AP, HBO, NBC could be next outlets sued over coverage of Covington Catholic student: co-counsel

  
Via:  jasper2529  •  2 months ago  •  114 comments

AP, HBO, NBC could be next outlets sued over coverage of Covington Catholic student: co-counsel
”Clearly what we want to do is stop them from behaving in a way that discards all journalistic integrity,”

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The Associated Press and television networks NBC and HBO could be the next three entities sued over their handling of the viral video featuring Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann, his co-counsel told Fox News on Tuesday.

Todd McMurtry revealed the potential upcoming legal targets during an interview with Fox News just one day after a massive $275 million suit was filed against CNN due to its coverage of the January confrontation between Sandmann -- wearing a red "Make America Great Again" hat -- and Native American activist, Nathan Phillips.

“Our plan is to come out with an additional lawsuit every few weeks or months. We have to issue opportunities for these news organizations to provide retractions,” McMurtry told the "Todd Starnes Radio Show." "But right now we're looking very carefully at NBC, AP, HBO. And again, HBO is primarily because they carry Bill Maher's disgusting comments about Nicholas Sandmann. So those probably are the next three defendants."

Maher referred to Sandmann as a “little pr---” during the Jan. 27 episode of his show, “Real Time with Bill Maher.”

"I don't blame the kid, the smirk-face kid," Maher said. "I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting. And, oh yeah, I blame the f---ing kid, what a little pr---. Smirk face, like that's not a d--- move at any age to stick your face in this elderly man.”

Maher then made a crude joke about the abuse of children that has taken place in the Catholic Church, saying: “You know, I don't spend a lot of time, I must tell you, around Catholic school children, but I do not get what Catholic priests see in these kids.”

In addition to the CNN suit, Sandmann’s legal team also launched legal action against the Washington Post.

The suit against CNN charges that the network "elevated false, heinous accusations of racist conduct" against Sandmann and failed to adhere to "well-established journalistic standards and ethics."

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Jasper2529
1  seeder  Jasper2529    2 months ago
Sandmann, a junior at Covington in Kentucky, became a target for outrage after the January video surfaced. The 16-year-old was one of a group of students from Covington attending the anti-abortion March for Life in Washington, D.C., while Phillips was attending the Indigenous Peoples' March on the same day.
 
 
 
Jasper2529
2  seeder  Jasper2529    2 months ago
Sandmann and the Covington students were initially accused of initiating the confrontation, but other videos and the students' own statements showed that they were verbally accosted by a group of black street preachers who were shouting insults at them and the Native Americans. Sandmann and Phillips have both said they were trying to defuse the situation.
 
 
 
KDMichigan
3  KDMichigan    2 months ago

I hope they win but I don't know enough about CNN's rights to push a false narrative. FFS you got people that believe Anderson "FAKE NEWS" Cooper didn't fake something when there is video evidence he did.

Now that the leftwing media pushed a false narrative about Sandmann you still have sheep that believe he accosted and approached the honor thief Nathan Phillips. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4  Tessylo    2 months ago

I guess the attorney for this family will throw the shit against a lot of walls and see what sticks.

I bet it doesn't go anywhere.  

 
 
 
KDMichigan
4.1  KDMichigan  replied to  Tessylo @4    2 months ago
guess the attorney for this family will throw the shit against a lot of walls and see what sticks.

Lets see if it works for the crying snowflakes because Hillaryious Hillary lost. Mueller report due out soon.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    2 months ago

Good. Keep suing. This need to destroy ordinary people should have consequences.

 
 
 
katrix
5.1  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @5    2 months ago

When his family has made it clear it's actually a vendetta against any outlet that tells the truth about Trump, no decent judge would uphold it.

Do you think Fox should have had to pay the family of Seth Rich hundreds of millions of dollars when they sued?

 
 
 
MUVA
5.1.1  MUVA  replied to  katrix @5.1    2 months ago

What a load of BS get fucking real.

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.2  katrix  replied to  MUVA @5.1.1    2 months ago

How is that a load of BS?  Do you think conservative media shouldn't be held to the same standards?

And his family's own statements make it clear that these lawsuits are intended to punish media who publish negative things about Trump. 

Do you really think any judge will ignore their comment that they're deliberately suing the WaPo for exactly the same amount Bezos paid for it?

