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. Bookmarking this post to trot out the next time you whine about a Democrat being “slandered” in the press, when the press was simply quoting someone else’s slander.

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.

+100
Completely agree. It’s such a cop out to say, “well, we were simply repeating what so and so said...” Like the school gossip who plays passive-aggressive while spreading gossip and lies.

This should wipe that smirk off Sandman's face.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That isn’t what the kid was accused of.
Don’t let your hatred of MAGA cloud your judgement.

This suit was against WaPo. Not Twitter.

What did WaPo say? That a group of kids wearing a hat had an interaction with the other guy.

You're bringing in other stuff. This suit was solely about WaPo.

+1
PP's blind adulation of MAGA is clouding their judgement.

Anonymous wrote:That isn’t what the kid was accused of.
Don’t let your hatred of MAGA cloud your judgement.

This suit was against WaPo. Not Twitter.

What did WaPo say? That a group of kids wearing a hat had an interaction with the other guy.

You're bringing in other stuff. This suit was solely about WaPo.

That isn’t what the kid was accused of.
Don’t let your hatred of MAGA cloud your judgement.

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.

Those are defamation per se.

This kid was accused of wearing a hat.

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.

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.

I hope he has to pay legal fees.

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.

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.

Well, well, well. I am shocked - simply SHOCKED that this was dismissed! /s

Where are all the RWNJs who were salivating at the thought of that punk getting a huge payout?

Must still be planning their exit from DCUM.

Womp womp, indeed!

This really launched on social media. Sue Twitter and Facebook.

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.