Posted on 03/14/2019 7:03:52 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Why wouldn't it be?
I sent the video link and thread link to my email list and asked everyone to forward it viral and to ask the recipients to do the same after removing email addresses. We all know our emails are watched!
It’s called the court of public opinion. Destroy the media in any non-violent way it takes.
Sending that message is important. I’m just surprised that the lawyer bringing on the lawsuits would be tasked with that. I’m just hope his lawyer is focused on winning the case and not on his own ‘celebrity status.’
I don’t know how much sway public opinion has on courts. That is why I ask questions.
“.....are you saying he cannot present the same video evidence at trial?”
There is a strong chance it can be thrown out if the defense attorney argues the evidence is unfairly prejudicial. Courts will exclude evidence if its value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
The most overwhelming part of Sandman’s case against the media is that he, the poor 16 year old boy, was attacked in the press and they shouldn’t be “picking on” a young boy. If that video is played it obviously attempts to gain a prejudicial effect whether it’s the truth or not. Again, that’s the whole gist of his case and not that he was liabled, but liabled as a child.
Additionally, and you may see this one, they can argue that the audiotape is not a complete depiction and that its admissions may confuse the jury with a lack of pertinent evidence not displayed. If they had shown this first in court, at the time of the trial, it would have been thrown out. But the point of the harassment of that “poor young boy” would have been imaged in the minds of the jury. And that’s almost all this is for and little for the case itself.
rwood
The ‘press’ sure as hell isn’t going to present our side fairly so what options does he have?
I don't know. It seems unconventional. But this lawyer is unconventional.
He may be attempting to shape the battle-space. Perhaps encourage the big boys to settle out of court; get some early easy victories, and then move against the rest of the pack.
Regardless, the media Titans can't be comfortable seeing advertising calling for “media reform.” Goliath wants this to just go away; and it is not just going away.
The wrong-doers can start thinking right now about what they will say in their video taped depositions, and how they will explain their work emails.
"Teenager girls waiting for a bus after the 'Women's March on Washington' were yelled at by a group of NRA members shouting obscenities at them for wearing 'pink hats'... A man dressed as a native American started beating a drum with a toy guy inches from a young girl's face... The girl DID NOT BACK down she stood face-to-face with the NRA member beating the drum in her face ...
Now we'd like reporters from the Washington Post to run over there and trash the young woman for the smirk on her face...
DO YOU THINK WASHINGTON POST EDITORS WOULD HAVE EVER TREATED THIS STORY THE WAY THEY DID IF THE ROLES HAD BEEN REVERSED?
Thanks Liz
It could hold sway over the jury pool.
Good points. Perhaps that is true about precipitating settlements. I hope so. I hope Sandmann can get at least a couple hundred million in settlements.
RE: your last point though - While I am sure the perp’s lawyers are already working on 1600 different angles, flow charts, and presentations I’d rather not give them any clues.
Me too.
But even if the media bigs eke out a not guilty verdict, this story - told over and over again - and memorialized forever on Youtube, will leave corporate reputations and personal careers in tatters.
The media's coming defense will be: “Yes, we were negligent” but “No, it did not rise to the level of gross negligence.”
“DO YOU THINK WASHINGTON POST EDITORS WOULD HAVE EVER TREATED THIS STORY THE WAY THEY DID IF THE ROLES HAD BEEN REVERSED?”
That’s not the question I referenced. The question was if the court, or either of the attornies, would have had to accept the video from either side as complete and usable as evidence in the court case against the news media. And the answer is no, they probably won’t because of my indications. And if it’s a liberal judge and defense attorney, they may call a mistrial if this is shown as it supplies possible prejudice to a jury that is still trying to determine innocents or guilt on the liable charge.
But it doesn’t supply evidence that can be used because of it’s lack of completeness, possible editing, and the inability to identify what Sandman said in parts of the tape while in the crowd.
