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.
+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.
You realize the Sandy Hook parents still haven’t gotten a judgement against Alex Jones, right? And his defense it literally: yes, I lied and ruined their lives, but I was PSYCHOTIC at the time. Right wing “news” reported Comet Ping Pong, amd no one got sued when it was shot up. Even though that was foreseeable.
Not in the mood for Cons to be atracking factually accurate reporting.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I hope he has to pay legal fees.
same - this was a frivolous suit designed to do nothing more than annoy and bother the defendants
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.
+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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Wonder how much more money the kid's family will waste on an appeal.
Anonymous wrote: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.
+1 From a nasty, stupid kid, whom no one is ever going to want to hire except some alt-right conservative organization.
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.
Anonymous wrote:I hope he has to pay legal fees.
Anonymous wrote:When papers and major news sources are just reporting what trends on Twitter and social media, we are all at risk of having our lives ruined.
And can-it with the crap about raising good children/ being a person.
It’s doesn’t matter if you are a good person, if facts are irrelevant and the narrative is invented.
None of us are safe from the twitter mob.
Anonymous wrote:When papers and major news sources are just reporting what trends on Twitter and social media, we are all at risk of having our lives ruined.
And can-it with the crap about raising good children/ being a person.
It’s doesn’t matter if you are a good person, if facts are irrelevant and the narrative is invented.
None of us are safe from the twitter mob.
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.
+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.
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.