of clicking on a link to show what was said, it really isn't censorship and you are full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Say what you will, some opinions are not welcome, and Techdirt uses it’s disproportionate power to silence dissenting views.
Tyranny, plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, in the same way that when someone's in a store swearing at customers and staff while calling them all sorts of colorful names, a store owner is being a tyrannical dictator when they tell them to leave.
If you want/need it explained to you in nice simple format, take it away xkcd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep whining, dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Spoken like a true leftist.
Thank you for your honesty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It’s like a bad who’s on first routine with you people.
And we now present the award for arguing against not having an argument by not having an argument and instead relying on really bad stereotypes while also acting like a complete stereotype.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It’s like a bad who’s on first routine with you peop
We should probably come up with something shorter when we put it on the award.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It’s like a bad who’s on first routine with you
Most Mendacious Hypocrite of the Year?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's easy to mimic assclowns like you, didn't you know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, when did Techdirt gain the power to stop you from saying shit on Twitter or Facebook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s not clear to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That echoing boom you just heard was the point achieving Mach speed over your head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can disagree with/mock someone’s opinions and still defend their right to express those opinions. This isn’t a zero sum situation.
Also:
You mean like American Christians who think government neutrality towards all religions is an attack on Christianity? Or conservatives who use anti-LGBT rhetoric like “cis people will try to say ‘I’m trans’ to get into bathrooms and rape people” without a shred of evidence to back it up?
Your comment reeks of someone who wants to whine about liberals and “SJWs” and “politically correct snowflakes”. Just remember: Your “side” isn’t walking on water any better than my “side”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…wait, are you talking about the groups associated with the hateful bastard that rammed a car into a crowd of people counterprotesting those groups and killed Heather Heyer as a result?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why do you assume everyone's experience includes choosing to be on a side? How many sides are there? More than two? Who's side are you on? Why? Did your side do something good for you? Did the other side do something bad to you? Which side is winning? I like both sides: mashed potatoes and stuffing. Gotta pick a team, I suppose... or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Americans are on my side. Real Americans.
Nancy polosi should be droned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Dear Leader,
Please explain to all Americans just exactly how they should be acting in order to meet your stringent requirements of what it is ti be an American.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
#BeBest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your centrist bullshit only makes me want to vote for Bernie Sanders even more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How dare thou like mashed potatoes and stuffing?! Mashed potatoes are the only proper warm mushy food to consume! Stuffing is the food of the devil, and we refuse to associate with any like thee who choose to consume it! Taketh thy blasphemy and depart from here posthaste!
/s because Poe’s law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are all mad. You should pray for whirled peas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Name one political party in the US that doesn't preach exclusionary political beliefs. One party in the whole wide world, even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"exclusionary political beliefs"
What does this mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The GOP built anti-LGBT positions into its overall platform. That generally excludes LGBT people.
The DNC built pro-LGBT positions into its overall platform. That generally excludes those who hate LGBT people.
The platform of a political party will always have parts that exclude people — or at least make people who disagree with those parts feel excluded. To believe otherwise is to believe a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ok, I see. The exclusive political activities are driven by their political beliefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They are high school students, so proclaiming they were displaying exclusionary beliefs seems like it is you who is projecting your views on to others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They are high school students, so proclaiming they were displaying exclusionary beliefs seems like it is you who is projecting your views on to others.
A MAGA hat is a MAGA hat, buddy. Unless his mom is still picking out his outfits, he put it on knowing exactly what it means and what it announces to other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep commenting like you are and even diehard TD fans will see you for the bias you harbor.
These are teenagers from KY on a field trip to the big city. I rather doubt they gave any thought to the hats that obviously set you off (why is anybody’s guess given you do not even live in the US) other than their value as souvenirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is the bias you're referring to the fact that I don't like Trump, and don't think very highly of his supporters? Yeah, I'm not trying to hide that. I hereby declare said bias, and invite readers to interpret my views accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right, Leigh.
Any kid who puts that hat on knows exactly what it means and what it says to others about you and about how you feel about them if they disagree with you. He chose to wear that hat. Why not another? Why not a plain one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One can easily form an opinion of someone who displays their own opinion on their head, whether or not they chose consciously to display it at that particular time or not.
Not sure what it has to do with anything. Maybe you also missed the fact that we agree with said teenager that some fuckwit lawyer not connected with him in any way should stop filing cases claiming to represent said teenager? Because it sure seems like you are the one with the prejudices and preconceptions, and wanting to make some left/right bullshit out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bro they weren’t on a field trip. They were from a high priced private school come to protest against abortion. Please at least try not to lie about the most basic facts about this story before you lie about their motives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What do you know...a secular (presumably) Beadon Acolyte.
And, yes, it was a field trip to DC by students from a Catholic high school located in Kentucky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…to protest abortion, yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What other irrelevant facts inform your opinion on this matter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All the basic ones that you keep lying about bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How nice of you to jump right in and answer a question that was directed to someone else. Care to answer anything else you have not been asked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure! Nobody asked me about what I thought of The Rise of Skywalker, so I’ll just say that it’s enjoyable enough for a single viewing and leave the rest to people far, far, far more angrier about the film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
^ ^ ^
Also, this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure bro, as long as it keeps you honest. Kinda ironic that you’re mad that I have an opinion that you didn’t ask, for in a forum no one asked you to be in, and whose members have shown that your comments aren’t appreciated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They were from a high priced private school come to protest against abortion.
Hence the MAGA hat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if you believe that, I have a bridge in the Sahara to sell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I rather doubt they gave any thought to the hats that obviously set you off"
Yeah, like the white hoods some folk put on their heads - there really is not much thought going on there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What an absolutely disgusting comment directed at a bunch of school kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the hood fits bro...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is the red MAGA hat all that much different than a white hood?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact you even ask the question tells others your knowledge of history is underwhelming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough. Because the answer is quite obviously no. They signify pretty much the same thing. Good on you for calling him out on his blatantly rhetorical question bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What school kids are you referring to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, you think high school students don’t typically display or act on exclusionary beliefs? You must have gone to a pretty nice high school, or one so exclusive there was no one left to exclude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And holy cow, yes, this. ^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean they are not treated like pariahs and receiving threats now? Or they are just converting that to possible cash and further popularity with the same sort of folks with whom they were popular with since the incident?
This is the hilarious thing about defamation: It's more like going after representatives of the sort of people who feel one way about something, while the other half of the public supports the putatively defamed person under the guise that they were defamed, but really because they are on board with the thing which is supposedly defamatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The kid was 17. I have a 17 year old, I cant imagine the headaches that family must have gone through. I'm sure you were so quick to criticize anyone saying anything negative about thunburg who put herself in the spotlight. Yet, this kid deserves what he gets because you dont agree with him...right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That wasn’t what he said at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Uh, what even?