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @5.1.2    2 months ago
'And his family's own statements make it clear that these lawsuits are intended to punish media who publish negative things about Trump.  Do you really think any judge will ignore their comment that they're deliberately suing the WaPo for exactly the same amount Bezos paid for it?'
See Jasper's comment about the scumsucking lawyer for this family
“Our plan is to come out with an additional lawsuit every few weeks or months. We have to issue opportunities for these news organizations to provide retractions,” McMurtry told the "Todd Starnes Radio Show."
Too bad this scumsucker can't be fined somehow or penalized for these lawsuits 'every few weeks or months'

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @5.1    2 months ago

Projection!..The suit is being filed because the left wing media was willing to destroy the reputation of a young boy to attack the President.

I say this lawsuit will be another staggering defeat for CNN and the Washington Post and justice has never been better served!

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.2  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @5    2 months ago
This need to destroy ordinary people should have consequences.

People destroy people. Who made the anonymous video?  Are they culpable for what millions of foolish "too quick to judge" people assumed was represented by the video?

Are the media guilty by the quick rush to judgement by the public?

The defamation lawsuit by Seth Rich's family against Fox was dismissed for not meeting legal standards.

Sandman's suing and announcing they will continue to sue one media outlet after another doesn't help Sandman, it makes the family look greedy, not injured.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @5.2    2 months ago
'Sandman's suing and announcing they will continue to sue one media outlet after another doesn't help Sandman, it makes the family look greedy, not injured.'

BINGO!

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @5.2    2 months ago
Are the media guilty by the quick rush to judgement by the public?

The media tell the public what to think of the video they show them. That's why the media is being sued.

it makes the family look greedy

I think it makes them look angry, and I think that's understandable.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.3  Ender  replied to  Split Personality @5.2    2 months ago

Last I heard, the original video cannot be traced and was from an anonymous source. Very convenient.

Agree. The family is just looking for a cash payout.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.2.4  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @5.2.2    2 months ago
The media tell the public what to think of the video they show them.

Really?

You honestly think that way about yourself as well as some of the rest of us?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.5  Jack_TX  replied to  Split Personality @5.2    2 months ago
Are the media guilty by the quick rush to judgement by the public?

When the headline gives an erroneous and biased report, the public hasn't made the judgment...the media has. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
5.2.6  gooseisgone  replied to  Split Personality @5.2    2 months ago
Sandman's suing and announcing they will continue to sue one media outlet after another doesn't help Sandman, it makes the family look greedy, not injured.

The media is being made an example of which is good, they take stories and run with them to make sure they are first rather than accurate, plus it advances there left leaning attitude.  The Michael Brown "hands up don't shoot" case was another great example of the media lying and ruining someone's life.  That officer can't find work thanks to the media. I hope Sandman gets more money than he can ever spend.   

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.2.7  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @5.2.4    2 months ago
You honestly think that way about yourself as well as some of the rest of us?

That is how defamation works. That is how reputation works. Obviously at the level of the individual, some people will think for themselves, reserve judgment, investigate facts, and ultimately form their own opinion. But that's not what we're talking about.

Go back and look and look at the discussions we had here on NT about that story. Look at all the members who characterized the behavior of a 16 year-old kid who was standing still, saying nothing as disgusting, disrespectful, and racist.

 
 
 
lib50
5.3  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @5    2 months ago

Funny how you like some to have the right to sue, others, not so much.  Don't you want to stop medical malpractice lawsuits to lower the costs?  That is a conservative position, brought up every time as a way to protect malfeasance in the name of $$$.  What about stopping consumers from suing large corps?  Gop always wants to limit consumer rights to protect the elite.  How about the NRA,  making it unlawful to sue gun manufacturers?  Are there ANY standards you have for everyone? 

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/verify/verify-heres-why-gun-manufacturers-usually-cant-be-sued/65-531132867

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.3.1  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @5.3    2 months ago
Don't you want to stop medical malpractice lawsuits to lower the costs?

Frivolous law suits, most certainly.   For example, removing the wrong limb or organ (both of which have occurred) is most certainly applicable to a malpractice lawsuit.   Suing because you didn't like the outcome of voluntary plastic surgery is not.

