Nick Sandmann's media libel lawsuits dismissed by federal judge

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

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.

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.

But we KNOW they had malice

Yep. The haters are all on the socialist side - and all of them hate.

But knowing it and proving it in a court of law are different - as they should be. After all, there are lots of socialists who "know" that guns fire themselves to kill innocent home invaders all the time.

If I ruled the world, libel laws would be much simplified. "Was there harm?" "Was the statement true?"

None of those require the ability to read someone's mind. And it shouldn't matter if they didn't "know" whether what they said was true. They need to make sure before they publish something harmful that it is true - burden of proof on the one making the harmful statement. That's actually close to the laws in England, and much more logical than the MSM-coddling mess the courts have inflicted on us.

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.