Suit by Covington Catholic student against Washington Post dismissed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wapo reported what Phillips said. We would also be attacking WaPo if they had not published his statements...

[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.

Or if you stand on the other side, Philips is standing in front of the boy.

[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?

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.

Or if you stand on the other side, Philips is standing in front of the boy.

So they're blocking each other.

Is Wood going to sue me for defamation too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wapo reported what Phillips said. We would also be attacking WaPo if they had not published his statements...

If only. Philips said he was a Vietnam-era veteran. This was quickly conflated to Vietnam veteran. Good job reporting "facts."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Or if you stand on the other side, Philips is standing in front of the boy.

So they're blocking each other.

Is Wood going to sue me for defamation too?

He would have a case if anyone cared what you wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Or if you stand on the other side, Philips is standing in front of the boy.

So they're blocking each other.

Is Wood going to sue me for defamation too?

He would have a case if anyone cared what you wrote.

Truth is a defense to defamation.

[Anonymous]

So can the Washington Post be sued for libel every time they print Trump's lies? Just think of all the people Trump has lied about, and certainly the Post is on notice that Trump is a big fat liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So can the Washington Post be sued for libel every time they print Trump's lies? Just think of all the people Trump has lied about, and certainly the Post is on notice that Trump is a big fat liar.

You'll blow poor Lin Wood's mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Or if you stand on the other side, Philips is standing in front of the boy.

So they're blocking each other.

Is Wood going to sue me for defamation too?

He would have a case if anyone cared what you wrote.

Truth is a defense to defamation.

But, not in this case, because the "truth" was actually a bunch of lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So can the Washington Post be sued for libel every time they print Trump's lies? Just think of all the people Trump has lied about, and certainly the Post is on notice that Trump is a big fat liar.

Do you even read the Washington Post.

My print edition of the Baghdadi killing had a headline ending in "Trump says."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Or if you stand on the other side, Philips is standing in front of the boy.

So they're blocking each other.

Is Wood going to sue me for defamation too?

He would have a case if anyone cared what you wrote.

Truth is a defense to defamation.

But, not in this case, because the "truth" was actually a bunch of lies.

They blocked each other's way.

That's not a bunch of lies.

[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.

No one said it's a crime. Is it respectful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Or if you stand on the other side, Philips is standing in front of the boy.

So they're blocking each other.

Is Wood going to sue me for defamation too?

He would have a case if anyone cared what you wrote.

Truth is a defense to defamation.

But, not in this case, because the "truth" was actually a bunch of lies.

They blocked each other's way.

That's not a bunch of lies.

Phillips said he was not allowed to retreat - a lie. BTW, how could Sandmann be blocking him from approaching the Lincoln Memorial and also be preventing him from retreating?
It was reported that the students were mocking and jeering the Native Americans - a lie
Phillips said that the students were "attacking these four black individuals" - a lie
It was reported that the students were chanting "build that wall" - a lie

And on and on and on....

[Anonymous]

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.



No one said it's a crime. Is it respectful?

It is neither respectful or disrespectful.

As for the "blocking"--didn't Phillips walk up to the kid who was just standing there? I don't think the kid stepped into his path. Face it, the guy with PHillips was making video of the whole thing. It was planned and set up by Phillips. CNN made Phillips a hero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.



No one said it's a crime. Is it respectful?

It is neither respectful or disrespectful.

As for the "blocking"--didn't Phillips walk up to the kid who was just standing there? I don't think the kid stepped into his path. Face it, the guy with PHillips was making video of the whole thing. It was planned and set up by Phillips. CNN made Phillips a hero.

No, the kid said he went forward to meet him.