Hell, I had a hip replacement.  Afterwards, we found that my left leg was about 1/2 inch shorter than the right.  A lift in my left shoe corrected the problem.   My surgeon was petrified that I would sue as others had.   It was an unintended consequence of major surgery.   

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.3.2  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @5.3    2 months ago
How about the NRA,  making it unlawful to sue gun manufacturers? 

Here's a hint...   the NRA doesn't make laws.

 
 
 
lib50
5.3.3  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @5.3.2    2 months ago

THEY PAY TO HAVE THEM PASSED!!!!!!

 
 
 
Jasper2529
5.3.4  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  lib50 @5.3.3    2 months ago
THEY PAY TO HAVE THEM PASSED!!!!!!

If true, then the following do the same with the Left:

  • NEA
  • Planned Parenthood
  • SPLC
  • MB/FC
  • CNN
  • MSNBC
  • etc.
 
 
 
Tacos!
5.3.5  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @5.3    2 months ago
Funny how you like some to have the right to sue

What made up fantasy is this? When did I ever say someone didn't have the right to sue someone else? Stop making shit up about me.

 
 
 
lib50
5.3.6  lib50  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.3.4    2 months ago

I'm on the record for getting money out of politics.  Are you? 

 
 
 
lib50
5.3.7  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @5.3.5    2 months ago

I posted my examples, and are you saying you are against the gop positions limiting the right to sue said industries or companies?  The NRA, medical malpractice, consumer class action suits.......

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.3.8  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @5.3.7    2 months ago
I posted my examples

You didn't post any examples of me saying that someone didn't have a right to sue someone.

are you saying

I'm saying you made shit up about me.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
5.3.9  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  lib50 @5.3.6    2 months ago
I'm on the record for getting money out of politics.  

Money = power and has been influential in politics for thousands of years.

Are you?

My opinion, and yours, are irrelevant to the topic of this seed. (Read ... hint: off-topic)

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.3.10  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @5.3.3    2 months ago
THEY PAY TO HAVE THEM PASSED!!!!!!

Oop's.

[Removed]

Since the mass shooting in Las Vegas, there has been much discussion about the National Rifle Association’s influence on gun policy.

In late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s monologue about Las Vegas and the influence of the gun industry, he charged that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Paul Ryan and other lawmakers "won’t do anything about this because the NRA has their balls in a money clip."

New York Times columnist Bret Stephens pushed back at that notion in his "Repeal the Second Amendment" column, suggesting that gun control advocates were overstating the NRA’s money footprint.

"The National Rifle Association does not have Republican ‘balls in a money clip,’ as (late-night TV host) Jimmy Kimmel put it the other night,"Stephens wrote. "The NRA has donated a paltry $3,533,294 to all current members of Congress since 1998, according toThe Washington Post, equivalent to about three months of Kimmel’s salary. The NRA doesn’t need to buy influence: It’s powerful because it’s popular."

Source:  https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/11/counting-up-how-much-nra-spends/

 
 
 
Jasper2529
5.3.11  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  XDm9mm @5.3.10    2 months ago
removed for context

Oh, snap! So, in 19 years (1998-2017), the NRA gave a measly $3.5M to Congress members. 

During almost the same time period, the NEA gave over $92M to mostly Democrat (97%) campaigns.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.3.12  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @5.3    2 months ago
brought up every time as a way to protect malfeasance in the name of $$$.

Just an FYI, it's been shown not to save any $$$ anyway.

 
 
 
zuksam
5.3.13  zuksam  replied to  lib50 @5.3    2 months ago

The only reason to sue a gun manufacturer is if either the gun fails to fire when needed or it fires on it's own, it's not the manufacturers fault if someone uses the gun to kill someone. The manufacturers aren't misrepresenting their products, they're called weapons for a reason. Should Ford get sued because a drunk driver killed someone with his Ford Truck ? If I got stabbed with a Buck Knife should I sue Buck Knives, hell no I should sue the guy who stabbed me. If somebody poisoned someone with Rat Poison should the manufacturer be liable because they sold a poisonous compound that was misused ? how about if it was antifreeze ?

 
 
 
lib50
5.3.14  lib50  replied to  zuksam @5.3.13    2 months ago

You are either for or against everybody have the right to sue.  Republicans are ON THE RECORD trying to limit certain types of lawsuits, from medical malpractice to suing gun manufacturers, to consumer class action suits to individuals.  Why do you think you have the right to stop all lawsuits against gun manufacturers unless they comply with your narrow confines?  Why did the gop pass a specific law denying Americans the right to sue them, and only them?