What did the kid get? Settlements? Did he deserve them? IDK.
I didn't say anything about Thunberg. If people threaten her or Sandmann, they are asses and that is possibly actionable, but not defamation. If they are irrationally mocked, the people doing that are also asshats. The media isn't an ass for just showing what they know about them, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your argument fell apart faster when the globally warmed wheat you constructed that strawman out of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All these lawyers might want to take a lesson from what Sandmann did that day: Look smug and shut the hell up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That wouldn't allow them to garner attention though, and as that seems to largely be the motivation for most of this that just wouldn't do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a single frame cherry-picked from a video. If I had a video of you, carrying on a perfectly normal conversation with a friend for one minute, I could pick and choose single frames to make you look anything from serene to outraged to hateful to joyous to mentally retarded to smug, simply because people's mouths and faces go through a broad range of motions to do even simple tasks while speaking.
This is one of the oldest, simplest dirty political tricks in the book. Why? Because it works, because idiots like you keep falling for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whether I agree with what Sandmann did, or how it was characterized, or how he reacted to the broader sociopolitical reaction of what he did, is ultimately irrelevant. The most well-known (and thus ultimately relevant) image of Sandmann from that day is of him flashing a smile that makes him look like a smug asshole. I will use that fact any way I see fit. Your anger at my doing so will not stop me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And you cherry picked a single moment of time in order to excuse every single action he’s made since he made that face.
Oh the irony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the contingency when there is no contingency?
If Barnes is suing on behalf of the Covington 8, yet does not actually represent the Covington 8 (therefore no agreement to share any winnings) how does he intend to get paid? If he wins, the winnings would go to his 'clients' and without a contingency agreement would have no legal claim to any of those winnings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is the contingency when there is no contingency?
Based upon the two articles involving him linked in the article, it wouldn't surprise me if money isn't the goal, but merely the attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is the contingency when there is no contingency?
I keep wondering how he intends to have standing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is the contingency when there is no contingency?
He's filing on behalf of the Does, and claiming standing on their behalf. Now that the cat is out of the bag, I can't see it going any further forward. However, he still gets to put the filing paperwork on his website and claim that he represented them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are a plethora of punchable faces in this fiasco...
1) the media that rushed to publish a story without getting the full story
2) the people who jumped on board that initial story and twisted it to their preferred narrative
3) the lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyer's Name
FYI - You consistently spelled Sandmann's lawyer's name wrong throughout the article. It's McMurtry, not McMurty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawyer's Name
Except in the quoted text, you're correct - misspelled throughout the article.
... and in the corresponding tag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawyer's Name
fixed, thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Word of the day
I would just like to note that, like with so many other useful concepts, the German language has a word for "a punchable face."
The word is backpfeifengesicht.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Word of the day
Huh.. and he even posed for the picture on that page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Word of the day
In the German language there is a word for any simply described noun which includes both the noun and the description. That's just how that language works. It's very short on spaces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sandman Lawsuits
I can't agree with this article. Nick Sandman was not a public figure at the time of the event. He was made a public figure based on the content of the Washington Post article. The reporter added personal opinion to the article which lead readers to believe that Sandman was purposely challenging a Vietnam veteran. The video was edited to leave out the beginning of the event and didn't show the Black Israelite group taunting the crowd. Sandman was staring down anyone. He was simply smiling while he was being approached.
CNN and all of the other news media made the situation worse because the simply followed the WP and the Facebook content. They never followed up to see if there was more to the story. This all resulted in Sandman and the school being harassed and threatened with physical harm.
The Judge in the WP suit had a responsibility to teach the news media a lesson about publishing on a portion of the event story. News reporters seem to forget the reporter part of their job and add personal commenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sandman Lawsuits
News reporters seem to forget the reporter part of their job and add personal commenting.
If that's an issue then it's between reporters and their employers, and has nothing to do with the courts. The fact that you can apparently so easily distinguish between reporting and opinion/interpretation in this matter is precisely why it's not defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sandman Lawsuits
Are you a lawyer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sandman Lawsuits
There's always one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sandman Lawsuits
No I'm someone who works for a publication with a long history of covering legal issues including and especially defamation, and who was himself recently involved in a libel lawsuit.
Nice to meet you. What are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m not a lawyer.
The courts are not the place to hash out issues with philosophies on media and journalism. No judge should have the right to rule on whether the news is being done “the right way” or journalists are telling “the right story” — the right to “teach the news media a lesson”, as it were. Unless you’d like a judge to say that a journalist isn’t a “real journalist” only because of that journalist’s political leanings (which would have massive implications in re: the First Amendment), you shouldn’t be asking for judges to have that right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mind, it could be funny if pro-Trump news groups had to add in '... and after further investigation this is why everything he just said is wrong' or risk being sued for not investigating enough/only reporting on part of a story, but even with the added humor it simply would not be worth the cost to free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sandman Lawsuits
Are you?
No?
then STFU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sandman Lawsuits
Are you a reporter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sandman Lawsuits
That commentary would be an opinion based on disclosed facts, so the commentary is not defamation, regardless of whether or not Sandmann is a public figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIP all reporting
The Judge in the WP suit had a responsibility to teach the news media a lesson about publishing on a portion of the event story.
No, they most certainly did not, the judge's responsibility started and ended on 'are the actions the defendants are being accused of in violation of the laws they are being accused of breaking'? It is not a judge's responsibility to 'teach the news media' any sort of lesson past 'don't break the law', and it's certainly not their responsibility to violate the first amendment in dictating what is and is not 'proper reporting'.
As came up in comments in earlier article regarding the subject if you have to wait until you've got all the facts before reporting on something you will never be able to report on anything, because there will always be a chance for new information to come out down the line.
They reported on what they had, and while it might have been nice if they'd done their own digging before commenting they had no responsibility to do so, and certainly nothing that would rise to the level of defamation simply by reporting on what they knew and offering opinions on that.
News reporters seem to forget the reporter part of their job and add personal commenting.
'According to this video/report Person X said/did Y' is still reporting, even if nothing more is added, additional information they currently lack would provide more context, and/or no further investigation is done by the reporter. If you don't like news that has the potential to include personal bias and/or commentary then stop reading news and start reading papers on mathematics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIP all reporting
Believe it or not, even papers on mathematics can contain bias. It is much rarer, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RIP all reporting
Had a prof that gave more points for solving a problem the easy way.
