Suit by Covington Catholic student against Washington Post dismissed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After reviewing an amended complaint, the case has been reinstated and will go to discovery.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2489395001/

A portion will go on. 30 of the statements still kicked out. They are looking into 3 statements.

First amendment will win out.

Kid is a punk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reviewing an amended complaint, the case has been reinstated and will go to discovery.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2489395001/

A portion will go on. 30 of the statements still kicked out. They are looking into 3 statements.

First amendment will win out.

Kid is a punk.

Riiiiight. He is a punk for just standing there despite the fact that Phillips walked up to him and got in his face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reviewing an amended complaint, the case has been reinstated and will go to discovery.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2489395001/

A portion will go on. 30 of the statements still kicked out. They are looking into 3 statements.

First amendment will win out.

Kid is a punk.

He's now saying that WaPo's reporting that he blocked Phillip's way was defamatory. Does that make any sense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reviewing an amended complaint, the case has been reinstated and will go to discovery.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2489395001/

A portion will go on. 30 of the statements still kicked out. They are looking into 3 statements.

First amendment will win out.

Kid is a punk.

Riiiiight. He is a punk for just standing there despite the fact that Phillips walked up to him and got in his face.

Yep. Whiny crybaby punk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reviewing an amended complaint, the case has been reinstated and will go to discovery.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2489395001/

A portion will go on. 30 of the statements still kicked out. They are looking into 3 statements.

First amendment will win out.

Kid is a punk.

He's now saying that WaPo's reporting that he blocked Phillip's way was defamatory. Does that make any sense?

Don't know if it was defamatory, but it was a lie. That is why WaPo had to issue a retraction. Too late though...damage already done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reviewing an amended complaint, the case has been reinstated and will go to discovery.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2489395001/

A portion will go on. 30 of the statements still kicked out. They are looking into 3 statements.

First amendment will win out.

Kid is a punk.

Riiiiight. He is a punk for just standing there despite the fact that Phillips walked up to him and got in his face.

This video clearly shows Sandmann continuing to stand there even after chaperones asked them to leave

https://vimeo.com/312411257

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reviewing an amended complaint, the case has been reinstated and will go to discovery.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2489395001/

A portion will go on. 30 of the statements still kicked out. They are looking into 3 statements.

First amendment will win out.

Kid is a punk.

Riiiiight. He is a punk for just standing there despite the fact that Phillips walked up to him and got in his face.

This video clearly shows Sandmann continuing to stand there even after chaperones asked them to leave

https://vimeo.com/312411257

Sandmann probably should have just left. Doesn't excuse a grown man approaching a high schooler and getting in his face, clearly trying to bait him. Then, lying about it afterwards.

[Anonymous]

That kid needs better parents. Such a shame.

[Anonymous]

The only statements the judge found to be untrue were said by Nathan Phillips, and the WaPo was just quoting Phillips. I don't see how the Post can be liable for what Phillips said.

"These three statements state that (Sandmann) 'blocked' Nathan Phillips and 'would not allow him to retreat,'" the order reads.

All of the statements the judge referenced were quotes from Phillips attributed directly to him.

Bertelsman said the amended complaint argues that Phillips "deliberately lied" and "had an unsavory reputation." The new complaint states the Washington Post should have known about Phillips due to prior coverage.

Marburger said Nick's attorneys will need to show the newspaper was indeed wrong for trusting Phillips. Then, they would also need to show that by allowing Phillips to say he was blocked and not allowed to retreat that Nick was libeled, Marburger said.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/crime-and-courts/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2488732001/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only statements the judge found to be untrue were said by Nathan Phillips, and the WaPo was just quoting Phillips. I don't see how the Post can be liable for what Phillips said.

"These three statements state that (Sandmann) 'blocked' Nathan Phillips and 'would not allow him to retreat,'" the order reads.

All of the statements the judge referenced were quotes from Phillips attributed directly to him.

Bertelsman said the amended complaint argues that Phillips "deliberately lied" and "had an unsavory reputation." The new complaint states the Washington Post should have known about Phillips due to prior coverage.

Marburger said Nick's attorneys will need to show the newspaper was indeed wrong for trusting Phillips. Then, they would also need to show that by allowing Phillips to say he was blocked and not allowed to retreat that Nick was libeled, Marburger said.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/crime-and-courts/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2488732001/

It's reckless to publish a lie about someone without checking the facts first.

[Anonymous]

Gulp. What a nightmare for the Post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only statements the judge found to be untrue were said by Nathan Phillips, and the WaPo was just quoting Phillips. I don't see how the Post can be liable for what Phillips said.

"These three statements state that (Sandmann) 'blocked' Nathan Phillips and 'would not allow him to retreat,'" the order reads.

All of the statements the judge referenced were quotes from Phillips attributed directly to him.

Bertelsman said the amended complaint argues that Phillips "deliberately lied" and "had an unsavory reputation." The new complaint states the Washington Post should have known about Phillips due to prior coverage.

Marburger said Nick's attorneys will need to show the newspaper was indeed wrong for trusting Phillips. Then, they would also need to show that by allowing Phillips to say he was blocked and not allowed to retreat that Nick was libeled, Marburger said.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/crime-and-courts/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2488732001/

It's reckless to publish a lie about someone without checking the facts first.

Ha! That is not how this works. Free speech and the first amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gulp. What a nightmare for the Post.

Papers fend off this crap all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only statements the judge found to be untrue were said by Nathan Phillips, and the WaPo was just quoting Phillips. I don't see how the Post can be liable for what Phillips said.

"These three statements state that (Sandmann) 'blocked' Nathan Phillips and 'would not allow him to retreat,'" the order reads.

All of the statements the judge referenced were quotes from Phillips attributed directly to him.

Bertelsman said the amended complaint argues that Phillips "deliberately lied" and "had an unsavory reputation." The new complaint states the Washington Post should have known about Phillips due to prior coverage.

Marburger said Nick's attorneys will need to show the newspaper was indeed wrong for trusting Phillips. Then, they would also need to show that by allowing Phillips to say he was blocked and not allowed to retreat that Nick was libeled, Marburger said.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/crime-and-courts/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2488732001/

It's reckless to publish a lie about someone without checking the facts first.

Ha! That is not how this works. Free speech and the first amendment.

So, it is not a problem for a news organization to publish and promulgate a lie, but by gosh, Facebook, a social media company, damn well better not allow anything untruthful in their ads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only statements the judge found to be untrue were said by Nathan Phillips, and the WaPo was just quoting Phillips. I don't see how the Post can be liable for what Phillips said.

"These three statements state that (Sandmann) 'blocked' Nathan Phillips and 'would not allow him to retreat,'" the order reads.

All of the statements the judge referenced were quotes from Phillips attributed directly to him.

Bertelsman said the amended complaint argues that Phillips "deliberately lied" and "had an unsavory reputation." The new complaint states the Washington Post should have known about Phillips due to prior coverage.

Marburger said Nick's attorneys will need to show the newspaper was indeed wrong for trusting Phillips. Then, they would also need to show that by allowing Phillips to say he was blocked and not allowed to retreat that Nick was libeled, Marburger said.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/crime-and-courts/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2488732001/

It's reckless to publish a lie about someone without checking the facts first.

Ha! That is not how this works. Free speech and the first amendment.

Including freedom from consequences?