Nick Sandmann's media libel lawsuits dismissed by federal judge

Fox News ^ | 27 July 2022 | Lindsay Kornick

[Magnatron]

U.S. District Eastern Kentucky Court Judge William Bertelsman on Wednesday threw out five media libel lawsuits brought forth by former Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann.

In January 2019, Sandmann was at the center of a viral video that showed him face-to-face with Native American man Nathan Phillips as Phillips banged a drum and sang a traditional song. Sandmann was 16 years old at the time and wore a red "Make America Great Again" cap.

Several mainstream media outlets portrayed the video as racially charged with Sandmann antagonizing Phillips by standing in front of him and smiling. However, additional footage later showed that their confrontation was provoked by a group of Black Hebrew Israelites who hurled racial slurs at him and his fellow students. Phillips was later seen approaching Sandmann as tension rose between the students and the Black Hebrew Israelites.

While Sandmann filed several lawsuits against media outlets that defamed him at the time, Bertelsman dismissed cases against The New York Times, CBS, ABC, Gannett Co. Inc, and Rolling Stone, claiming that media assertions that Sandmann "blocked" Phillips were protected opinions at the time.

[Magnatron]

...were protected opinions at the time.

Kinda gets them off the hook for everything, doesn't it?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The Alex Jones Sandy Hook show trial is the same issue.

The propaganda press is immune from slander lawsuits, but Alex Jones is guilty and not even allowed to say he is not guilty.

[marktwain]

Kinda gets them off the hook for everything, doesn't it?

Essentially, it appears the judge held, noting is factual, anything can be stated as an opinion, even when there is clear, direct video evidence to the contrary, easily available.

I may need to read this opinion.

[hinckley buzzard]

Three already settled, so nick is still well fixed. These are additional suits.

[Gay State Conservative]

A Peanut Farmer appointee.

[TLI]

Sandmann antagonizing Phillips by standing in front of him and smiling.

OMG, not the antagonizing smiling!

Perhaps he should have used a 14" stick of 1/2" rebar instead of that antagonizing smiling.

.

[Mark17]

Kinda gets them off the hook for everything, doesn't it?

I thought he had already won a ton of money. Anyway, I guess all these A holes ever have to say, is that it was our opinion, and that makes it ok. What A holes.

[Born in 1950]

Words never mattered. Words are a sucker’s game.

[griswold3]

I think Sandman settled out of court with some media entities. Bet they wished they had hung on after this decision.

[ocrp1982]

This judgment seems ridiculous on its face. It appears designed to protect the MSM with little basis in actual law.
I am not aware of any law that allows a news org to lie and slander if a news org claims it is our opinion and we are entitled to it.
On an Opinion Show this is a valid argument. But, these libels were also engaged in on so-called MSM Hard News programming. An appeal of this judgment is very likely.

[Zhang Fei]

Carter judge.

[Roccus]

86 year old POS has been feeding at the public trough for almost 43 years.

Maybe he got enough out of this case to retire comfortably.

Don’t soil your robe there ass wipe, it’s only my opinion

[Dogbert41]

He was a teenager, under 18, and they plastered his face and called him a racist all around the world.

[Political Junkie Too]

claiming that media assertions that Sandmann "blocked" Phillips were protected opinions at the time.

They weren't media assertions, they were intentional propaganda.

The LAAP-dog media had access to the full video, and were able to see the entirety of the events, but chose to run a snippet that isolated Sandmann and nobody else.

That was opinion, that was malfeasance.

-PJ

[Phlyer]

It appears designed to protect the MSM with little basis in actual law.

Absolutely. The law says that "news" organizations cannot be sued for libel even if what they say is untrue and the person is harmed unless the plaintiff can show that the "news" organization had actual "malice" toward the plaintiff. In other words, the plaintiff has to prove not only a thought crime, but a hate crime. Unless the "news" organization is stupid enough to say that they hate the plaintiff (or his race, etc.) or are stupid enough to wear a shirt/hat/whatever that shows hate, then they get off.

Of course, the leftists consider wearing a MAGA hat in itself proof of hate.

[Fury]

As usual, the most ignorant comments are made by those who have apparently not read the Judge’s ruling.

Not surprised.

[Paleo Conservative]

I think Sandman settled out of court with some media entities. Bet they wished they had hung on after this decision.

This decision will be appealed. I doubt CNN and the other defendants wanted to have to wait years to end their liability exposure. They might have had to pay as much or more in legal and court costs to win as they paid out.

[Fresh Wind]

A Peanut Farmer appointee.

[CFW]

So, then how do people get to go after Alex Jones for his opinion on the Sandy Hook school shooting? It was just his opinion.

[Phlyer]

I thought he had already won a ton of money.

The amount of the settlements has never been published. One can hope.

Anyway, I guess all these A holes ever have to say, is that it was our opinion, and that makes it ok.

The reason Sandman was offered a settlement on the prior claims is that the video was selectively edited to make him look bad. That is a deliberate act that shows 'malice'. An 'opinion' that shows malice, along the lines of "I hated him because he was wearing a MAGA hat" may be grounds for a libel suit. The key, in US law, is that the plaintiff has to be able to prove that the defendant acted with actual malice toward him. Most opinions (in this case, that he was blocking the ahole with the drum) are not necessarily (and therefore not legally) signs of malice.