Definite bias there, one that was taken advantage of by the students.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RIP all reporting
Wait, bias towards what? People who use simpler methods to solve problems?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RIP all reporting
Yes. In solving difficult problems requiring differential equations there are multiple ways to reach the same goal, some are easier than others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RIP all reporting
Sure. I know. But how is it bias to reward people who find simple ways to solve the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RIP all reporting
Because one thing is chosen over another?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sandman Lawsuits
He was made a public figure based on the content of the Washington Post article.
It seems you can become a public figure very easily if you're not careful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sandman Lawsuits
He was made a public figure based on the content of the Washington Post article.
It's a true bummer that they were so unaware that they had no expectation of privacy in a public place. But that's what happens when you send your children to a Catholic school in Kentucky. Too much god learning and not enough common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Caitlin Flanagan summed up the Covington story well
writing for <i>The Atlantic</i> on 2019, Jan 23.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/media-must-learn-covington-catholic-story/5810 35/
Flanagan suggested that the elite media who ran with the fake Vietnam vet's version failed at
Admittedly, however, sleazy ethics does not prove a libel lawsuit.
The term "punchable face" is an incitement to violence, aka "incitement to imminent lawless action", but that is not the same as libel. Also, the lawless action did not take place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caitlin Flanagan summed up the Covington story well
The term "punchable face" is an incitement to violence, aka "incitement to imminent lawless action"
I strongly suggest you read up on how courts evaluate that definition, because you are very wrong if you think that comes anywhere close to qualifying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saying a person has a punchable face and saying someone should punch that person with the punchable face are not the same thing. But feel free to point out how they are, if you can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and even if it were, tweeting that "someone should punch that person" is still nowhere near incitement to imminent lawless action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
True, but as long as our society treats words as violence, then somebody is always going to try and use the courts in this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I dunno... I would say it is at best an oversimplification to say "our society treats words as violence"
(and unlike defamation lawsuits there are not, as far as I know, very many arrests or prosecutions for incitement)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are all sick fucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re just mad because we’re not saying any of this about someone you want to punch in the face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What makes it extra funny is that they are the same person who just up the thread wished for the murder of Pelosi via drone strike. If those posting are 'sick fucks' for simply talking about whether 'punchable face' is an incitement of violence then they are well past that point themself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m sorry, but what is so sick about debating whether “he has a punchable face” or “someone should punch that guy” would be considered defamation or incitement to imminent lawlessness, two of the few exceptions to the First Amendment? It’s just a debated on the potential legal ramifications of one quote by someone else and another hypothetical but similar statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Womp Womp bro
Ahem. Fuck your feelings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caitlin Flanagan summed up the Covington story well
No, tweeting or even saying the term “punchable face” is neither an incitement to violence nor an incitement to imminent lawless action (and those two aren’t equivalent anyway). Saying or tweeting “someone ought to punch him in the face” might be an incitement to violence, but in order to be an incitement to imminent lawless action, it would have to incite imminent violence, and that’s not it (at least not without more context).
The first thing I can think of that would be incitement to imminent lawless action would be to explicitly tell someone to “punch him in the face”.
Of course, none of those would be defamatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caitlin Flanagan summed up the Covington story well
There's the problem. Too many outlets seem to believe that speed is the most important thing, more important than accuracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“The term "punchable face" is an incitement to violence, aka "incitement to imminent lawless action"
I’m going to need a legal citation for that massive pile of bullshit you just wrote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Settlement is not a determination of a case's merits.
Just look at Ayyadurai v floor 64 inc., or any other trolling lawsuit operations for proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sad part is Ayyaaduari did try to spin it as a victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Obsess much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope the kids win.
We need to stop this practice of grown adults calling people names because they are still mad their terrible candidate lost an election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the practice of a grown adult with more power than virtually anyone else in the world calling people names because he won an election, that’s something to encourage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hope the kids win.
Perhaps you not addressing the right crowd?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hope the kids win.
At least those kids feel better because the electoral college reversed that result for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hope the kids win.
She lost.
Get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I hope the kids win.
Has it ever occurred to you that people might be more upset about Trump winning than Hillary losing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The kid does have a massively smug (punchable) face but sadly he faces some rather stiff competition. In this timeline there is the face of Ajit Pai to consider along with Trump, Laura Ingram, Janine Piro and who can forget the good old Tucker Carlson. They all make great candidates for the most punchable face in America. If we expand to the rest of the world... The possibilities are endless with Putin and kim Jong Un being really good candidates.
Can't we just declare a tie and award them an all expenses paid one way trip to the surface of the sun? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What about Martin Shkreli?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now Tucker Carlson... idk, i am a bit squeamish about punching that plastic alien fuckweasel face. It may be something, but not punchable, not for me. (shivers)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What if you were wearing gloves or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Add Mitch McConnell and Sean Hannity to that list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your tears are delicious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean tears of laughter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"..especially if the court agrees that Sandmann is not a public figure (which would lower the bar for a defamation claim)"
Equal protection under the law? Not if you're a "public figure"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
53 statements were defamatory. 53.
53x$2M=$106M settlement.
Good for him.
He deserved it.
Public humiliation for CNN, that's a good thing.
The best part of this is that even though CNN wanted it to be back page news, it's front page news. Everywhere. HAHAHA!
Hopefully groups that try to ruin others will be held responsible.
This is kind of the "fightback" in this new era that President Trump has Inspired!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
70 words in your comment. 70.
70xStupid = 70Stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But even you can't deny that it's a GREAT thing that GROUPS that try to RUIN others should be held RESPONSIBLE.
Fewer words, but even greater wisdom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is your opinion based in whole or in part on the FACT that YOU are part of a GROUP that tries to RUIN others?
Are you dedicated to RUINING people you don't even KNOW and never even MET?
Do you RELISH in trying to RUIN people, even though they be STRANGERS to you?
Are you SATAN, or do you worship SATAN?
Who but for SATAN could fail to CONDEMN those GROUPS that try to RUIN others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Proverbs 11:27
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Esther 7:10
So they hanged Haman on the gallows he had prepared for Mordecai. Then the fury of the king subsided.
Psalm 7:15
He has dug a hole and hollowed it out; he has fallen into the pit of his making.
Psalm 7:16
His trouble recoils on himself, and his violence falls on his own head.
Psalm 57:6
They spread a net for my feet; my soul was despondent. They dug a pit before me, but they themselves have fallen into it! Selah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Someone's a little too eager to murder journalists he hates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whoso is earnestly seeking good Seeketh a pleasing thing, And whoso is seeking evil -- it meeteth him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, you seem to want the murders of journalists to happen for the sole reason of “I don’t like these people”, so maybe you should ask yourself whether your violent fantasies are both (personally, possibly sexually) pleasing and morally evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whoso is earnestly seeking a good punch to the face.
