[nathanbedford]

We simply do not have enough here to make an intelligent judgment about this ruling.

The court says the newspaper has a First Amendment right to pass along opinions which characterize, perhaps inaccurately, facts.

We do not know what the state of knowledge of the Washington Post was when they published the article. Did the Post know the actual state of the facts from other videos that might have been in their possession? What facts might be imputed to the Washington Post from other sources?

At this stage of the proceedings, it is probable that discovery was not far advanced and therefore there might well have been actual knowledge somewhere in the Washington Post system that would have lead a reasonable person to believe that the account was fictitious. We don't know.

Did the Washington Post simply publish in this article Phelp's version without any independent checking? If so, the court seems to grant it absolute immunity. That alone, it seems to me, should be grounds for appeal. Does not The Post have an affirmative duty if it seeks to profit by publishing to make at least independent inquiry? This court says not. Perhaps this law might be changed?

[bgill]

Freedom of the press doesn’t mean freedom to constantly make up stories and twist everything into their own fantasies.

[kiryandil]

The first article written by The Washington POS was headed by the video of the refrigerator repair Indian and Nick Sandmann (Sandmann was unidentified at the time).

It was an open invitation by The Washington POS to doxx Sandmann. That's how it works on social media platforms like Fecesbook and Twitter, and that's what happened.

Sandmann and his friends were identified, and the Twitter mob started going after them and their parents.

Bertelsman the doddering 83-year-old fossil has NO idea how any of this works. He's simply not competent to judge current media usages.

[Political Junkie Too]

I believe I read that the judge tossed it out based on "initial reporting."

However, I thought the case was not about the initial reporting, but the sustained reporting about the children days after knowing the true facts.

I'm sure that Sandmann's lawyer is all over this, given how he was presented as the premier lawyer for these types of cases.

-PJ

[kiryandil]

Proof of my contention that Bertelsman is a doddering incompetent is that his particulars, and those of his family, are easily found online.

Most federal judges hide their information. He's of an older generation who doesn't understand the way information is splashed out on the Internet.