Suit by Covington Catholic student against Washington Post dismissed

[Anonymous]

^^^ And the WaPo should face consequences when they lie. But if you read the bulletproof opinion, the WaPo didn’t lie. Nick Samdman is free to go after Nathan Phillips if he feels he can. Or Twitter. But factually accurate reporting from the WaPo not the problem here. And aim not sure how the WaPo reporting was different from the NYT or the WSJ.

PP— it likely that these case were consolidated before the same Judge in the interest of judicial efficiency. The WaPo suit was filed first and was stronger, to build momentum. Expect the CNN decision to be dismissed as well. But give it a few weeks, because the Judge is writing really thorough decisions.

I expect Rule 11 sanctions against the attorney here. This was an incredible waste of a Court time and resources to make a political statement.

And do you expect any decent college in the country to admit this kid after this? They will end up getting sued the second week he is on campus for something frivolous. He’s looking at a non-flagship states school or Liberty. This isn’t Cameron Whatshisface from Parkland. Harvard will want no part of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ And the WaPo should face consequences when they lie. But if you read the bulletproof opinion, the WaPo didn’t lie. Nick Samdman is free to go after Nathan Phillips if he feels he can. Or Twitter. But factually accurate reporting from the WaPo not the problem here. And aim not sure how the WaPo reporting was different from the NYT or the WSJ.

PP— it likely that these case were consolidated before the same Judge in the interest of judicial efficiency. The WaPo suit was filed first and was stronger, to build momentum. Expect the CNN decision to be dismissed as well. But give it a few weeks, because the Judge is writing really thorough decisions.

I expect Rule 11 sanctions against the attorney here. This was an incredible waste of a Court time and resources to make a political statement.

And do you expect any decent college in the country to admit this kid after this? They will end up getting sued the second week he is on campus for something frivolous. He’s looking at a non-flagship states school or Liberty. This isn’t Cameron Whatshisface from Parkland. Harvard will want no part of this.

I belief they just finished briefing the motion to dismiss in the CNN case. Oral arguments will probably be August or September, with a ruling a few weeks after that. I think the motion to dismiss was either just filed or in about to be filed in the NBC case, so I wouldn’t expect a ruling in that case until maybe November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This should wipe that smirk off Sandman's face.

Yep!

As a journalist, I knew there was no case and told everyone so on the original thread. The "oh, The Washington Post is in trouble now" posts were so pathetic.

[Anonymous]

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.

It was not.

There was an interaction between the two. You can reasonably argue who was the aggressor and/victim. Or than neither were. But, the kid clearly acted like an entitled jackass. And that's how it appeared on the video to many, many people. And his actions caused that, not the newspaper. Reporting on the event, with the video and pictures, showing that he acted as he did is not defamation.

[Anonymous]

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.

DP

I want their opinions fact checked.

Then again I prefer reporters over journalists.

Opinions are inherently subjective. They are not facts to be checked.
I'm sorry you can't tell the difference. Most of us can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This should wipe that smirk off Sandman's face.

Yep!

As a journalist, I knew there was no case and told everyone so on the original thread. The "oh, The Washington Post is in trouble now" posts were so pathetic.

Oh look!
A “journalist” giving us their opinion instead of facts! Surprise surprise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This should wipe that smirk off Sandman's face.

Yep!

As a journalist, I knew there was no case and told everyone so on the original thread. The "oh, The Washington Post is in trouble now" posts were so pathetic.

Oh look!
A “journalist” giving us their opinion instead of facts! Surprise surprise.

Fact: Sandman lost because he had no case.

- not a journalist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This should wipe that smirk off Sandman's face.

Yep!

As a journalist, I knew there was no case and told everyone so on the original thread. The "oh, The Washington Post is in trouble now" posts were so pathetic.

Oh look!
A “journalist” giving us their opinion instead of facts! Surprise surprise.

The journalist ended up being right. Sorry you were surprised.

