Suit by Covington Catholic student against Washington Post dismissed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Should have said "rigid and smiling" - the smile increases the menace as its not a real smile. He isnt happy, he isnt engaged in some joyful pursuit. That "smile" also sends a message, and not a nice one. Srriously, anyone who understands normal social clues can understand the teenager's message.

Agree completely. The kid's behavior is not respectful.

So here's the thing, folks.

It's YOUR interpretation of a smile.

So . . . a smile doesn't land you in jail.

lol - You wouldn't last a day teaching HS students.

Yes. People who lack social graces shouldn’t be jailed. But not being a crime does not make it any less disrespectful. And we can agree to disagree. No need to resort to attacks and insults.

DP. So what would you have preferred? You’re outraged that Sandman smiled, remained silent, and maintained eye contact with Phillips. Would you have preferred he scowl and shout obscenities? Why is it, exactly, you think this kid should have done after Phillips made a beeline for him, chanting and drumming in his face, in a clear attempt to intimidate Sandman? Do tell.

Walk away and take the "high road" if he really believed he was being confrontational or was fearful (here's a hint: he didn't think that). That's the problem when you waltz into town on your religious/moral high horse, dictating how other people should act: people expect you to act like it and not just when it's convenient. Big fail on that kid and that school for not teaching or preparing them better on that front.

Oh, please. He didn’t “waltz into town” on any high horse. I’m pro-choice and he had as much right to protest/march as anyone else. Kind of sounds like you’re saying only people who agree with YOU should have the right to express themselves through protest. That’s not how it works.

As for how he acted with Phillips, I don’t blame him for simply standing still. Phillips claims he was heading up to the Lincoln Memorial which is clearly BS. He had a clear path up the steps to the memorial but chose instead to deliberately target the student group and specifically, Sandman. Sandman didn’t need to move - Phillips did.

DP. It was an unfortunate encounter. No one wants to go viral. But it did.

Then you move on, instead of suing everyone on the planet for millions of dollars.

[Anonymous]

The National Mall attracts pedophiles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Should have said "rigid and smiling" - the smile increases the menace as its not a real smile. He isnt happy, he isnt engaged in some joyful pursuit. That "smile" also sends a message, and not a nice one. Srriously, anyone who understands normal social clues can understand the teenager's message.

Agree completely. The kid's behavior is not respectful.

So here's the thing, folks.

It's YOUR interpretation of a smile.

So . . . a smile doesn't land you in jail.

lol - You wouldn't last a day teaching HS students.

Yes. People who lack social graces shouldn’t be jailed. But not being a crime does not make it any less disrespectful. And we can agree to disagree. No need to resort to attacks and insults.

DP. So what would you have preferred? You’re outraged that Sandman smiled, remained silent, and maintained eye contact with Phillips. Would you have preferred he scowl and shout obscenities? Why is it, exactly, you think this kid should have done after Phillips made a beeline for him, chanting and drumming in his face, in a clear attempt to intimidate Sandman? Do tell.

Walk away and take the "high road" if he really believed he was being confrontational or was fearful (here's a hint: he didn't think that). That's the problem when you waltz into town on your religious/moral high horse, dictating how other people should act: people expect you to act like it and not just when it's convenient. Big fail on that kid and that school for not teaching or preparing them better on that front.

Oh, please. He didn’t “waltz into town” on any high horse. I’m pro-choice and he had as much right to protest/march as anyone else. Kind of sounds like you’re saying only people who agree with YOU should have the right to express themselves through protest. That’s not how it works.

As for how he acted with Phillips, I don’t blame him for simply standing still. Phillips claims he was heading up to the Lincoln Memorial which is clearly BS. He had a clear path up the steps to the memorial but chose instead to deliberately target the student group and specifically, Sandman. Sandman didn’t need to move - Phillips did.

DP. It was an unfortunate encounter. No one wants to go viral. But it did.

Then you move on, instead of suing everyone on the planet for millions of dollars.

Mmkay. See how you feel if your own kid is maligned by the media (and partisan nut jobs) for doing *nothing* wrong.

[Anonymous]

Again
A) the kid can be a shit who protested against your rights and beliefs
AND
B) the Washington Post is responsible for biased and irresponsible journalism in this case

They can ( and are ) both true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again
A) the kid can be a shit who protested against your rights and beliefs
AND
B) the Washington Post is responsible for biased and irresponsible journalism in this case

They can ( and are ) both true.

True.

