Suit by Covington Catholic student against Washington Post dismissed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good.

+1

Correct ruling. And reassuring.

Especially from Kentucky district.

Appointed by Jimmy Carter.

Any reasonably competent judge would've made the same ruling. It was a stupid lawsuit.

But competent judges are not being placed now. It is nutjob city.

[Anonymous]

“But the reporters and editors didn’t see any of it. And that’s also where this settlement will be be paid for with - from money that would’ve gone to reporters and staffers. It delights me that they’ll pay for this while Bezzos gets richer.”

Shouldn't the reporterS and editors Do some investigation before publishing any thing?

[Anonymous]

This what y’all focusing on?

Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that kid is a little sh#t.
But as a parent I’m disappointed in this ruling...

This culture of reporting what is trending is bad for all of us.
He may be a little prick, but the whole thing was misrepresented/misreported by the media for the first day or two.

A defamation suit is the wrong way to address that.

Hitting corporations in their wallet seems to be the only way.

Filing frivolous lawsuits? Great strategy.

I totally disagree that it was frivolous, and I hope they pursue it further.

With the Washington Post? They were merely quoting statements made by others. That is not defamation. You need to stop letting emotion cloud your critical thinking. You should read the Constitution and its Amendments sometime. His lawyer should be counter sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit. He should know the elements of defamation. He probably knew it was a clunker and wasted everyone's time to enhance his own profile.

I'm not an attorney, but it's disgusting that news media sources can do that (I'm not necessarily referring to this case) without penalty.

Yes it is obvious you are not an attorney and why is it disgusting? That’s what reporting is. Do you seriously want journalists to be liable for quotes? That would be the end of newspapers and blogs and pretty much all forms of journalism.

Use you brain.

PP here. I happen to think that it's wrong for people's lives to be turned upside down (example--someone accused of abuse, rape, etc) by "quoted information" in the papers and repeated on tv stations, internet, etc. and then an often weak or buried retraction that isn't seen or heard by as many people. We all know that news media can slant the delivery of info to influence public opinion as well.

+ a million
Can't wait to pull out this thread the next time some liberal idiot is unhappy about being quoted saying idiotic things. Oh well!

I tell my liberal kids it’s a matter of time before someone falsely accuses them of something. In today’s over sensitive, insanity, the price could be very high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that kid is a little sh#t.
But as a parent I’m disappointed in this ruling...

This culture of reporting what is trending is bad for all of us.
He may be a little prick, but the whole thing was misrepresented/misreported by the media for the first day or two.

A defamation suit is the wrong way to address that.

Hitting corporations in their wallet seems to be the only way.

Filing frivolous lawsuits? Great strategy.

I totally disagree that it was frivolous, and I hope they pursue it further.

With the Washington Post? They were merely quoting statements made by others. That is not defamation. You need to stop letting emotion cloud your critical thinking. You should read the Constitution and its Amendments sometime. His lawyer should be counter sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit. He should know the elements of defamation. He probably knew it was a clunker and wasted everyone's time to enhance his own profile.

I'm not an attorney, but it's disgusting that news media sources can do that (I'm not necessarily referring to this case) without penalty.

Yes it is obvious you are not an attorney and why is it disgusting? That’s what reporting is. Do you seriously want journalists to be liable for quotes? That would be the end of newspapers and blogs and pretty much all forms of journalism.

Use you brain.

PP here. I happen to think that it's wrong for people's lives to be turned upside down (example--someone accused of abuse, rape, etc) by "quoted information" in the papers and repeated on tv stations, internet, etc. and then an often weak or buried retraction that isn't seen or heard by as many people. We all know that news media can slant the delivery of info to influence public opinion as well.

+ a million
Can't wait to pull out this thread the next time some liberal idiot is unhappy about being quoted saying idiotic things. Oh well!

I tell my liberal kids it’s a matter of time before someone falsely accuses them of something. In today’s over sensitive, insanity, the price could be very high.

And your liberal kids roll their eyes at their fearful mother’s insistent and incessant mutterings.

[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:I think that kid is a little sh#t.
But as a parent I’m disappointed in this ruling...

This culture of reporting what is trending is bad for all of us.
He may be a little prick, but the whole thing was misrepresented/misreported by the media for the first day or two.

A defamation suit is the wrong way to address that.

Hitting corporations in their wallet seems to be the only way.

Filing frivolous lawsuits? Great strategy.

