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.
“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.
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.