Should aspire in their visage that of a smug prick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If Jesus was wearing Nazi Papa Underwear®, it would have all worked out, just like Proverb:wuteverthefuck says so!
Even witches cant be burned, if they wear Teflon Nazi Papa®Bloomers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Best watch out bro. SNLs gonna sure for copyright infringement if you keep stealing their “could it be SATAN?” bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah!
Bro!
(bro-mouther shouts,”oooouuch!" as their AI styled bro-schtick gets its fucking face shot off like a turkeys ass in a mountain mouth shoot, with a Joe Biden shotgun® blast( in its faggoty bro mouthing fuck- face hole)
Bro-mouther says: My dildo-face mask is too tight! ...
as Nazi Papa® takes a shit down that piece of shits facehole, clear to the bottom of its vapid, mommas tit dsucking, substanceless jackboots.
I would personally pop a crap in your ass if it were legal, but find joy in watching you define "what is vapid and stupid" for the win, everytime.
Clearly, thats worse than.death, by a thousand car bombs in the trunk of your kith and spawn.
And, fuck you in your tard face-yeah, its you, tardface, every time!
AC Winner®
KABLOOEY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you RELISH using ALL CAPS for random WORDS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Counting 70 words, and then publishing the results....in four separate enumerations?
Priceless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, uh…I’m gonna need a citation where a court ruled that at least one of the 53 statements to which you refer were defamatory. An out-of-court settlement says nothing but “we didn’t want to keep fighting this because it’s a pain in the ass on multiple fronts”.
Also:
I’m pretty sure the kind of “fighting back” Trump wants would involve beating up protestors at his political rallies or killing someone with a car during a “rally” held by a bunch of “very fine people”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"This is kind of the "fightback" in this new era that President Trump has Inspired!"
It's interesting when the bully is picking themselves up off the floor because they slipped and fell - they are vowing to Fight Back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait, why would 1 defamatory statement = $2M settlement/fine?
And when did any judge rule that any of these 53 statements were, in fact, defamatory?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Money talks.
Everyone knows that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Settlements don’t say “the statements in question were legally defamatory”, no matter how much money is involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You start to see a parallel between right-wingers and copyright enforcement-types - they think a "settlement" is a sign of legitimacy, instead of "you annoyed your opponent and/or the judge so much they decided that money needed to change hands just so you'd shut the fuck up".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soooo...Elizabeth Warren meets Rachel Dolezal in a dimly lit bowery gay bar, to discuss their differences, as the doorman, a septagenarian from the UK, stuffs his Nazi Papa Underwear®in some vile ACs ass in the alley...
Warren: I think that whole "Little Matterhorn massacre with all those Hindus and Col. Mustard was just a tragedy-my great, great great grandmother-a Looseachicki native was there when it happened. Maybe if we highlight that inequity, we could beat the Bern”
Dolezal: Well, sure, genocides are bad, but its nothing compared to this NIGHTMARE tanning booth session I had a week ago, fo’shogina!! Fried me like a chicken f’sho!
Vincent ‘Vinnie’ Barbarino: [brainstorming ideas to raise money for 2020] We could have a casino night. Maybe offer free massages....
Irv Rubinst ghost: I could toss some thunderbolts and sulphur at em from hell, maybe crack some kneecaps from a manhole cover when they walk by-they wouldnt even see it coming from down here in this shithole!
John Lennons angelic voice comes over the HAARP frequency modulator:
Ev'rybody's talking
about Bagism, Shagism,
Dragism, Madism
Ragism, Tagism, Thisism,
Thatism, Isn't it the most
[Chorus]
All we are saying
is give peace a chance
All we are saying
is give peace a chance
Ev'rybody's talking about
Ministers, Sinisters,
Banisters and Canisters,
Bishops and Fishops,
Rabbis and Popeyes Bye bye bye bye
HAIL DIVERSITY!®
Bini Naziyahoo: Yeah, but wheres the money in THAT?
ADL: Dont worry, we have this one covered. Lets all say Antishemitismisticyclcisms® REALLY LOUD!
ADL♥ JDL4EVER©
Then:
Warren-Dolezal 2020!
(ever notice how the SCOTUS is packed with Catholics and Jews, tighter than a pig corpse and blow fly maggots? Why is that?)
Sincerely,
Arnold Horschak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: that child needs a Joe Biden shotgun blast in his face
That smug, little* WHITE, Catholic bastard!
If he comes a’creepin round my teepee (which somehow was camped on his face mound) I will pull a Joe Biden, and blast some shotgunshrapnel in his (childish, 17 year old ) face!
Buy a Shotgun NOW!®
[cut away shot to Scotland Yards Hamish Brown, advising the FBI and the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals(ATAP) at a talk in Texas, and another in LA, on “How to Find, and Discover, and Re-Discover, and then Recover Again, and Again*, An Eighteen Year Old (Idiots) Girls Boobie Pictures Online”]
Scene 7: Prince Charles (pre-Markle, pre-Epstein scandal) pennetrating the cloth of thecsuit worn by the Noble Scotland Yard Detective Hamish Brown(who was a GWB associate) the Iron Condom Award for the,Protection of Maidenhood, and Hymenological Phenomena (which looks like tulips for some reason, and which is a special award given ONLY to ranking males whose sex drive is thoroughly entrapped in Bank of England schemes, and the fuckwaddery of Bilderbergs and the CFR (also for some reason)
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/04/12/joe-bidens-5-most-absurd-quotes-about-firearms-and- gun-owners
[Meanwhile, back at camp Looseachiki, Elizabeth Warren and the ADL plot more fakerapes.]
ADL: Maybe say more about vaginas as #safespaces?
E. Warren: Well, I am safe. I am Vagina.
Oprah Winfrey: No, no, no!
Hitler: Well, she DID say "no” a few times....But then.... butt...then .....(Hitler laughing madly about the great religious coup de tat of 1993, that began with VAWA, Biden, and the ADL/Bnai Bitch spy rings)
[Cut away, long shot, face of fascism on Italian building, 1927, looks slightly like “OBEY!”, mouthing words from Il Deuces mistress/Jewish propagandistress, juxtaposed against an idealized portrait of Queen Esther, doggystyle, barking orders, like Hitler. ]
Scene 13: Its Nat Nazi when WE NAZI!
TDs butt plug: Was that a GODWIN!?Or just another “crazy person.on the internet?!
TDs cop-lovin accolytes（ and brt, absent FOR SOME REASON) now dialing 911 to report BUTTHERTZ! ANTISHEMISTICYCLICISMS® AND ANTISHEMYSTICYCISMS®!