I totally disagree that it was frivolous, and I hope they pursue it further.

With the Washington Post? They were merely quoting statements made by others. That is not defamation. You need to stop letting emotion cloud your critical thinking. You should read the Constitution and its Amendments sometime. His lawyer should be counter sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit. He should know the elements of defamation. He probably knew it was a clunker and wasted everyone's time to enhance his own profile.

I'm not an attorney, but it's disgusting that news media sources can do that (I'm not necessarily referring to this case) without penalty.

Yes it is obvious you are not an attorney and why is it disgusting? That’s what reporting is. Do you seriously want journalists to be liable for quotes? That would be the end of newspapers and blogs and pretty much all forms of journalism.

Use you brain.

PP here. I happen to think that it's wrong for people's lives to be turned upside down (example--someone accused of abuse, rape, etc) by "quoted information" in the papers and repeated on tv stations, internet, etc. and then an often weak or buried retraction that isn't seen or heard by as many people. We all know that news media can slant the delivery of info to influence public opinion as well.

+ a million
Can't wait to pull out this thread the next time some liberal idiot is unhappy about being quoted saying idiotic things. Oh well!

I tell my liberal kids it’s a matter of time before someone falsely accuses them of something. In today’s over sensitive, insanity, the price could be very high.

And your liberal kids roll their eyes at their fearful mother’s insistent and incessant mutterings.

.... until what she tells them becomes reality and they admit that mom really does know best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that kid is a little sh#t.
But as a parent I’m disappointed in this ruling...

This culture of reporting what is trending is bad for all of us.
He may be a little prick, but the whole thing was misrepresented/misreported by the media for the first day or two.

Raise your kids well and you won't have to worry about things like this.

Raise your kids well, and you won't have to worry that they'll steal, mug, and murder people.

+1
See: NYC, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, etc. etc. So many poorly raised kids thinking they have the right to destroy our cities. I'll take a kid standing still and politely smiling any day.

So you prefer the smug little prick protesting against women’s rights over the people protesting against racial injustice.

That says everything we need to know about you.

[Anonymous]

So Sandmann gave up.

Good. Wrong political climate for smug white jerk who wants to deny women their rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Sandmann gave up.

Good. Wrong political climate for smug white jerk who wants to deny women their rights.

I guess you haven't been paying attention.
The title of this thread is not accurate.

After the suit was dismissed, it was refiled.
Sandmann settled with the WaPo.

So much for the "smug, white jerk," huh?
Two down - 6 to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Sandmann gave up.

Good. Wrong political climate for smug white jerk who wants to deny women their rights.

I guess you haven't been paying attention.
The title of this thread is not accurate.

After the suit was dismissed, it was refiled.
Sandmann settled with the WaPo.

So much for the "smug, white jerk," huh?
Two down - 6 to go.

He settled for almost nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Sandmann gave up.

Good. Wrong political climate for smug white jerk who wants to deny women their rights.

I guess you haven't been paying attention.
The title of this thread is not accurate.

After the suit was dismissed, it was refiled.
Sandmann settled with the WaPo.

So much for the "smug, white jerk," huh?
Two down - 6 to go.

He settled for almost nothing.

Citation?
We won't wait because you can't provide it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Sandmann gave up.

Good. Wrong political climate for smug white jerk who wants to deny women their rights.

I guess you haven't been paying attention.
The title of this thread is not accurate.

After the suit was dismissed, it was refiled.
Sandmann settled with the WaPo.

So much for the "smug, white jerk," huh?
Two down - 6 to go.

He settled for almost nothing.

Citation?
We won't wait because you can't provide it.

None needed. We're lawyers who understand how this works. Smug, entitled white boys aren't very popular right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Sandmann gave up.

Good. Wrong political climate for smug white jerk who wants to deny women their rights.

I guess you haven't been paying attention.
The title of this thread is not accurate.

After the suit was dismissed, it was refiled.
Sandmann settled with the WaPo.

So much for the "smug, white jerk," huh?
Two down - 6 to go.

He settled for almost nothing.

Citation?
We won't wait because you can't provide it.

None needed. We're lawyers who understand how this works. Smug, entitled white boys aren't very popular right now.

As I said, you have no citation or any proof of your statement.
If you want to discuss smug and entitled, look in the mirror. I can imagine it's not a pleasant sight.

[Anonymous]

LOL!

[Anonymous]

The Babylon Bee is just so....unfunny.