Now, the reality of course, is that:

A) that kid was truly the only adult in the room

B) WaPo is shit

[Anonymous]

Mmkay. See how you feel if your own kid is maligned by the media (and partisan nut jobs) for doing *nothing* wrong.

This attitude is crazy to me. My dad, who has voted Republican in every election since the 70s, would have grounded me for a month for being part of a crowd like that. The taunting chants and the smirking would not have flown in my house. Provoked or not, my parents expected me to walk away from shit like that, and they expected me to show respect and deference to adults. I've watch the whole video, if I were in the crowd, I'd be ashamed to be in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Mmkay. See how you feel if your own kid is maligned by the media (and partisan nut jobs) for doing *nothing* wrong.

This attitude is crazy to me. My dad, who has voted Republican in every election since the 70s, would have grounded me for a month for being part of a crowd like that. The taunting chants and the smirking would not have flown in my house. Provoked or not, my parents expected me to walk away from shit like that, and they expected me to show respect and deference to adults. I've watch the whole video, if I were in the crowd, I'd be ashamed to be in it.

What attitude is crazy? We must be watching different videos. They were NOT taunting chants. They were chanting their school fight song, after receiving permission to do so from their chaperones. That chant was not even directed at Phillips. It was in response to the ugly things that the Black Israelites' were yelling at them. Did you hear what the Black Israelites were saying to them? Did you see the portion of the video where Sandmann was actually motioning to another student behind him, to STOP when the other student was trying to engage with Phillips? Showing respect? Why does an "adult" who intentionally provokes a child, deserve respect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again
A) the kid can be a shit who protested against your rights and beliefs
AND
B) the Washington Post is responsible for biased and irresponsible journalism in this case

They can ( and are ) both true.

True.

Now, the reality of course, is that:

A) that kid was truly the only adult in the room

B) WaPo is shit

Exactly this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Mmkay. See how you feel if your own kid is maligned by the media (and partisan nut jobs) for doing *nothing* wrong.

This attitude is crazy to me. My dad, who has voted Republican in every election since the 70s, would have grounded me for a month for being part of a crowd like that. The taunting chants and the smirking would not have flown in my house. Provoked or not, my parents expected me to walk away from shit like that, and they expected me to show respect and deference to adults. I've watch the whole video, if I were in the crowd, I'd be ashamed to be in it.

What attitude is crazy? We must be watching different videos. They were NOT taunting chants. They were chanting their school fight song, after receiving permission to do so from their chaperones. That chant was not even directed at Phillips. It was in response to the ugly things that the Black Israelites' were yelling at them. Did you hear what the Black Israelites were saying to them? Did you see the portion of the video where Sandmann was actually motioning to another student behind him, to STOP when the other student was trying to engage with Phillips? Showing respect? Why does an "adult" who intentionally provokes a child, deserve respect?

+100
It’s funny - for all the condemnation these posters have showered on Sandmann, they’ve yet to say *anything* negative about the obnoxious Phillips - much less the toxic Black Israelites. Not one word of criticism thrown their way. No, the focus of the outrage is the student who dared to stand his ground rather than be intimidated by Phillips, who had clearly targeted him. These people are the worst of the worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Mmkay. See how you feel if your own kid is maligned by the media (and partisan nut jobs) for doing *nothing* wrong.

This attitude is crazy to me. My dad, who has voted Republican in every election since the 70s, would have grounded me for a month for being part of a crowd like that. The taunting chants and the smirking would not have flown in my house. Provoked or not, my parents expected me to walk away from shit like that, and they expected me to show respect and deference to adults. I've watch the whole video, if I were in the crowd, I'd be ashamed to be in it.

What attitude is crazy? We must be watching different videos. They were NOT taunting chants. They were chanting their school fight song, after receiving permission to do so from their chaperones. That chant was not even directed at Phillips. It was in response to the ugly things that the Black Israelites' were yelling at them. Did you hear what the Black Israelites were saying to them? Did you see the portion of the video where Sandmann was actually motioning to another student behind him, to STOP when the other student was trying to engage with Phillips? Showing respect? Why does an "adult" who intentionally provokes a child, deserve respect?

+100
It’s funny - for all the condemnation these posters have showered on Sandmann, they’ve yet to say *anything* negative about the obnoxious Phillips - much less the toxic Black Israelites. Not one word of criticism thrown their way. No, the focus of the outrage is the student who dared to stand his ground rather than be intimidated by Phillips, who had clearly targeted him. These people are the worst of the worst.

Start a thread them. We can attack them, there's not much good to say about them.

