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