[Anonymous]

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/29/covington-catholic-teen-lost-first-court-battle-will-probably-win-next/

An interesting perspective

The Covington Catholic Teen Lost His First Court Battle, But Will Probably Win His Next

On Friday, a federal judge in Kentucky tossed Nicholas Sandmann’s defamation case against the Washington Post. Here’s why Sandmann is likely to win on appeal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/29/covington-catholic-teen-lost-first-court-battle-will-probably-win-next/

An interesting perspective

The Covington Catholic Teen Lost His First Court Battle, But Will Probably Win His Next

On Friday, a federal judge in Kentucky tossed Nicholas Sandmann’s defamation case against the Washington Post. Here’s why Sandmann is likely to win on appeal

These conservatives are such tender little snowflakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/29/covington-catholic-teen-lost-first-court-battle-will-probably-win-next/

An interesting perspective

The Covington Catholic Teen Lost His First Court Battle, But Will Probably Win His Next

On Friday, a federal judge in Kentucky tossed Nicholas Sandmann’s defamation case against the Washington Post. Here’s why Sandmann is likely to win on appeal

These conservatives are such tender little snowflakes.

So someone writes in opposition of the ruling, providing an analysis, and suddenly conservatives are snowflakes?

If the Ds lose in 2020 (and i'm NOT a registered R), let's hope THEY don't melt.

I find your response ironic. You call a conservative a snowflake b/c of an opposing view, buy YOU can't handle addressing any opposition yourself. So you bubble wrap yourself into your liberal cocoon.

It's actually quite funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/29/covington-catholic-teen-lost-first-court-battle-will-probably-win-next/

An interesting perspective

The Covington Catholic Teen Lost His First Court Battle, But Will Probably Win His Next

On Friday, a federal judge in Kentucky tossed Nicholas Sandmann’s defamation case against the Washington Post. Here’s why Sandmann is likely to win on appeal

These conservatives are such tender little snowflakes.

So someone writes in opposition of the ruling, providing an analysis, and suddenly conservatives are snowflakes?

If the Ds lose in 2020 (and i'm NOT a registered R), let's hope THEY don't melt.

I find your response ironic. You call a conservative a snowflake b/c of an opposing view, buy YOU can't handle addressing any opposition yourself. So you bubble wrap yourself into your liberal cocoon.

It's actually quite funny.

who funds the federalist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/29/covington-catholic-teen-lost-first-court-battle-will-probably-win-next/

An interesting perspective

The Covington Catholic Teen Lost His First Court Battle, But Will Probably Win His Next

On Friday, a federal judge in Kentucky tossed Nicholas Sandmann’s defamation case against the Washington Post. Here’s why Sandmann is likely to win on appeal

These conservatives are such tender little snowflakes.

So someone writes in opposition of the ruling, providing an analysis, and suddenly conservatives are snowflakes?

If the Ds lose in 2020 (and i'm NOT a registered R), let's hope THEY don't melt.

I find your response ironic. You call a conservative a snowflake b/c of an opposing view, buy YOU can't handle addressing any opposition yourself. So you bubble wrap yourself into your liberal cocoon.

It's actually quite funny.

I just think so many of these "conservatives" these days are ridiculous. Akin to those who are defending Oberlin, actually, saying the school will win on appeal.

[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.

Agreed. At least sue for some reasonable amount. Maybe $10 million? $250 million is far more economic and emotional damage than the Post could have ever caused in this little brat’s lifetime, assuming the article had actually been libelous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/29/covington-catholic-teen-lost-first-court-battle-will-probably-win-next/

An interesting perspective

The Covington Catholic Teen Lost His First Court Battle, But Will Probably Win His Next

On Friday, a federal judge in Kentucky tossed Nicholas Sandmann’s defamation case against the Washington Post. Here’s why Sandmann is likely to win on appeal

These conservatives are such tender little snowflakes.

I'd like to see how tenderly you would react if it was your teenager caught in the crosshairs of this scenario.

Who wants to see their kid in this light, when they went to Washington for an exciting field trip, and instead end up front page news, not in a good way. This situation was engineered by an old grizzled guy who ought to have known better. He seized an opportunity to do harm. I cannot respect that. Pick a fight with someone your own size.