Suit by Covington Catholic student against Washington Post dismissed

[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.

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.

NP. You've got to be kidding. Between the Black Israelites, Phillips and Sandmann, Sandmann is the one you have a problem with because he didn't move? They were waiting for their bus! Where should they have gone? Even if they turned and walked away, you don't think that Phillips would have continued to follow them? Listen to the video. The students were clearly asking "when is the bus getting here?" They wanted to leave because they (a group of KIDS) were being harassed by a group of ADULTS. Yet for some inane reason, you only want to hold Sandmann accountable and accuse him of "passive hostility" and "privilege". Your hatred for him and the other students, because of why they were there, is the real reason why you think he, and no one else, was in the wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP. You've got to be kidding. Between the Black Israelites, Phillips and Sandmann, Sandmann is the one you have a problem with because he didn't move? They were waiting for their bus! Where should they have gone? Even if they turned and walked away, you don't think that Phillips would have continued to follow them? Listen to the video. The students were clearly asking "when is the bus getting here?" They wanted to leave because they (a group of KIDS) were being harassed by a group of ADULTS. Yet for some inane reason, you only want to hold Sandmann accountable and accuse him of "passive hostility" and "privilege". Your hatred for him and the other students, because of why they were there, is the real reason why you think he, and no one else, was in the wrong.

The other groups were in the wrong, being pretty obnoxious. That happens in DC. But they aren't suing the Washington Post for $250m (snicker).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP. You've got to be kidding. Between the Black Israelites, Phillips and Sandmann, Sandmann is the one you have a problem with because he didn't move? They were waiting for their bus! Where should they have gone? Even if they turned and walked away, you don't think that Phillips would have continued to follow them? Listen to the video. The students were clearly asking "when is the bus getting here?" They wanted to leave because they (a group of KIDS) were being harassed by a group of ADULTS. Yet for some inane reason, you only want to hold Sandmann accountable and accuse him of "passive hostility" and "privilege". Your hatred for him and the other students, because of why they were there, is the real reason why you think he, and no one else, was in the wrong.

The other groups were in the wrong, being pretty obnoxious. That happens in DC. But they aren't suing the Washington Post for $250m (snicker).

The other groups weren't blamed for the incident, weren't pasted all over social media, and weren't vilified by the MSM.

[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.

Precisely this.

[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.

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.

Wow, your arrogance truly knows no bounds, does it? Everything you wrote makes it clear just how out of line and warped your view of this event is. Yes, the WaPo was wrong - as are you. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP. You've got to be kidding. Between the Black Israelites, Phillips and Sandmann, Sandmann is the one you have a problem with because he didn't move? They were waiting for their bus! Where should they have gone? Even if they turned and walked away, you don't think that Phillips would have continued to follow them? Listen to the video. The students were clearly asking "when is the bus getting here?" They wanted to leave because they (a group of KIDS) were being harassed by a group of ADULTS. Yet for some inane reason, you only want to hold Sandmann accountable and accuse him of "passive hostility" and "privilege". Your hatred for him and the other students, because of why they were there, is the real reason why you think he, and no one else, was in the wrong.

Exactly this. The chip on the PP’s shoulder is a mile wide and can probably be seen from space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP. You've got to be kidding. Between the Black Israelites, Phillips and Sandmann, Sandmann is the one you have a problem with because he didn't move? They were waiting for their bus! Where should they have gone? Even if they turned and walked away, you don't think that Phillips would have continued to follow them? Listen to the video. The students were clearly asking "when is the bus getting here?" They wanted to leave because they (a group of KIDS) were being harassed by a group of ADULTS. Yet for some inane reason, you only want to hold Sandmann accountable and accuse him of "passive hostility" and "privilege". Your hatred for him and the other students, because of why they were there, is the real reason why you think he, and no one else, was in the wrong.

The other groups were in the wrong, being pretty obnoxious. That happens in DC. But they aren't suing the Washington Post for $250m (snicker).

One doesn’t usually sue if one has no case. Video clearly captures them saying incredibly ugly things to anyone and everyone. They are, objectively, the aggressors. Why would the sue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP. You've got to be kidding. Between the Black Israelites, Phillips and Sandmann, Sandmann is the one you have a problem with because he didn't move? They were waiting for their bus! Where should they have gone? Even if they turned and walked away, you don't think that Phillips would have continued to follow them? Listen to the video. The students were clearly asking "when is the bus getting here?" They wanted to leave because they (a group of KIDS) were being harassed by a group of ADULTS. Yet for some inane reason, you only want to hold Sandmann accountable and accuse him of "passive hostility" and "privilege". Your hatred for him and the other students, because of why they were there, is the real reason why you think he, and no one else, was in the wrong.