Rabbi Meir Kahane: Good work today, kids! Now, Otherforth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: that child needs a Joe Biden shotgun blast in his face
WTH did I just read...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: that child needs a Joe Biden shotgun blast in his fa
It's not worth reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: that child needs a Joe Biden shotgun blast in his fa
IDK. Some bizarre stream of consciousness with radical conspiracy theories, antisemitism, anti-Catholicism, possible racism, possible homophobia and/or sexism, poor attempts at crude humor, misuse of IP symbols, and no respect for anyone or anything, not even the English language. So basically, the same thing ROGS has been doing for weeks only in the form of what appears to be trying to be a script for a play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: that child needs a Joe Biden shotgun blast in hi
Before I found “fuzzy porn,” and dogs, banging senoritas in the Sonorran desert online, I honestly thought about doing myself in for lack of inspiration.
Emphasis on "shut-in” and its anti-metaphor of coming out, of course.
But since I discovered TECHDIRT, my whole life has changed! People think I am not an AI robot! I am REAL!
I am no longer ashamed of eating boogers in public (its a bad habit, I know) or fonding myself in the produce section of Aldis as I seek bargains that are compatible with my state assistance budget.
Techdirt saved my life, and, taught me the value of thrift, when citing shit that I am too stupid, AND lazy to research, while using under-researched, vacuous words and concepts onlline.
Oooooh, if only I can get the top commenter spot next year! Maybe a few more libels, smears, and quips about shit that I know nothing about....I can do it....,I CAN DO IT!
Protip: competing against passive agressive online septagenarians, Aspergers and proven retards for TD awards, anything is possible!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: that child needs a Joe Biden shotgun blast i
You’re only proving my point about your immature, poor use of crude humor and showing “no respect for anyone and anything, not even the English language”, y’know.
You’re really bad at making fun of people. I’m honestly disappointed. I actually expected better quality trolling than this.
I’ve been meaning to ask this for a while, but what the hell do you have against people with Asperger’s, anyway?
What a massive amount of hypocrisy and projection on display…
Sinking to this kind of talk only demonstrates that you have no substance to add to this discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: that child needs a Joe Biden shotgun blast in his fa
I thouht Naschis only burned books, and come to find out, one or two of you read!
Fuck ME! I was,wrong about Naschis. Maybe there is Hope®
That Hull fellow, on the other hand, too stupid to know whiich way the wind blows, but will blow with it regardless of direction.
Cuz, blows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: that child needs a Joe Biden shotgun blast in hi
Another pathetic insult. I mean, for one thing, isn’t Mein Kampf practically the holy book for Nazis? And that’s the least pathetic thing about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soooo...Elizabeth Warren meets Rachel Dolezal in a dimly lit bowery gay bar, to discuss their differences, as the doorman, a septagenarian from the UK, stuffs his Nazi Papa Underwear®in some vile ACs ass in the alley...
Warren: I think that whole "Little Matterhorn massacre with all those Hindus and Col. Mustard was just a tragedy-my great, great great grandmother-a Looseachicki native was there when it happened. Maybe if we highlight that inequity, we could beat the Bern”
Dolezal: Well, sure, genocides are bad, but its nothing compared to this NIGHTMARE tanning booth session I had a week ago, fo’shogina!! Fried me like a chicken f’sho!
Vincent ‘Vinnie’ Barbarino: [brainstorming ideas to raise money for 2020] We could have a casino night. Maybe offer free massages....
Irv Rubinst ghost: I could toss some thunderbolts and sulphur at em from hell, maybe crack some kneecaps from a manhole cover when they walk by-they wouldnt even see it coming from down here in this shithole!
John Lennons angelic voice comes over the HAARP frequency modulator:
Ev'rybody's talking
about Bagism, Shagism,
Dragism, Madism
Ragism, Tagism, Thisism,
Thatism, Isn't it the most
[Chorus]
All we are saying
is give peace a chance
All we are saying
is give peace a chance
Ev'rybody's talking about
Ministers, Sinisters,
Banisters and Canisters,
Bishops and Fishops,
Rabbis and Popeyes Bye bye bye bye
HAIL DIVERSITY!®
Bini Naziyahoo: Yeah, but wheres the money in THAT?
ADL: Dont worry, we have this one covered. Lets all say Antishemitismisticyclcisms® REALLY LOUD!
ADL♥ JDL4EVER©
Then:
Warren-Dolezal 2020!
(ever notice how the SCOTUS is packed with Catholics and Jews, tighter than a pig corpse and blow fly maggots? Why is that?)
Sincerely,
Arnold Horschak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dude, you already posted this. It was flagged and hidden for, among other reasons, being a wall of text with no discernible substance or relevance to either this article or any other previous comment on this article, containing offensive language, containing no evidence for any claims being made, coming from a repeat offender who has never posted any constructive or civil content on this site, and just being full of nonsense. However, it’s still there, and reposting it isn’t going to help at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I heard once that Nazis banned boojs, and stalked speakers.
I no linger have any doubts about who “the Nazis” are, or whose,actions create, and recreate them, Golem after Golem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That’s fine and all, but it has nothing to do with what I just said, nor does it address anything I said, so this shouldn’t have been a reply to that comment.
You’re also starting to sound like a WWII vet with PTSD or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Read Dee Brown
You sound like you have Aspergers, no kidding, and your just actually genuinely stupid and #derailing.
And no apologies for your lack of ability to understand nuance, humor, or thought patterns, aka “thinking in large pieces” that goes beyond one liners and poorly crafted snarky ad-homs.
It has EVERYTHING to do with a white kid, and a Native American in a standoff
Signed,
Jack Crabb
98 year old survivor of the Sand Creek, Washita, Little Big Horn, and Wounded Knee massacres
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Read Dee Brown
The comment in question contained none of those qualities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Read Dee Brown
Well, you know what? I do have Asperger’s. That said, I also have a decent sense of humor and the ability to understand nuance. In fact, I am very aware of the shortcomings I have thanks to my autism, which is why I avoid rushing to judgment and ask for clarification when needed. In some ways, in my experience, that caution combined with my unique perspective has allowed me to find and address nuance where others missed it. I’m not perfect by any means, but you shouldn’t dismiss me out of hand either.
Also, the one derailing this thread is you. That’s why I said of your comment,
That’s textbook derailing. Even a joke or insult should have something to do with what was just said or who said it. It either should have been the start of a new thread or a reply to your own comment. That would have made a lot more sense.
Also, apparently, you did not understand what I was trying to do with that line about being a WWII vet. It was largely a joke, since I find it highly unlikely that you are old enough to have even been able to serve in WWII. It was meant to make fun of the repetitive nature of your comments and the fact that they often don’t appear to relate to what came before. Of course, it also references the way you spoke of Nazis, which really gave off vibes of some old man living by himself with a rifle, muttering about how the Nazis are everywhere.
