Suit by Covington Catholic student against Washington Post dismissed

[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.

Actually, it is "how this works". Free speech/first amendment do not apply to libel, slander or defamation.

[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?

I’m not a lawyer but I think it will hinge on whether Wapo published based on “multiple sources”. See below.
Second, whether or not he wins some money from the case, the kid was acting like a jerk. He was being challenged and he chose to be defiant. White male in MAGA hat trying to defy elderly Native American. Respect your elders.

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That kid needs better parents. Such a shame.

+1

And better chaperones. They were ultimately responsible that day.

[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?

Yes, it does. A major newspaper lied about what they could clearly see on video.

[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.

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

I’m not a lawyer but I think it will hinge on whether Wapo published based on “multiple sources”. See below.
Second, whether or not he wins some money from the case, the kid was acting like a jerk. He was being challenged and he chose to be defiant. White male in MAGA hat trying to defy elderly Native American. Respect your elders.

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.

Stunning statement. I respect the kid for standing his ground. It's not a crime to wear a MAGA hat, as much as liberals want it to be.

[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.

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

Yes, it does. A major newspaper lied about what they could clearly see on video.

The video clearly shows that the boy stood in front of Phillips. Truth is a defense to defamation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I’m not a lawyer but I think it will hinge on whether Wapo published based on “multiple sources”. See below.
Second, whether or not he wins some money from the case, the kid was acting like a jerk. He was being challenged and he chose to be defiant. White male in MAGA hat trying to defy elderly Native American. Respect your elders.

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.

Stunning statement. I respect the kid for standing his ground. It's not a crime to wear a MAGA hat, as much as liberals want it to be.

I guess you didn't watch the long video, showing what the group did before and after this part of the day.

[Anonymous]

I'm on the fence about this. I cannot stand the maga-hat kids who came here to protest smugly and ignorantly against my rights as a woman. But I also think that a national outlet reporting on viral videos is super crap journalism. Whether or not this case holds up (and I'm not knowledgeable enough about defamation to say) hopefully it will improve reporting practices for all media, so that they don't just fan the flames of virality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Yes, it does. A major newspaper lied about what they could clearly see on video.

The video clearly shows that the boy stood in front of Phillips. Truth is a defense to defamation.

Who approached who?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I’m not a lawyer but I think it will hinge on whether Wapo published based on “multiple sources”. See below.
Second, whether or not he wins some money from the case, the kid was acting like a jerk. He was being challenged and he chose to be defiant. White male in MAGA hat trying to defy elderly Native American. Respect your elders.

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.

Stunning statement. I respect the kid for standing his ground. It's not a crime to wear a MAGA hat, as much as liberals want it to be.

I guess you didn't watch the long video, showing what the group did before and after this part of the day.

I didn't see them harassing Native Americans. I did see a Native American harassing them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm on the fence about this. I cannot stand the maga-hat kids who came here to protest smugly and ignorantly against my rights as a woman. But I also think that a national outlet reporting on viral videos is super crap journalism. Whether or not this case holds up (and I'm not knowledgeable enough about defamation to say) hopefully it will improve reporting practices for all media, so that they don't just fan the flames of virality.

Excellent statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Papers fend off this crap all the time.

It’s open to discovery now regarding three items, it appears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm on the fence about this. I cannot stand the maga-hat kids who came here to protest smugly and ignorantly against my rights as a woman. But I also think that a national outlet reporting on viral videos is super crap journalism. Whether or not this case holds up (and I'm not knowledgeable enough about defamation to say) hopefully it will improve reporting practices for all media, so that they don't just fan the flames of virality.

WaPo didn't make this news. Just reported it.

You're complaining about our culture, about reality. Not journalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm on the fence about this. I cannot stand the maga-hat kids who came here to protest smugly and ignorantly against my rights as a woman. But I also think that a national outlet reporting on viral videos is super crap journalism. Whether or not this case holds up (and I'm not knowledgeable enough about defamation to say) hopefully it will improve reporting practices for all media, so that they don't just fan the flames of virality.

WaPo didn't make this news. Just reported it.

You're complaining about our culture, about reality. Not journalism.

They reported a biased version of the news. That is the issue.

And, I doubt the outcome of this case will change a thing.

Weeks after this case, we were treated to the biased reporting in the Jussie Smollett case. Then, just recently, we were treated to another story about an elementary student being harassed and assaulted by boys at the school where Karen Pence teaches. Of course, that didn't happen either, but it was reported as if there is no question that it did.

I don't know what they are teaching at journalism school these days, but they could use a new crop of professors to help students learn how to report without biased language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm on the fence about this. I cannot stand the maga-hat kids who came here to protest smugly and ignorantly against my rights as a woman. But I also think that a national outlet reporting on viral videos is super crap journalism. Whether or not this case holds up (and I'm not knowledgeable enough about defamation to say) hopefully it will improve reporting practices for all media, so that they don't just fan the flames of virality.

WaPo didn't make this news. Just reported it.

You're complaining about our culture, about reality. Not journalism.

Np. Seems like a complaint about journalism as well, since the journalism reported lies.