 
 
 
zuksam
5.3.15  zuksam  replied to  lib50 @5.3.14    2 months ago
Why do you think you have the right to stop all lawsuits against gun manufacturers unless they comply with your narrow confines

Because the left wants to try to bankrupt the gun industry with lawsuits. The gun manufacturers aren't breaking the law they haven't done anything Illegal, it's not their fault when someone uses their product in an Illegal way. If a Murderer smothers someone with a pillow is the pillow manufacturer at fault ? Of course not, then why would a gun manufacturer who's product works properly and has no defects be at fault just because a criminal uses that product in an Illegal way. The law doesn't stop all lawsuits against gun manufacturers just the ones that try to make them liable for the crimes committed with guns by criminals, if the gun tends to go off by itself and causes injury, property damage, or death you can still sue them for making a faulty product.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.3.16  Split Personality  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.3.11    2 months ago
So, in 19 years (1998-2017), the NRA gave a measly $3.5M to Congress members. 

Maybe so, but they spend 10 million a year lobbying.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.4  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @5    2 months ago

How was he 'destroyed'?

 
 
 
Snuffy
5.4.1  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @5.4    2 months ago
How was he 'destroyed'?

While I'm not so much in favor of the law suits,  we don't know what impact this will have on his life moving forward.  He's only 16 and as we know what gets put out on the internet never really goes away.  Nobody knows if some future employer will see the initial video and pass on hiring him, or if some college down the road will reject his application as they are worried about what drama may come with him because of this. 

To be honest, I don't know how successful the lawsuits will be against news organizations,  against regular people I don't know.  But it will play out in the courts.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.4.2  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @5.4    2 months ago
How was he 'destroyed'?

His reputation has been unfairly and irreparably damaged. There are people in the world now who think this young man is racist, or that he hates native Americans, or that he is just rude to old people. This will impact his prospects for getting into college and getting a job. 

And none of those assessments of him are accurate or fair. This kid was standing, minding his own business, waiting for a bus, when an activist walked up to him to harass him. Not knowing what else to do, he made no move, said nothing, and tried to keep a pleasant expression. All of this was unjustifiably used to smear his character without a single bit of journalistic investigation. The media outlets that advanced that unfair narrative should be punished for it.

 
 
 
Ender
5.4.3  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @5.4.2    2 months ago
His reputation has been unfairly and irreparably damaged.

I disagree. If he and his family would just shut up about it, it would fade away quickly.

Instead they keep bringing it up, appearing on fox and trying to sue every news outlet under the sun.

Very opportunistic of them.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.4.4  Split Personality  replied to  Snuffy @5.4.1    2 months ago

David what's his name from the Parkland HS shooting was vilified by opposite factions of the media for 10 months, not days or weeks.

He's supposedly going to Harvard and hasn't been mentioned for 3 months.

Sandman hasn't faced a fraction of that level of scrutiny.

To be honest, I don't know how successful the lawsuits will be against news organizations,  against regular people I don't know.  But it will play out in the courts.

Agreed.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.4.5  Tacos!  replied to  Ender @5.4.3    2 months ago
If he and his family would just shut up about it, it would fade away quickly.

With the internet, nothing fades away. Every time someone applies for a job these days, employers jump on the internet to do a search. This is going to come up for the rest of his life.

 
 
 
Ender
5.4.6  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @5.4.5    2 months ago

Not as harmful as one thinks.

I am sure there are people that would give him a job right now, just because of the bruha.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.4.7  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @5.4.2    2 months ago
The media outlets that advanced that unfair narrative should be punished for it.

and what about all of the media outlets that called the Parkland kids "crisis actors" which was not true?

The Parkland HS tragedy and it's survivors of both the shootings and the  following months and months of defamation have faded from view,

still going to that school or graduated and entering college,  no nationally advertised lawsuits that I can see.

No evident damage to their reputations. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.4.8  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @5.4.5    2 months ago
With the internet, nothing fades away.

Without looking it up on the internet can you name five of the Parkland survivors who became activists for or against gun control.