I actually thought that that might have been deliberate; that you were potentially making fun of people who are obsessed with Nazis by comparing them to, say, a WWII vet with PTSD. A part of me actually chuckled a bit. Well, the part of me that wasn’t rolling my eyes, confused at the apparent non sequitur, concerned that you might genuinely be experiencing or recovering from some sort of trauma, or exasperated at your umpteenth attempt to derail things. I figured my response could actually be seen as playing along, and actually partly expected you to say that you were poking fun at the PC culture that sees Nazi rhetoric in everything.
However, unlike you, I won’t assume that you’re inability to grasp my attempt at humor was necessarily due to your own shortcomings. It’s entirely possible that my joke just wasn’t funny or was too obtuse for most people to grasp.
Now then, would you mind explaining how your comment should have been taken, for future reference? Believe it or not, I am actually trying to learn the skills that I lack due to my autism, so any help would be appreciated.
And in that spirit, I’m going to assume that the sign-off at the end is also a joke that I am just missing the humor of, since the Sand Creek, Washita, Little Big Horn, and Wounded Knee massacres took place in 1864, 1868, 1878, and 1890, which would mean that a survivor of those would be 91 years old in 1937 at the latest (assuming they enlisted at age 18 just in time for the Sand Creek massacre), and Jack Crabb appears to be a fictional character from a movie or something. I don’t really understand the joke, but I feel pretty safe in assuming that it is a joke.
I’m also confused about where Native Americans enter into this. I’m sure it’s part of the joke, but as I’ve said, even a joke should bear some resemblance to what has come before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Read Dee Brown
Also, while I conceded the possibility of simply missing the precise thrust of your humor (though apparently I wasn’t the only one who did, so it probably wasn’t my Asperger’s), I’m not sure what nuance there was to be had in the comment in question. “Humor” I can see, even if I don’t think it’s all that funny, but I’m not quite seeing “nuance”, and I’m particularly confused how such a short and simple comment could be both humorous and containing nuance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here in hell, I had the strangest experience the other day.
I looked in the mirror (here in hell, all the mirrors are broken, but I will get to that later...)
I looked in the mirror, and Lacan was behind me, fondling his dick, with a photo of Bernays in his hand. Weird, right?
But waaaaay more weird was that he looked EXACTLY like the love(hatefuck?) child of Bini Naziyahoo, George Bush, and Bari Weiss/ Sabrina Rubin Erdely!
The weird part isnt just that each parent of the hatefuck child had two heads on each side of its lineage-but that this monster was eating both pig, and chicken shit, jowl-deep, at the bottom of the trough, as if they were chewing all the way through the earth, eventually hitting China, which a ringingvpig-fang strike(have you ever heard pig fangs strike pyrite?)
Yeah, I KNOW it sounds weird, but yeah, it was real, at least to me, here in hell.
Well, anyways: here in hell, I look a lot like J. Edgar Hoover in better days. You know, before he was a fat,old noxious secret police drag queen. I mean, everyone has good days before ADLification meets the “Ye Olden EndvTymes”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reza Aslan looks lynchable to me, but only because hes human garbage for picking on children, no other reason.
Maybe, his child would look lovely with a bullet in his face...or, a cap in his (her?) ass
Just sayin’. And I bet his daughter-if he has one-might find the empathy her father lacks, with ALL CAPS, in her ass.
EQUALITY NOW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bhull 42
Well, thanks for that concession. Your types are not easilly outed, because most of you (in my opinion ) are victims of mis -diagnoses, and predatory psychology /ists.
ROGS FUCKING BINGO.
Read this instead, for nuance, keeping in mind that intelligence agents /agencies PREY UPON people with MHI online (but also remember those special classes you were forced into in grade school, too: ....
https://www.columbian.com/news/2017/apr/06/stephen-reichow-murder-trial-underway-brandon-mauldi ng/
This is what organized gang stalking looks like when it appears in the MSM, and it is,a cleverly crafted message that denies accountability for police state practices of punitive psychology.
Then, have,a look at my respinse to SDM on another thread :
Well, cause and effect have nearly nothing to do with so -called counter terrorism initiatives that suborn the libel (witty online banter ), slander, and actual perjury of sysadmins, but thats another topic entirely, be cause frequently, it is sysadmins,(in.the US they are FBI created Infragard ) that are totally complicit with CVE programs.
Lets try to restart this, ok?
You make excellent, somewhat effective points in many places, but seem to be a cockblock on issues that affect communities that you suborn to speak for, aka, communities of color, etc.
And in so doing, you perform actual dis -service to those communities, by ignoring the vernacular that they speak, and concepts that they use every day.
So, I suspect that you are lily white, which I use that phrase as both a pejorative, and as an educational dialectic device: lily white has distinct racial and religious connotations (another conversation ) but also, pejorative meaning dating back decades.
So, can I show you something derived from activist culture?
http://www.city-data.com/forum/san-diego/1881755-san-diego-hot-bed-gang-stalking.html
I am not inferring that you are beyond hope, but I am saying directly that you might be a bit out of touch, and clearly enabling the exact racist, blahblah system.that you appear to speak against, because activists from EVERY ACTIVIST COMMUNITY are reporting on ORGANIZED gang stalking, and Mr. Cushing is too.
But this *easily debunked /derisive /disinformative perspective of conspiracy theory is NOT what you claim it is -Hanlons Razor, slicing and dicing the crazies online, because in fact and in practice (and I consistently provide evidence ) it is what I,say it is: Counter Terror ”Professionals“ “slicing Ochams Throat” with a razor, and turning logic, and expedient explanations on its head.
It IS military derived harrassment, targeted at individuals, and it is horrific.
Now, to the substance of your post:
Lets start at the ass end, and work our way inward towards the guts, like wolves wearing sheeps clothing arecsaid to do with carcasses they have killed.
“Stormfront perhaps, or Breitbart”- I suspect that this is itself, your own confession of loyalty. Whats your nym there?
blind assertions- You NEVER read the linked material. Not once, ever. I suspect lily white cockblocker parade
You certainly do not.
Feel free to dispute that.
(tired now )
Best regards
p.s.I am not sure why YOU are around here either, other than that TD(and Masnick Et al ) is fairly white, and has a major blindspot about its own whiteness, and, regular commenters like you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bhull 42
I know that I said I have Asperger’s, but I’ve never had to take special classes for it, unless you count the gifted program and honors classes for those who do exceptionally well in school. Asperger’s isn’t typically a huge problem with academics, so they don’t really have special programs to attempt to make us “fit in”. I’m not sure you understand what autism actually is.