This thread is about the boy and his lawsuit. So we're talking about him and his lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again
A) the kid can be a shit who protested against your rights and beliefs
AND
B) the Washington Post is responsible for biased and irresponsible journalism in this case

They can ( and are ) both true.

True.

Now, the reality of course, is that:

A) that kid was truly the only adult in the room

B) WaPo is shit

Exactly this.

So what. The kids will still lose.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps people do not understand laws regarding freedom of press

The Covington kids were being jerks and they know it, we know it. That is what the story was about

Unfortunately they will always be known for this. Just a reminder: when out in public, behave like a gentleman. If you do not know how, try and behave like a lady

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps people do not understand laws regarding freedom of press

The Covington kids were being jerks and they know it, we know it. That is what the story was about

Unfortunately they will always be known for this. Just a reminder: when out in public, behave like a gentleman. If you do not know how, try and behave like a lady

The story as first reported was not accurate. We don’t want to live in a world where the media is just going to parrot and blast whatever is the newest viral outrage. There has to be a duty to the truth. There has to be a higher standard. Our society depends on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps people do not understand laws regarding freedom of press

The Covington kids were being jerks and they know it, we know it. That is what the story was about

Unfortunately they will always be known for this. Just a reminder: when out in public, behave like a gentleman. If you do not know how, try and behave like a lady

The story as first reported was not accurate. We don’t want to live in a world where the media is just going to parrot and blast whatever is the newest viral outrage. There has to be a duty to the truth. There has to be a higher standard. Our society depends on it.

Initial reporting isn't the standard - it's not uncommon for the story to change from the initial story.

Viral stories are news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Should have said "rigid and smiling" - the smile increases the menace as its not a real smile. He isnt happy, he isnt engaged in some joyful pursuit. That "smile" also sends a message, and not a nice one. Srriously, anyone who understands normal social clues can understand the teenager's message.

Agree completely. The kid's behavior is not respectful.

So here's the thing, folks.

It's YOUR interpretation of a smile.

So . . . a smile doesn't land you in jail.

lol - You wouldn't last a day teaching HS students.

Yes. People who lack social graces shouldn’t be jailed. But not being a crime does not make it any less disrespectful. And we can agree to disagree. No need to resort to attacks and insults.

DP. So what would you have preferred? You’re outraged that Sandman smiled, remained silent, and maintained eye contact with Phillips. Would you have preferred he scowl and shout obscenities? Why is it, exactly, you think this kid should have done after Phillips made a beeline for him, chanting and drumming in his face, in a clear attempt to intimidate Sandman? Do tell.

Walk away and take the "high road" if he really believed he was being confrontational or was fearful (here's a hint: he didn't think that). That's the problem when you waltz into town on your religious/moral high horse, dictating how other people should act: people expect you to act like it and not just when it's convenient. Big fail on that kid and that school for not teaching or preparing them better on that front.

Oh, please. He didn’t “waltz into town” on any high horse. I’m pro-choice and he had as much right to protest/march as anyone else. Kind of sounds like you’re saying only people who agree with YOU should have the right to express themselves through protest. That’s not how it works.

As for how he acted with Phillips, I don’t blame him for simply standing still. Phillips claims he was heading up to the Lincoln Memorial which is clearly BS. He had a clear path up the steps to the memorial but chose instead to deliberately target the student group and specifically, Sandman. Sandman didn’t need to move - Phillips did.

I didn't say he didn't have the "right to protest" or march. Nor did I say he didn't have the right to express themselves. I'm well aware of how it works, having marched myself in other situations. HOWEVER, the basis of their protest is morality and religion. This is a position that is expressly based on right vs. wrong. So, yes, if you come into town on that premise, you should act in accordance with that. Respect for life, all life is precious, all life has meaning . . . . heard ad nauseum from the "pro life" folks. But, apparently that doesn't extend to all situations, as that kid made clear. EVEN if you think Phillips was doing something wrong (and I don't), yes, he should have walked away. He should have taken that moral high ground that he is requiring of other people.

Sandman didn't "need to move" but, again, that passive hostility was evident in his fact and his actions, and the actions of his classmates. It also shows his privilege and the poor oversight by the school. By saying he didn't "have to" ignores that just b/c he didn't have to does not mean he should not have moved, diffused the situation, and taken the high road. I'm sure Jesus would have stood his ground b/c he didn't have to move, right?

But, you see, the very fact that you disagree with me indicates the WaPost did nothing wrong. We are looking at the same event with different conclusions. You're flat wrong, of course. But that's fine. And does not a defamation case make.