Suit by Covington Catholic student against Washington Post dismissed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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....

This is a lawsuit. You can't just say, "it was reported." Did WaPo report that? Or did someone say that in an opinion article? Or did another news organization report that? Or did anyone? You sound like Wood. Sloppy.

[Anonymous]

Independent liberal leaning voter here:
I really despise those kids. They were protesting women’s rights, and I guarantee most of them are misogynists. They are sheltered, privileged, little a holes.
BUT. Wapo did a crap job reporting this. They turned it into national news. If we want to convince at least a small percentage of the cult-of-Trump to come back to reality and at least consider legitimate news sources, the MSM has to be above reproach. As soon as I read this story, Jussie Smollett, and the dreadlock girl, I knew something was off. Those kids of stories feed right into the FoxNews narrative of “fake news”.

[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.

+100
I can’t believe liberals are still spinning these lies. The kid remained where he was. He didn’t block anyone, nor did he back down. Nor should he have. Phillips very clearly is the antagonist here, getting right up in the kid’s face.

[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.

BS. Phillips approaches the boy and stood in HIS way. And the video shows exactly that. Stop lying.
-DP

[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.

BS. Phillips approaches the boy and stood in HIS way. And the video shows exactly that. Stop lying.
-DP

Phillips approached the group. The boy went to meet him. They stood in front of each other. Blocking each other's way would be one way to describe it.

What lie are you referring to?

[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.

BS. Phillips approaches the boy and stood in HIS way. And the video shows exactly that. Stop lying.
-DP

Phillips approached the group. The boy went to meet him. They stood in front of each other. Blocking each other's way would be one way to describe it.

What lie are you referring to?

What a liar you are. Here’s the video where it can plainly be seen that Phillips approaches the group of students, makes his way to the middle, winds up face yo face with Sandman where he loudly sings and bangs his drum in Sandman’s face. Sandman doesn’t “walk to meet him”. He merely stands exactly where he had been, the entire time. And after about ten minutes of this, Sandman walks away.

The video is clearly narrated and the source is the NYT, so it will be interesting to see how you continue to try and spin it to suit your partisan narrative.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000006316721/nathan-phillips-nick-sandman-covington-video.html

[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.

BS. Phillips approaches the boy and stood in HIS way. And the video shows exactly that. Stop lying.
-DP

Phillips approached the group. The boy went to meet him. They stood in front of each other. Blocking each other's way would be one way to describe it.

What lie are you referring to?

What a liar you are. Here’s the video where it can plainly be seen that Phillips approaches the group of students, makes his way to the middle, winds up face yo face with Sandman where he loudly sings and bangs his drum in Sandman’s face. Sandman doesn’t “walk to meet him”. He merely stands exactly where he had been, the entire time. And after about ten minutes of this, Sandman walks away.

The video is clearly narrated and the source is the NYT, so it will be interesting to see how you continue to try and spin it to suit your partisan narrative.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000006316721/nathan-phillips-nick-sandman-covington-video.html

Don't even try to reason with these people. Their brains are consumed with Trump Hate, so they cannot think logically.
Sandmann committed the cardinal sin of wearing a MAGA hat. And, attending a pro life rally. He is hated by the liberals here, even if he did nothing wrong.
Because a pro-life MAGA hat wearing youth is irredeemable in their minds.

[Anonymous]

What I see in the NYT video is a bunch of arrogant white supremacists in the making.

The Post will win the case easily. There was no malice in the story, and people say what they say. You report it out. It was a snapshot of breaking news. The Post ran their clarification.

Anyone who thinks the video makes Sandmann look innocent is blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I see in the NYT video is a bunch of arrogant white supremacists in the making.

The Post will win the case easily. There was no malice in the story, and people say what they say. You report it out. It was a snapshot of breaking news. The Post ran their clarification.

Anyone who thinks the video makes Sandmann look innocent is blind.

Or biased against him.

[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.

BS. Phillips approaches the boy and stood in HIS way. And the video shows exactly that. Stop lying.
-DP

Phillips approached the group. The boy went to meet him. They stood in front of each other. Blocking each other's way would be one way to describe it.

What lie are you referring to?

What a liar you are. Here’s the video where it can plainly be seen that Phillips approaches the group of students, makes his way to the middle, winds up face yo face with Sandman where he loudly sings and bangs his drum in Sandman’s face. Sandman doesn’t “walk to meet him”. He merely stands exactly where he had been, the entire time. And after about ten minutes of this, Sandman walks away.

The video is clearly narrated and the source is the NYT, so it will be interesting to see how you continue to try and spin it to suit your partisan narrative.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000006316721/nathan-phillips-nick-sandman-covington-video.html

Sandman said he moved to the front of his group, to meet Phillips.

What a liar...

[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.

BS. Phillips approaches the boy and stood in HIS way. And the video shows exactly that. Stop lying.
-DP

Phillips approached the group. The boy went to meet him. They stood in front of each other. Blocking each other's way would be one way to describe it.

What lie are you referring to?

What a liar you are. Here’s the video where it can plainly be seen that Phillips approaches the group of students, makes his way to the middle, winds up face yo face with Sandman where he loudly sings and bangs his drum in Sandman’s face. Sandman doesn’t “walk to meet him”. He merely stands exactly where he had been, the entire time. And after about ten minutes of this, Sandman walks away.

The video is clearly narrated and the source is the NYT, so it will be interesting to see how you continue to try and spin it to suit your partisan narrative.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000006316721/nathan-phillips-nick-sandman-covington-video.html

Watch this video - you can see that those boys were actively interacting with the NAs and that Sandmann chose to continue to stand there because he was mocking Phillips (especially after 2:00 mark)
https://vimeo.com/312411257

[Anonymous]

The kid is a punk and his parents are money-grubbing ignoramuses.

[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.

BS. Phillips approaches the boy and stood in HIS way. And the video shows exactly that. Stop lying.
-DP

Phillips approached the group. The boy went to meet him. They stood in front of each other. Blocking each other's way would be one way to describe it.

What lie are you referring to?

What a liar you are. Here’s the video where it can plainly be seen that Phillips approaches the group of students, makes his way to the middle, winds up face yo face with Sandman where he loudly sings and bangs his drum in Sandman’s face. Sandman doesn’t “walk to meet him”. He merely stands exactly where he had been, the entire time. And after about ten minutes of this, Sandman walks away.

The video is clearly narrated and the source is the NYT, so it will be interesting to see how you continue to try and spin it to suit your partisan narrative.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000006316721/nathan-phillips-nick-sandman-covington-video.html

Watch this video - you can see that those boys were actively interacting with the NAs and that Sandmann chose to continue to stand there because he was mocking Phillips (especially after 2:00 mark)
https://vimeo.com/312411257

So?
The old man has a right to be treated with dignity and respect
Young man should have known that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I see in the NYT video is a bunch of arrogant white supremacists in the making.

The Post will win the case easily. There was no malice in the story, and people say what they say. You report it out. It was a snapshot of breaking news. The Post ran their clarification.

Anyone who thinks the video makes Sandmann look innocent is blind.

Two things can be true:
A) the Covington is arrogant little sh#t
B) the post coverage was irresponsible at best

[Anonymous]

Gut check time for the defendant.