[Sequoyah101]

36 pages to demonstrate how biased he is?

I guess he gets paid by the word.

[WASCWatch]

The simple act of-republishing makes the Washington Post just as liable as the original speaker. The judge is wrong.

A newspaper has an affirmative duty to investigate the facts before publishing a story. Allegations of fact under the guise of “opinion” are still allegations of fact.

The dismissal of this case will not stand.

[pepsi_junkie]

The Washington Post basically wrote a crappy point paper laying out their argument that they are right and Sandman is wrong by asserting a bunch of stuff as facts without evidence and then argued that based on all that, Sandman shouldn't be given a chance to present his own evidence in a trial. And this judge said "yeah, that makes sense to me. I trust the Washington Post on this one, no need to allow the plaintiff a chance to present evidence of their claim."

A bad day for the rule of law.

[KC_Conspirator]

Clear case of defamation. This kid is not a public figure.

[joma89]

In short, leftists always support each other and this judge says it is legal for a journalist to defame a person, thus giving journalists a special privilege. If a non-journalist does the same thing, this judge would rule in favor of the lawsuit and order the conservative (I mean non-journalist) to pay up the $250 million immediately.

JoMa

[trebb]

Senile judge pretty much said Press and ilk can keep shoveling fake news and lies and libel and slander and such with impunity...

[TBP]

A senile, partisan Dhimmicrap who shouldn’t be allowed to rule on what he’s having for dinner let alone any legal matter.