Skip to comments.A Lawyer’s Perspective: Sandmann Likely to Win Against Twitter, More
Posted on 08/01/2020 11:23:22 AM PDT by therightliveswithus
Something rare just happened. A young person who doesn't follow the liberal orthodoxy defeated a major liberal news outlet. Two, in fact. How did these things happen following hours and hours of blistering news coverage? The case of Nicholas Sandmann and the resulting legal battle is one that scholars will be reading about and studying for decades. It might also be one that news organizations rue for even longer. I wrote about the topic on my legal blog and discussed some of the major cases of precedent prior to this one. While the government is restricted by law and precedent from most forms of libel protection, there are important elements for the common person. This goes double for individuals who are not in the public eye. Nicholas Sandmann was not a public official. He was not a public figure. The attention by the major media types attempted to make him into a national figure. However, he just wanted to go back to Covington high school and finish his studies. The media made this into a classic circus. This is troubling in many ways that I will discuss below. Even more important for Sandmann and for future aspirants in libel cases, there is a new precedent. One that will likely challenge the existing liberal media establishment.
(Excerpt) Read more at punditpress.com ...
Mr. Sandmann, bring us a dream ! ;-D
Go Nick go!
Hope he takes every one of them down....
The indian must be pissed..All he got was 15 minutes of fame
Twitter is an editor. They remove things they say are incorrect. Therefore, everything the allow and refuse to shut down are just as though Twitter is a newspaper and published slander.
Sandman can also sue the Twitter posters.
The one thing the liberal media does not understand is that this was a 16 year old man that went to a pro Life rally in Washington DC. That shows he is counter culture to today’s secular values plus he has a certain amount of moral strength. Then they went and attached him with falsehoods. Now this kid is pissed.
I hope the Wall of Doctors follow the same lawsuit!
NICK SHOWS A LOT OF CLASS...........
L. Lin Wood needs to expand his practice bigly.
thanks for posting. Good analysis.
Ive got to imagine that there is one defendant that Wood plans on taking to trial. Precedent needs to be set. I wonder who the lucky defendant will be.
The lady doctor that gave the speech about HCQ being the best (nobody has to die) description has indicated she ha retained Lin Wood following the take down and slander of her and the doctors speeches.
Sean Hannity and the McCloskeys have retained him.
CASE IN POINT After a selectively edited video of the Covington Catholic teens went viral on Twitter, verified, bluecheck accounts accused the minor teens of mobbing and harassing a Native American activist the full video of what transpired proved this narrative to be a huge lie. *********
Verified accounts ran with the lie and called for the murder, physical assault and even sexual crimes to be committed against the children. These calls for violence against children clearly violate Twitters Terms of Service, however they took no action against the accounts. Every single account is still up. *********
Twitter has taken no action against these verified bluecheck accounts even though they blatantly violated the terms of service. In fact, hundreds of people reported House Shoes, a Los Angeles-based DJ who called for the Covington Catholic kids to be burned alive and Twitter said in a response that his tweets did not violate the rules. (Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
This pattern and practice of making death threats proves that Twitter is not a common carrier; its executives should be liable for crimes committed using that service.
SOURCE WIKI---Twitter Initial public offering (IPO)
-On September 12, 2013, Twitter announced that it had filed papers with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ahead of a planned stock market listing. It revealed its prospectus in an 800-page filing. Twitter planned to raise US$1 billion as the basis for its stock market debut. The IPO filing states that 200,000,000+ monthly active users access Twitter and 500,000,000+ tweets per day are posted. In an October 15, 2013 amendment to their SEC S-1 filing, Twitter declared that they would list on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), quashing speculation that their stock would trade on the NASDAQ exchange. This decision was widely viewed to be a reaction to the botched initial public offering of Facebook.
On November 6, 2013, 70 million shares were priced at US$26 and issued by lead underwriter Goldman Sachs.
On November 7, 2013, the first day of trading on the NYSE, Twitter shares opened at $26.00 and closed at US$44.90, giving the company a valuation of around US$31 billion. The paperwork from show of November 7 that among the founders, Williams received a sum of US$2.56 billion and Dorsey received US$1.05 billion, while Costolos payment was US$345 million.
On February 5, 2014, Twitter published its first results as a public company, showing a net loss of $511 million in the fourth quarter of 2013.
On January 5, 2016, CEO Jack Dorsey commented on a report that Twitter planned to expand its character limit to 10,000 (private messages already had the longer limit as of July), requiring users to click to see anything beyond 140 characters. He said while Twitter would never lose that feeling of speed, users could do more with the text. In September 2016, Twitter shares rose 20% after a report that it had received takeover approaches. Potential buyers were Alphabet (parent company of Google), Microsoft, Salesforce.com, Verizon, and The Walt Disney Company. Twitters board of directors were open to a deal, which could have come by the end of 2016.
However, no deal was made, with reports in October stating that all the potential buyers dropped out partly due to concerns over abuse and harassment on the service.
In June 2017, Twitter revamped its dashboard to improve the new user experience.
GREAT. - Personally, I hope that the courts make the LIARS in the press pay & pay & pay the young man until it HURTS them severely or even closes their “news” outlet forever.
I suspect the news organizations are caving to prevent access to their emails from the DNC.
The Sullivan decision justified itself with the assertion that". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First AmendmentWe all love us some First Amendment - but in reality that claim is poppycock. In fact, prior to 1964 no court had ever asserted that the First Amendment had any effect at all on libel law.
That is true for the same reason that 1A has no effect on pornography restrictions. Namely, the fact that the objective of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee, and reassure the public, that the Constitution did not change the rights of the people in any non-explicit way.
There was no bill of rights in the unamended Constitution for the simple reason that the Federalists assumed, and wanted the public to assume, just that - that the Constitution didnt change anyones common law rights. When forced to insert a bill of rights into the Constitution by amendment, the Federalists did two things:Thus, the fact that the Constitution - First Amendment and all - is silent about pornography law and libel law means that common law principles prior to the Constitution apply to them. Nobody thought that laws against pornography or libel were exceptionable in 1788, and to have assayed to weaken those laws by constitutional amendment in that era would have been to invite a firestorm of controversy.
- In the first eight amendments they enumerated - did not claim to create but merely to articulate - rights, and only those rights, which had historically been denied by tyrants.
- In the ninth and tenth amendments, they asserted the principle that if the Constitution is silent about a right, the Constitution does not change that right.
Libel and slander are violations of the Ninth Commandment, "
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
and the weakening of legal strictures against libel or slander would have been opposed from every pulpit in the land. No such furor erupted, because the First Amendment was understood to preserve the freedom of the press - freedom as it already existed, and was limited, by libel and pornography restrictions.
Antonin Scalia understood and articulated that argument, and Clarence Thomas does so now.
The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision was unanimous, but that was a ruling by the notorious Warren Court. Absent the investiture of Antonin Scalia in the year before the decision, Morrison v. Olson could have been unanimous too - but nobody now would venture to cite it as precedent for anything other than the fact that eight SCOTUS justices can be wrong at the same time. Well, the Sullivan decision proves that nine Warren Court justices could be egregiously wrong simultaneously.
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.