Posted on 07/27/2019 3:53:36 AM PDT by Libloather
The $250 million defamation lawsuit filed by Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann against the Washington Post was dismissed Friday.
Attorneys for the Kentucky teen — who was filmed earlier this year in January wearing a MAGA hat in a viral standoff with Native American activist Nathan Phillips in Washington, DC — claimed the newspaper’s coverage of the incident led to a “mob of bullies which attacked, vilified & threatened” Sandmann.
But US District Judge William Bertelsman tossed the suit, saying the paper was within its rights to publish Phillips’ views that the teen was deliberately blocking his path — even if that wasn’t the case.
“The Court accepts Sandmann’s statement that, when he was standing motionless in the confrontation with Philip’s his intent was to calm the situation and not to impede or block anyone,” Bertelsman wrote in a ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Go get 'em.
I hope his legal team is more savvy going forward. Bringing it to a liberal hack to judge was foolishly underestimated.
You don’t pick the judge, but they could have done a change of judge. Now they will have to do a motion to reconsider.
Will that motion go before the same judge?
yeah probably
i don’t agree with the suit....and i agree....freedom of the press. not like he lost a job or any prestige.
His life is potentially ruined before it ever started. Colleges will be less apt to admit him because they don’t want the controversy. Maybe he wanted to be a doctor- who knows- but his choices are limited based on the manipulation of the coverage and the piling on of an innocent minor who was not a public figure. More than anything, that’s not fair and offending outlets shouldn’t be allowed this behavior.
IANAL but I understand that when it’s libel against a minor, you don’t have to prove malice on the part of the perpetrator, not monetary harm to the plaintiff. All you have to prove is negligence on the part of the perp, and emotional pain to the minor.
The law is very strict about exposing a minor to defamation and harm, even emotional. WaPo should know.
IANAL but I understand that when it’s libel against a minor, you don’t have to prove malice on the part of the perpetrator, not monetary harm to the plaintiff. All you have to prove is negligence on the part of the perp, and emotional pain to the minor.
The law is very strict about exposing a minor to defamation and harm, even emotional. WaPo should know.
I can see....He stood there and the two intimidated each other equally. He should have gone back with his group instead of getting stuck on stupid. Nice kid...and none of his choices have changed. Speculation is not grounds...
This kid kept his cool while under full assault by Chief Refridgerator Ranger, and cooly walked a minefield when interviewed by a hostile media.
“not like he lost a job or any prestige.”
Be sure to tell the kid that when he’s turned down by colleges and potential employers because of this defamation. I’m sure he’ll agree with you.
L. Lin Wood says there will be an appeal.
If the Times suit was tossed the other suits won't be around much longer.
No big payday for them I guess.
What really triggered the libs was that Sandmann smiled the whole time.
i don’t agree with the suit....and i agree....freedom of the press. not like he lost a job or any prestige.
...
I do not think you have had your coffee yet. I also do not think you intended to be naive or foolish however you have that. Here’s the thing. This judge from what he has done has now basically made it okay with a legal precedent to totally slander somebody with impunity. And no less a minor has been slandered. There is no wiggle room or left for interpretation as you say he stood there and said nothing. All witnesses can see it and that is the truth. It is only the left and their press that do the slandering. Do you see the conservative Tribune or any other conservative news outlets like Newsmax saying untrue stories and making things up and slandering? No you do not. So this precedent only gives the left free pass with a slippery slope that has no end to say anything they want about somebody with no repercussions. That is not what freedom of the press is or was or was too fine to be by our founding fathers. There has to be a limit. I pray that the other cases Go a different direction otherwise this case will be very very famous. My point is the defendant could have had things said about him much worse and the outcome would have been the same. The judge basically said it is just a matter of interpretation. So him standing there could have also been interpreted that he intended to beat the living crap out of the so-called Indian man. And that would have been just as acceptable and freedom of the press under this ruling.
There is a threshold. We have exceeded it. “The War” has started. It will get hotter. MUCH hotter.
Just another Democrat judge, a Jimmy Carter appointee with one foot in the grave, doing his thing. And Chief Justice Roberts lectures us about thing judges are partisan. What an insult to anyone with common sense who watches District Court and Supreme Court rulings.
If this judge’s ruling holds are all the Press has to do is accuse somebody of being a rapist or potential murderer or bigot or homophobic. When the person tries to defend themselves The Press can then say oh well certain Witnesses said that that’s what he was trying to do. When you ask for who those Witnesses are all the Press has to say is oh unnamed Witnesses but we have freedom of the press and freedom of speech. You see how dangerous this ruling is?. It is now a licensed to destroy anybody they want with impunity.
So, destroying the presses is now justified
You lie, you die
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.