I can't.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
5.4.9  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  Ender @5.4.3    2 months ago
If he and his family would just shut up about it, it would fade away quickly.

What you're saying is that parents should sit down and shut up when children are repeatedly ridiculed, smeared, and bullied by mainstream media. WOW!! 

 
 
 
Ender
5.4.10  Ender  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.4.9    2 months ago

Do you see Hogg's parents bringing lawsuit to 20 different media outlets? I don't.

The are only using this for financial gain.

I also find it odd that the person who originally posted the video is nowhere to be found.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.4.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.4.10    2 months ago
Do you see Hogg's parents bringing lawsuit to 20 different media outlets? I don'

Which media outlets defamed Hogg? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.4.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @5.4.7    2 months ago
what about all of the media outlets that called the Parkland kids "crisis actors"

Which media outlets called them crisis actors?

Did CNN the Washington Post, etc.etc..?

 
 
 
Ender
5.4.13  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.4.11    2 months ago

Oh please.

The only reason some people are backing him is the impression that it makes. Poor little innocent maga kid is treated so bad by the big bad news outlets.

I know if the tables were turned, conservative people would not support this for one second.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
5.4.14  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  Ender @5.4.10    2 months ago
I also find it odd that the person who originally posted the video is nowhere to be found.

Just because we haven't heard about this person yet doesn't mean that investigators and lawyers haven't been searching or haven't identified him/her. Not everything is immediately exposed in legal cases. Time will tell.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
5.4.15  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.4.11    2 months ago
Which media outlets defamed Hogg? 

None of the major ones.

 
 
 
Ender
5.4.16  Ender  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.4.14    2 months ago

I hope so as that is what started it all to begin with.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
5.4.17  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  Ender @5.4.16    2 months ago
I hope so as that is what started it all to begin with.

True, but that was just a post on either FB or Twitter (can't remember which) by one person. What made this story a fiery inferno was that WaPo,CNN, MSNBC, and other left-wing media used yellow journalism to run with an unconfirmed story based on an anonymous, incomplete video and published it all over the world.

 
 
 
Ender
5.4.18  Ender  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.4.17    2 months ago

All news outlets post a story on what is popular at the time.

I don't blame them for reporting on what was known at the time.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.4.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.4.13    2 months ago

So you admit  your comparison holds no water. Okay.

 
 
 
Ender
5.4.20  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.4.19    2 months ago

Lets just say that they even came out with a website called Hoggwatch.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
5.4.21  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  Ender @5.4.18    2 months ago
All news outlets post a story on what is popular at the time.

ALL do? That's news to me!

I don't blame them for reporting on what was known at the time.

Oh, please. Left-wing media perpetuated their lies for days after the complete video was available. There's no excuse for what left-wing media did.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.4.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.4.20    2 months ago

I dont' think you understand   defamation or your own comparison.

"hoggwatch" whatever it is, is not defamatory unless the content is defamatory.  But I'll bet it's about Hogg's  actions after he made himself a gun activist. 

The Covington kid  was not a public figure when he was defamed. He was just a kid at a national monument when the media attacked him.  

Your comparison would at least make sense if Hogg was called a "crises actor" as he walked out of Parkland on the day of the shooting.  So, for your comparison to hold water, you'd have to show evidence of the media attacking Hogg before he put himself forward as an activist.The criticism of Hogg began after he turned himself into a political figure.

Understand the difference? 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
5.4.23  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  Ender @5.4.20    2 months ago

I'm going to give you a friendly warning, Ender ... David Hogg is not the topic so don't derail my seed. Please read the notice I posted in comment 8.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
5.4.24  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  Ender @5.4.6    2 months ago
I am sure there are people that would give him a job right now, just because of the bruha.

Yep. The boy is all of 16 ... supermarkets are going to be pounding on his door begging him to be a grocery bagger. Oh, wait ... McDonalds wants to hire him to sling burgers! At his age, those are among the best jobs he can get. All part-time, minimum wage, and good experience - but I highly doubt that a Fortune 500 company will be calling him any time soon.

 
 
 
Ender
5.4.25  Ender  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.4.23    2 months ago

Then give that warning to Sean as well.

No worries though, I am out of here.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
5.4.26  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  Ender @5.4.25    2 months ago
Then give that warning to Sean as well.