In my mind, he has them by the short ones because of the treatment by the media of any of Sandman’s illegalities that are being written about that they can’t prove even existed. It’s still their liable to be determined. And this is a civil case, not criminal. Civil cases, like this one, are proved by lower standards of proof such as “the preponderance of the evidence” (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). But that tape is not the way to do it as it could be considered civil contempt of court most often happens when someone tries to influence a jury with resulting injury to a either of the party’s rights. Could cause a mistrial.
rwood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_Sisters
from link:
The Cherry Sisters – Addie (1864–1942), Effie (1869–1944), Ella (1863–1934), Lizzie (1863–1936), and Jessie Cherry (1872–1903) – were a group of sisters from Marion, Iowa who formed a notorious vaudeville touring act in the late 19th century. They were also the plaintiffs in a landmark 1901 legal case heard by the Iowa Supreme Court, Cherry v. Des Moines Leader, which was instrumental in establishing and confirming the right of the press to fair comment.
The Cherry Sisters’ vaudeville act, Something Good, Something Sad, was infamous for its poor quality and the vehement responses it elicited by audiences, who threw vegetables and disrupted performances. The sisters toured with the act for ten years, during which time they briefly appeared on Broadway. In 1898 they sued two Iowa newspapers for libel after they printed a scathing review of Something Good, Something Sad. The case eventually went to the Iowa Supreme Court, which ruled in the newspapers’ favor and set a precedent for the right to fair comment.
_____________________________________________
The above suit was decided based on the fact that these sisters were holding themselves out to the public = and therefore were public figures... THAT RULING DOESN’T APPLY TO A TEENAGE BOY WAITING FOR A SCHOOL BUS TO GO HOME.
The video isn’t the issue.
I’m guessing the Post is being sued for how they covered the story. The kid was NOT holding himself out to the public - he was waiting for a school bus. He’s a private citizen and he’s a child. The paper didn’t have the right to take him on and defame him.
The only sad part of this is mess is that the paper is owned by one of the wealthiest men in the world - and the jerk can afford to pay the judgement AND keep publishing...
Bookmarking
“The paper didn’t have the right to take him on and defame him.”
You’re right there. But the evidence has to meet the requirements of defamation and their insinuation within their presentation of that evidence of his age or experience has nothing to do with the case itself. It is an obvious attempt to sway a jury by trying to produce protectionary thoughts.
He’s suing the sources, according to FOX, by claiming that CNN “elevated false, heinous accusations of racist conduct” against Sandmann and failed to adhere to “well-established journalistic standards and ethics. (Whatever the hell those are in today’s society) Not that he is a child, but that he is the victim of the network by a predatory attack in print, thus liable.
CNN has weathered these types of attacks many times. In my opinion, they have already crossed the line as much as supermarket tabloids and they don’t seem to care as they will settle out of court, and you will never hear of this again as part of the settlement. Case closed, and the listening audience will be blanketed with the next great story they determine is “news” to hide their infidelity with their audience. All the liberal networks work this way as this is how they earn their living off the lack of focus and gullibility of half of this nation. And that’s the one they play to and dupe. All for votes.
rwood
Ummm, that's the case law I was referring to... it's not just 'norms' of corrupt liberals - there's laws on the books... and precedents . Every managing editor in the country has his 'First Amendment' lawyer on speed dial...
The 'polite society' BS of liberals is NOT a factor in a court of law. CNN and the Washington Post are going down.
It isn’t that I want to protect any of the liberal mouthpieces that have gotten away with this for many years by hiding behind the liberal appointed judges, far from it. All I’m saying is that whoever represents him better keep it to the facts of the case: that he was liabled, not that he is a child which is what the videos was leaning toward. And with the ability of the court to determine it’s validity and not containing anything but eyewash to sway jurists for the wrong reason due to its lack of content, I hope it doesn’t damage the efforts of the attorney for the plaintiff if it gets shown in court at all. (Or if it even makes it to court)
rwood
Good points - we’re on the same side...
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.