The other groups were in the wrong, being pretty obnoxious. That happens in DC. But they aren't suing the Washington Post for $250m (snicker).

One doesn’t usually sue if one has no case. Video clearly captures them saying incredibly ugly things to anyone and everyone. They are, objectively, the aggressors. Why would the sue?

Why would this kid sue? Who knows? I don't.

[Anonymous]

Why would they sue? They learned how to be obnoxious from their parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP. You've got to be kidding. Between the Black Israelites, Phillips and Sandmann, Sandmann is the one you have a problem with because he didn't move? They were waiting for their bus! Where should they have gone? Even if they turned and walked away, you don't think that Phillips would have continued to follow them? Listen to the video. The students were clearly asking "when is the bus getting here?" They wanted to leave because they (a group of KIDS) were being harassed by a group of ADULTS. Yet for some inane reason, you only want to hold Sandmann accountable and accuse him of "passive hostility" and "privilege". Your hatred for him and the other students, because of why they were there, is the real reason why you think he, and no one else, was in the wrong.

The other groups were in the wrong, being pretty obnoxious. That happens in DC. But they aren't suing the Washington Post for $250m (snicker).

The Black Israelites are also widely known to be, well, what they are. They are largely ignored. Another failure of the school to teach their kids what to expect in that environment.

The Native Americans had just as much right to be in that area. They were also exercising their rights. And they were doing it peacefully. Those kids were in a protest environment. They don't then get to claim "babe in the woods" as a defense. You learn how to act like adults -adults pretending to be morally superior- in that environment.

Those kids weren't silently "waiting for the bus" as the video PLAINLY shows.

And the end of the day, the kid/school is getting the attention bc they've sought it out. The kid is seeking millions of dollars, has done the press tours and has kept himself in the light. So, yeah, that's why they are in the limelight and have stayed there.

I've made not attempt to diminish my dislike of their substantive position or the pro-life movement. That also doesn't mean I'm wrong. Those two things can coexist.

i'll leave you all to let your heads explode now.

[Anonymous]

No head explosion gets. You hubris is laughable. Only in DC would a phrase “protest environment” be used seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No head explosion gets. You hubris is laughable. Only in DC would a phrase “protest environment” be used seriously.

Umm, well, yeah. There are protests here all the time, large and small. That's not really true most of the rest of the country. That's why these kids were here instead of protesting in Kentucky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP. You've got to be kidding. Between the Black Israelites, Phillips and Sandmann, Sandmann is the one you have a problem with because he didn't move? They were waiting for their bus! Where should they have gone? Even if they turned and walked away, you don't think that Phillips would have continued to follow them? Listen to the video. The students were clearly asking "when is the bus getting here?" They wanted to leave because they (a group of KIDS) were being harassed by a group of ADULTS. Yet for some inane reason, you only want to hold Sandmann accountable and accuse him of "passive hostility" and "privilege". Your hatred for him and the other students, because of why they were there, is the real reason why you think he, and no one else, was in the wrong.

The other groups were in the wrong, being pretty obnoxious. That happens in DC. But they aren't suing the Washington Post for $250m (snicker).

The Black Israelites are also widely known to be, well, what they are. They are largely ignored. Another failure of the school to teach their kids what to expect in that environment.

The Native Americans had just as much right to be in that area. They were also exercising their rights. And they were doing it peacefully. Those kids were in a protest environment. They don't then get to claim "babe in the woods" as a defense. You learn how to act like adults -adults pretending to be morally superior- in that environment.

Those kids weren't silently "waiting for the bus" as the video PLAINLY shows.

And the end of the day, the kid/school is getting the attention bc they've sought it out. The kid is seeking millions of dollars, has done the press tours and has kept himself in the light. So, yeah, that's why they are in the limelight and have stayed there.

I've made not attempt to diminish my dislike of their substantive position or the pro-life movement. That also doesn't mean I'm wrong. Those two things can coexist.

i'll leave you all to let your heads explode now.

Thar she blows, again. Blame the school. Blame the kids. They have to "act like adults" but for some reason the others don't...they just need to be ignored? That is completely ridiculous. The Native Americans were there to protest too...they were in a protest environment also.

The kid/school did NOT seek out attention. They were PUT in the "limelight". Period.

I agree with you on one thing though...you SHOULD leave it to "you all"...because your arguments become more and more inane with each post.

[Anonymous]

It’s not about the behavior of the kids. It’s about the reporting done by the post. It was very poor, and ultimately damaging to Sandmann because of how the post chose to report.
It has to be answered for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No head explosion gets. You hubris is laughable. Only in DC would a phrase “protest environment” be used seriously.

+ a million.

So many crazies on dcum. Where have reasonable Dems gone?