“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...