I’m not seeing anything that could suggest “police state” here, and unless you have supplementary evidence to suggest that anything was mischaracterized or something, I can’t exactly criticize the credibility of this article from a seemingly credible source on a topic I have no additional knowledge of and that seems to not include any substantial opinions or characterizations from the writer beyond facts and quotes from both sides of the courtroom and facts that don’t appear to be in dispute. Well, aside from a brief reference that two of the people involved shared “paranoid” beliefs that they were victims of “gang stalking”, but I’d need more particular evidence to prove that their beliefs were anything more than the result of paranoia. (And no, even if you proved that “gang stalking” is a real thing that causes real harm, that wouldn’t be enough to change my opinion on how it applies to this case.)
Incidentally, you ask me to use “nuance” here, but now I’m beginning to wonder if you understand what “nuance” actually is, because while there are some nuances to the article, it’s mostly a straightforward, evenhanded recitation of facts on one particular case without trying to draw conclusions of being part of a trend or pattern. Nuance is essentially stuff like allowing for figurative language, multiple interpretations, cultural differences, reasonable disagreements, “wiggle room”, exceptions to rules, etc. I’m not sure how that really applies to this article. I mean, I’m open to having a nuanced discussion about it, if that’s what you mean.
[citation needed]
I don’t recall speaking on behalf of communities of color or anything. Nor do I recall their vernacular being at issue here, so I don’t see how I’d be ignoring them.
The most I’ve done is ask for you to explain certain terms that I am unfamiliar with and not to assume that everyone is necessarily familiar with the vernacular and/or concepts that may be commonplace or well-known in your community. That isn’t ignoring anyone’s vernacular or everyday concepts. If anything, it’s a request that you help others like myself understand them.
Now, the first red flag that popped up was the fact that the post contains a lot of links that are supposed to provide additional information but were removed by moderation. That’s pretty significant.
Additionally, I’m not seeing any statistics or evidence that it exists, only a description of what it is. Plus, this is a forum post on a site that looks like it was cheaply made and that I’m unfamiliar with, so the credibility out of the gate isn’t terribly high. Forum posts tend to lack credibility in general, and the number of links removed by moderation only exacerbates that.
I may read this more later, but at a glance, it’s not looking like it’s strong evidence of anything.
Again, I would like actual evidence of this. Also, activists report on a lot of things. Some are real; some are not. The mere fact that activists report on something isn’t evidence of anything. And I find it hard to believe that every activist community is reporting on this, given that some only cover scams or wildlife preservation.
First, you have not consistently provided evidence, and when you do, it often doesn’t support your claims at all.
Second, I don’t recall ever actually claiming to know exactly what you’re claiming or actually calling it a conspiracy. I did say that it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I never said it was. Most of this has been trying to get you to actually explain what your claim—conspiracy theory or not—actually is and to provide evidence supporting the claims that I did—more or less—understand. Whether it’s a conspiracy theory or not, I just asked for clarification and evidence, which should be expected.
At any rate, I’m not sure you understand how much of what you’re referring to works, and you’re missing one of the important tools. Let me summarize:
Hanlon’s Razor — “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” It essentially means “don’t assume bad faith when incompetence or ignorance is still a reasonable explanation.” For example, if you make an absurd claim with no evidence to support it and claim the evidence is being covered up, rather than assuming you’re a liar or have an agenda, it’s usually better to assume that you’re just being paranoid or are extremely gullible. It’s often useful as a tool to avoid just dismissing someone because of their arguments and to reduce anger and frustration on both sides. After all, ignorance can be remedied. Of course, it also presents an issue for conspiracy theories, which often involve presuming that multiple, often seemingly unrelated events are connected and that the purpetrators are acting in concert for ill purposes. Hanlon’s razor leans in favor of them not being in a conspiracy or acting in good faith.
Occam’s Razor — “The simplest solution is most likely the right one.” Essentially, this is used when you have two or more competing explanations for some phenomena, events, whatever. As a general rule, if all else is equal, the “simplest” one (the one that requires the fewest assumptions to accept) is generally the right one. This is often used in debates over creationism and conspiracy theories. See, one of the fundamental problems with many conspiracy theories is that they generally involve a large number of people—from important, powerful, rich, and/or famous to unimportant, weak, poor, and/or completely unknown—all being in on the conspiracy without any of them leaking anything. That’s a pretty massive assumption compared to what the alternatives tend to offer. Now, the balance may change with additional evidence (like the Snowden leaks), but that only shows how having no leaks, especially over a long period of time, is pretty unlikely. Essentially, it shifts the burden of proof to be stronger on explanations that require more assumptions, that are more complex.
These are tools in logical and rational discussions that help weigh claims’ truthfulness. The first two involve explanations where the evidence doesn’t strongly favor one particular explanation over its competitors, and can be overcome with enough evidence that supports the disfavored explanation but not the alternative(s). The third just makes it clear that someone making a claim should provide evidence if they don’t want their claims to be dismissed out of hand. It’s all about burden of proof and how much proof is needed for different alternatives. Unless you have evidence of their misuse, I have no idea what your problem is.
As far as I understand it, you seem to be claiming that US government agents, the ADL, zionists, and people online (among others) are conspiring to engage in mass online harassment of various people for unspecified reasons (which is apparently known as gang stalking). Among the targets appear to be so-called incels and Muslims. The supposed goal appears to be to get these people to commit terrorist acts and then jail or execute them as terrorists. The alleged motives for doing so is unclear to me but appears to be to promote some sort of Zionist or Israeli agenda or something.
Now, if true, that would certainly be horrific, and there are a few kernels of truth here and there (like the fact that government agents have been known to “manufacture” terrorists out of law-abiding citizens, though not through the means described). However, there are a number of problems with this claim. First, of course, is Occam’s and Hanlon’s razors, particularly the former. Basically, the assumption that this is some sort of organized effort rather than standard online mobbing is a pretty big assumption. (Basically, if “gang stalking” is the online equivalent to “gang violence”, then “online mobbing” would be the online equivalent to a riot or something; no actual organization, just a group of people who started something bad and more people just got caught up in it and joined in.) To overturn the much simpler and more benign alternative explanations in favor of your “organized gang stalking” theory (even excluding the government’s involvement, which has its own wrinkle) would require substantial evidence which you haven’t provided.
And regarding the involvement of Israel, the government, or the ADL, you’ve provided no evidence at all, so Hitchen’s Razor is also a major roadblock here. (Well, you did provide evidence regarding the ADL doing something like that, but you haven’t proven that they’re involved in this particular conspiracy.)
Additionally, while you’ve alleged that certain particular incidents involved “organized gang stalking”, the articles you provided lack either any evidence of harassment, evidence of organization, or both. The only article that even mentions gang stalking doesn’t provide any evidence that gang stalking actually occurred. So even if the alleged trend exists, you provided no evidence that these particular events were even part of that trend.