Most of Sean's comment discussed the Sandmann case. Yours didn't. Move on. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.4.27  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.4.26    2 months ago

He has moved on.  LOL

 
 
 
KDMichigan
5.4.28  KDMichigan  replied to  Split Personality @5.4.4    2 months ago
David what's his name from the Parkland HS shooting was vilified by opposite factions of the media for 10 months, not days or weeks.

Sorry if you can't see the difference.

David Hogg pursued the limelight and hit every talk show that would have him and even had his own press releases. Did you see Sandmann doing this?

 
 
 
zuksam
5.4.29  zuksam  replied to  Ender @5.4.10    2 months ago

Hogg put himself out as a public figure. Besides he was just ridiculed for his statements he wasn't falsely accused of anything.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.4.30  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @5.4.7    2 months ago
and what about all of the media outlets that called the Parkland kids "crisis actors" which was not true?

File suit. Make the case. But that's not what this seed is about. Making a case for this particular law suit doesn't make a case against any other kind of law suit. Your comment sounds more like an attempt at deflection and makes one wonder why you think that's necessary.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.4.31  Tacos!  replied to  Ender @5.4.10    2 months ago
Do you see Hogg's parents bringing lawsuit to 20 different media outlets? I don't.

The thing about that is that Hogg pursued media attention. He put himself into the media spotlight. He asked for attention. He went on CNN and Dr. Phil. He did a Town Hall. When you do that, you make yourself a public figure and the standards for media coverage and defamation actions change. It basically gives the media more freedom to talk about you. Nick Sandmann didn't do anything to invite that public spotlight. 

There are basically three legal standards for proving defamation and they vary based on the circumstances. If we're just talking about a private person, the standard for the publisher of the defamation can just be negligence. If we're talking about a public figure, like Trump or a celebrity, you have to prove "actual malice." In between is a gray area of limited public figures or matters of public interest.

Notwithstanding that someone recorded the event on video, Sandmann is probably going to be a lot closer to the status of a private individual and this event - on its own - probably doesn't rise to the level of something for which the public would have an independent interest. Plus, he's a minor.

He may only have to prove simple negligence and damages. On it's own, that wouldn't likely be a huge award, but if he proves malice, then a large punitive damage would be appropriate.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.4.32  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @5.4.10    2 months ago
Do you see Hogg's parents bringing lawsuit to 20 different media outlets? I don't. The are only using this for financial gain.

If by "they" you mean David Hogg and his family, then yes.  They have experienced enormous financial gain from the media coverage he's received.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.4.33  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @5.4.2    2 months ago
His reputation has been unfairly and irreparably damaged.

Death.

Threats.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
5.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tacos! @5    2 months ago

Whether they win or not to me is not so important as that the media needs to be put on notice that they went way too far with this and need to be brought down a few notches. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.5.1  Tacos!  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.5    2 months ago
they went way too far with this and need to be brought down a few notches.

Exactly. The news media is supposed to be informing, not piling on a teenager who didn't seek the spotlight.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
5.5.2  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.5    2 months ago
they went way too far with this and need to be brought down a few notches. 

Especially CNN, because it prides itself on "Facts First".

Facts are facts. They aren’t colored by emotion or bias. They are indisputable. There is no alternative to a fact. Facts explain things. What they are, how they happened. Facts are not interpretations. Once facts are established, opinions can be formed. And while opinions matter, they don’t change the facts. That’s why, at CNN, we start with the facts first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuTEeCNBfYE

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
6  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉    2 months ago

This entire story is one of adults behaving poorly. We saw it here on Newstalkers. Adults condemning the grin of a kid and making all sorts of false assumptions based on the edited video. It's really sad to see and many here are still unwilling to retract their nonsensical statements.

We hear things like I know what that grin means, I've seen it before. He's privileged, he's a racist he's a this or that.

Shameful!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @6    2 months ago
We hear things like I know what that grin means, I've seen it before. He's privileged, he's a racist he's a this or that.

LOL, you think he isn't privileged? His family hires one of the most expensive PR firms and gets him on TV  and then hires a lawyer so that their son doesn't get a bad rap? I'd like to see that happen for some poor coal miners kids/ not. I never said the kid was a racist, but that grin, came right out of the FBI body language playbook. I still stand by that. I come from a town of spoiled brats like him, and I have been on the receiving side of smirks like that in my classroom. That is why I gave up on substitute teaching. I couldn't deal with the brats or their parents. Now that is what is shameful. Not being able to discipline a kid, because mommy and daddy think their baby can do nothing wrong.

