Posted on 07/27/2022 5:22:45 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
At first I thought you were talking about the diapered dictator but realized the demented dip sh!t is only 79 and has been feeding at the public trough for almost 50 years.
Re: 40 - So now, someone else does not agree with your viewpoint and they are also labeled as blindly believing the NY Times.
Sensing a pattern here.
Not at all. Liberal Judge covering for liberal media. The judge’s decision will early be reversed on appeal and the case assigned to a different judge.
Not a lawyer, but I have read every SCOTUS decision on defamation from the last 50+ years. Reversal is pretty much a slam dunk.
A judge calling the defamation an opinion and claiming opinions are not actionable is not the law.
These media personnel were claiming he is a racist. Publishing stuff the is untrue or with a blatant disregard for the truth of the matter makes the publisher liable, even moreso when the potential plaintiff demands a retraction and the potential defendants don’t provide one.
The media outlets that settled knew they defamed Sandmann and chose to pay rather than risk huge damage verdicts in a trial.
This is not over, not by a long shot. Even if the 6th circuit upholds the District Court Judge, this is a case that the SCOTUS may very well accept for review. 3-4 Justices have made it known they are interested in reconsidering the Sullivan v. NY Times case.
Actually, you have that backwards. A public person cannot prevail in a defamation action against a private person unless they can prove malice or a blatant disregard for the truth of the matter.
Some courts have completely twisted the case law for the benefit of publishers and media organizations.
You misunderstanding is therefore understandable.
The Oberlien college case
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.