On top of that, you’ve provided no evidence of anything connecting these different events or of a trend in general, so I have no reason to believe that there is a trend to begin with as opposed to some isolated incidents even if they were as you claimed.
This short segue actually has some issues. First, since this comment was the first in a new thread rather than a reply to one of my posts, so I don’t have any definitive way to know which post of mine you’re referring to. Ordinarily, I’d use the points you’re addressing to figure that out, but that leads to the next, even larger issue: in this section, you don’t address anything in any of my posts, let alone their substance. In fact, of the things I said, the only parts you appear to address in any part of this comment are some requests for more information/evidence (though as mentioned, they’re insufficient) and the fact that I “conceded” that I have Asperger’s. So no, you certainly haven’t addressed the substance of my post.
I think you may be confusing me with someone else and this comment section with a completely different one. I’ve never mentioned Stormfront at all, here or elsewhere, and the only time I’ve ever mentioned Breitbart was when someone tried to use it as a source or in an article or thread discussing Breitbart (or when comparing the credibility of a source to Breitbart), and that was always to say that Breitbart is not a credible source. I never mentioned Breitbart in this comment section or in any of my discussions with you.
Additionally, based on a quick search, no one else has mentioned Stormfront or Breitbart by name anywhere in this comment section either. The only result I got for either search term on this page at all was in your comment that is allegedly quoting me.
So I have no idea who said that or where or when it was said, but it wasn’t me, and it wasn’t here. And to answer your question, I am not a visitor to either Breitbart or Stormfront, let alone a frequent one. I may have read the occasional article in Breitbart, but that was pretty rare and I took anything I read there with a mountain of salt. As such, I have certainly never commented on either site, so I have no nym there.
So no, that is certainly not my “confession of loyalty”. I didn’t say it, and the alleged conclusion is false.
While I cannot recall every single case offhand, it’s worth noting that you rarely link material to begin with. However, with such a broad, absolute statement, I need only mention one counterexample. Even excluding the material linked in this particular comment, I read the very first linked article you posted. You remember? It was the one about the first online incel community being founded by a lesbian. Yeah, if you actually read my response to that (as well as several later posts that mention the issue), you would know I read the article because I specifically note that it says that, even early on and increasingly as time went on, the incel community was dominated by heterosexual cismales. And that’s according to the founder’s testimony. I also noted that the article describes one famous misogynistic guy who went on a killing spree, and that it doesn’t say anything about him being the victim of any harassment, organized or otherwise.
I also specifically remember reading an article about some terrorist in Europe being arrested. I think it was supposed to be evidence that the terrorist was radicalized by the government or online harassment, but the article presented no evidence of anything like that.
To say that I have never read any of the material you linked is completely false and unsupported by the evidence. If you think that the fact that I say that you fail to back up your assertions with evidence means I just haven’t read what evidence you have provided (which isn’t often), that’s fallacious reasoning. In each case you provided a source, I specifically noted that I read it and couldn’t find evidence to back up your claims (except the one case that involved the founder of incels, but again I never argued against that, and the rest of the article doesn’t support any of your other claims). Just because you provide links doesn’t mean that you’ve supported your claim with evidence. If the linked source is unreliable or (in your case) doesn’t provide any evidence supporting your claim, then you haven’t provided evidence of your claims, and your claims are essentially “blind assertions” or wild speculation.
I just want to say that I never said this, either. I have not accused you of lying. I have said that you’re wrong, mistaken, ignorant, or trolling, but I never called you a liar.
Now I want to skip to a particular part of this point.
That’s not what demonstrative speech is. Demonstrative speech is where you give instructions on how to do something. I believe you criticized me for not understanding anything about demonstrative speech (a subject that had never previously discussed), and I actually explained what it is and how it has nothing to do with what we’ve been discussing. However, it would appear that the issue was that you were mistaken about demonstrative speech all along.
You haven’t presented any empirical documentation about this alleged “fact”, so I’m afraid I’m going to have to use Hitchen’s Razor again and disregard this claim. (Note: this isn’t calling this an outright lie; it’s just an unsupported claim.)
And by the way, if you think that what you’ve presented thus far constitutes “empirical documentation”, then you clearly don’t know what “empirical” actually means. Hint: it involves statistical analysis of data, not just a bunch of anecdotes.
Considering that this is supposed to be refuting the supposed allegation that “you lie outright”, I’m not sure what your point is here. It makes it sound like you’ve told so many lies that there are too many for you to possibly discuss. Maybe you were referring to times people have alleged that you lied? And what are these “qualified exceptions” that are apparently not too numerous to discuss here? Why not describe those, then?
Again, this has nothing to do with the claim (which, to reiterate, I never made) that you are supposedly addressing.
At any rate, I never assumed you had a “privileged education”. In fact, based on how you sometimes misuse terms like “demonstrative speech” and your sometimes poor grammar and spelling, I was more leaning towards the opposite.
If you’re referring to my statements that an activist like yourself should be prepared to answer questions like the ones I’ve asked and similar statements/suggestions, I was offering advice and guidance about being better at communicating your claims, as well as what is expected of you in this sort of environment. I never expected you to have any more knowledge or education in general than I do, but as an activist, I do expect you to have more specific knowledge about whatever it is you’re advocating or trying to spread awareness about. Actually, that’s not quite limited to activists but people online in general.
I approached this “dialectic space” for informed discussions on certain subjects, and in many cases it’s been successful. As such, I don’t see any specific reason to drastically alter my approach to discussions.
Like I said, it was for the interesting takes and discussions on subjects I’m interested in, like copyright, free speech, silly laws, and silly lawsuits. It certainly had nothing to do with skin color. I don’t even know what any of these people look like (with the exception of some of the writers), have no interaction with them outside of this particular site (at least as far as I know), and I can’t exactly infer someone’s skin tone through text unless they outright say it (or say something really bigoted).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your "interpretation" of the story may be subjective. But the facts aren't. The teens were innocent no matter which way you try to spin the story. The Black Hebrew Israelites as always were the instigators (which seems to be their sole purpose for existing). Nathan Phillips and his native American hecklers are opportunistic and pathetic trouble seekers. The liberal horde that erroneously jumped on the media bandwagon, including all the celebrities who tried to appear righteous are guilty of unjustifiable bullying and child abuse. There are no relevant facts to support a subjective opinion that the Covington kids were the problem. Those who can't accept the facts are only deluding themselves and should seek deeper meaning in their lives. I feel bad for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those who can’t provide trustworthy sources that support their claims are only deluding themselves and should seek deeper meaning in their lives. I feel bad for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]