The fact is that we had a lot of people behaving badly, but only one making a lawsuit out of it and going after the deepest pockets. I am curious how this will play out.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1    2 months ago

Hired a team of spin doctors.  

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.1.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1    2 months ago
and I have been on the receiving side of smirks like that in my classroom.

Sounds to me like you have smirk PTSD.

What I see is a nervous kid with a grown ass adult that walked up to him banging a drum inches from his face.

And BTW Perrie, Is that a smirk in your avatar?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1    2 months ago
I come from a town of spoiled brats like him

And there we have the problem.

Too many people identify for or against one character in the situation based on their own previous life experiences that are totally unrelated. 

Your experience with spoiled brats in your town or substitute teaching has absolutely zero to with a kid you've never met.   

The fact is that we had a lot of people behaving badly, but only one making a lawsuit out of it and going after the deepest pockets.

We didn't have a lot of people behaving badly.  We had a man playing a drum and a kid smiling at him.  We had two people trying to show that positivity should prevail over racist lunatics hurling abuse.  Those two people were utterly unsophisticated, and different from each other as though they were born on different planets.  Yet peace, tolerance and positivity prevailed....until it came time to report on the situation.....

Then, we had one who is at the center of a firestorm.  One vilified by the media.  One who is still judged by a "smirk" that somehow sets off the kiloton warheads of emotional baggage many Americans carry with them.   

We had rampant irresponsible journalism followed by embarrassed retractions from people who whine and squeal about their "rights" as the free press while simultaneously whining and squealing about the very idea they should be responsible for what they publish.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
6.1.4  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.3    2 months ago
Then, we had one who is at the center of a firestorm.  One vilified by the media.  One who is still judged by a "smirk" that somehow sets off the kiloton warheads of emotional baggage many Americans carry with them.    We had rampant irresponsible journalism followed by embarrassed retractions from people who whine and squeal about their "rights" as the free press while simultaneously whining and squealing about the very idea they should be responsible for what they publish.

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.2    2 months ago
Sounds to me like you have smirk PTSD.

Sounds to me like your taunting.. like you also did this morning on my article with the shooting in New Zealand. 

What I see is a nervous kid with a grown ass adult that walked up to him banging a drum inches from his face.

'Cause we all know how a banging a drum is an act of aggression/ not.

And BTW Perrie, Is that a smirk in your avatar?

Obviously, I am smiling since I use that to represent myself. At least I am showing my face.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.3    2 months ago
Too many people identify for or against one character in the situation based on their own previous life experiences that are totally unrelated.  Your experience with spoiled brats in your town or substitute teaching has absolutely zero to with a kid you've never met.   

Look you could make that case, if the parents didn't hire a PR firm and a lawyer. But they did. And that is what they do in my hood, which also confirms to me the kid's smirk.

We didn't have a lot of people behaving badly.

I did say that, right?

Then, we had one who is at the center of a firestorm.  One vilified by the media.

And then exonerated using the same media. 

We had rampant irresponsible journalism followed by embarrassed retractions from people who whine and squeal about their "rights" as the free press while simultaneously whining and squealing about the very idea they should be responsible for what they publish.

Well, there I won't disagree. We have a lot of poor reporting going on, but that is something for a different article. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1.4    2 months ago

Interesting Jasper that you vote up a comment that was meant as a taunt to me. I'll keep that in mind. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.1.8  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.5    2 months ago
Obviously, I am smiling

Hey you and Sandmann have something in common. That's what he said he was doing to Nathan Phillips trying to show him he was no threat and diffusing the situation. 

At least I am showing my face.

I'm scared to show my face with all the hate expressed on this site. I used to have my dog as my Avatar and the tolerant left would mock that so yeah now I stick with a raccoon.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.6    2 months ago

In another couple months no one will care about this. It has already largely faded in the public eye. The day was a weird and unsettling convergence of  groups of disparate people in a very public place.

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.10  Split Personality  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.8    2 months ago
That's what he said he was doing to Nathan Phillips trying to show him he was no threat and diffusing the situation. 

Nah, this is Nick Sandman smiling.  No comparison.

