Posted on 03/26/2024 6:57:01 AM PDT by Twotone
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the case of Nicholas Sandmann, a former Kentucky high school student who sued several news outlets for allegedly libelous coverage of his viral encounter with a Native American activist in 2019.
Justices decided not to take up Sandmann’s petition against several outlets, including ABC News, The New York Times, Gannett, and others, leaving in place a lower court’s dismissal of the massive libel suit.
The former student argued he was defamed by reports about his confrontation with Native American activist Nathan Phillips at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., five years ago.
Sandmann’s lawyer wrote in his petition that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit erred when it found the media outlets, which reported Phillips’s account that Sandmann had “blocked [his] way and wouldn’t allow [him] to retreat,” had published statements that were “protected opinions.”
Counsel for Sandmann referred to their client in court filings as a victim of “cancel culture” who was an “innocent high school student” at the time he crossed paths with Phillips. The Native American activist was attending an “Indigenous People’s March” while Sandmann was in town for the annual “March for Life” event.
“Sandmann was denounced by his church diocese, denied re-admission to his high school, and attacked in the national media,” according to the petition. “Round-the-clock police protection was assigned to his house; his visage was featured on nearly all major television outlets, with celebrity commentators stating that they would ‘like to punch him in the face,’ and worse.”
The 6th Circuit ruled 2-1 last August that the “blocking” statements at issue were “nonactionable” because the media published Phillips expressing “his subjective understanding of the situation and of Sandmann’s intent, an understanding informed by the pair’s proximity, the other students’ movement, and the lack of communication during the encounter.”
Sandmann asked the Supreme Court in January to hear his appeal of the 6th Circuit decision and answer the following questions: “Do statements conveying observed sensory impressions in factual, descriptive terms constitute protected ‘opinion’ under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?” and “Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit effectively eliminate the distinction between fact and opinion articulated in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Company, 497 U.S. 1 (1990)?”
In January 2020, CNN settled a lawsuit filed by Sandmann for an unspecified amount. He also reached a settlement with NBC Universal in December 2021.
This would open a huge can of worms that would be used by leftists.
Nick apparently made out just fine in the settlements. Better his lawyers go after INDIVIDUALS.
I thought I read that he had gotten serious $$$ from at least one or two news outlets. Does this decision overturn that...or does it just mean that he can’t sue the ones that refused to settle?
Sounds like some lawyers looking for another payday to me.
The SC is supposed to be involved in deciding Constitutional issues.
MSM did the same thing to Richard Jewell as they’ve done to Nick. Take them to the cleaner, Nick!
I remember when people here celebrated Sandmann’s win against the networks in a lower court. Lots of high fives here. And then it was dismissed. We should be careful not to prematurely celebrate half-wins.
Yes, this is a victory for the MSM.
But, going after individuals is much better. Go after the writers who penned the article in the NYTs, etc. Name them and sue them. Corp’s coverage for such is limited. And, when things go bad they will throw you under the bus.
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.