384

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.1.11  KDMichigan  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.10    2 months ago
Nah, this is Nick Sandman smiling. 

Not according to his statements. But I'm not getting into another smirk gate that Perrie started.

On a off note if he is so damn rich why is his grill so messed up. I understand why he was smiling with a closed mouth now. My daughter did the same thing until we got her grill fixed.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.12  Jack_TX  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.6    2 months ago
Look you could make that case, if the parents didn't hire a PR firm and a lawyer. But they did. And that is what they do in my hood, which also confirms to me the kid's smirk.

The lawyers are most likely working for a cut of the settlement.  

Certainly the Sandmanns are not poor.  The boy attends a private school.

But the case that you're judging a kid you've never met because of previous experiences with other kids who look like him is more valid now that you're doubling down on it.  If anybody is going to rise above that, it will be people like you and me.  

I did say that, right?

You said "The fact is that we had a lot of people behaving badly".  I assumed you meant the people involved in the incident that day.  Apologies if I misunderstood.

I think the only people behaving badly that day were the racist Hebrew Whatever dickheads that started it all.

And then exonerated using the same media. 

Was he?  You've just kinda told us otherwise.  

Setting you aside completely....There are millions of hard core liberals out there who now openly despise this boy as a symbol of the sum total of their emotional baggage about everything from Trump to Charlottesville to a border wall to their rent being too high.  No telling how many of those people work in positions where they will have some say on whether or not to hire Nick Sandmann.  Those opportunities are now lost to this kid, all because he committed the dastardly and evil terrorist act of "smiling at an old man with a drum".

Well, there I won't disagree. We have a lot of poor reporting going on, but that is something for a different article. 

Well this article is about news outlets getting sued for irresponsible reporting, so I hope we're OK talking about it here.  

Personally, not only do I hope the Sandmanns win, but I hope Nathan Phillips sues and wins, as well.  He's another guy who did absolutely nothing wrong and had to face a shitstorm for the sake of "getting more clicks".

A powerful statement needs to be made that journalists cannot evade responsibility for their actions.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
6.1.13  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.7    2 months ago
Interesting Jasper that you vote up a comment that was meant as a taunt to me.

Not at all. Please note that in comment 6.1.4 I block quoted the portion of  comment  6.1.3 that addressed the topic of my seeded article ---> shoddy, biased "journalism". There wasn't any reference to you.

I'll keep that in mind. 

Is that a public threat/innuendo about future unfair moderation of my comments regarding something I didn't do on this seed? Although it sounds like it is, I certainly hope that's not the case, because I've not posted anything that could possibly cause you to feel that I insulted you.

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.14  Split Personality  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1.13    2 months ago
Not at all. Please note that in comment 6.1.4 I block quoted the portion of  comment  6.1.3 that addressed the topic of my seeded article [--->] shoddy, biased "journalism". There wasn't any reference to you.

Bull Shit, how stupid do you think the membership of NT is?

You voted up a comment that disagreed with PH with juvenile emoji's. jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

Is that a public threat/innuendo about future unfair moderation of my comments?

When you learn how to self moderate an article, I will be one of the first to congratulate you for abandoning your partisan flagging habits.

I've not posted anything that could possibly cause you to feel that I insulted you.

Think hard about that, is that really something you want to tie yourself to? The internet is a permanent record some say...

[deleted]

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.15  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.14    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.16  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.15    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
7  Ender    2 months ago

So republicans have gone from...Tort reform! Tort reform!...to...Sue, Sue, Sue!...

 
 
 
Jasper2529
8  seeder  Jasper2529    2 months ago

3/14/2019, 3:35PM (DST) ...

In order to keep my seed on topic, I'm issuing the following warning to everyone:

This seed is not about David Hogg or Parkland. Further comments about them as well as other derails will be flagged OFF TOPIC.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
8.1  KDMichigan  replied to  Jasper2529 @8    2 months ago

oops sorry

 
 
 
Jasper2529
8.1.1  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  KDMichigan @8.1    2 months ago

No worries. I started the clock at 3:35PM today. Very tired of certain folks derailing my seeds instead of taking the effort to comment on the topic.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
9  1stwarrior    2 months ago

My recommendation to the young man and his family is to wait until one of his two suits gets settled prior to going after more rabbits.  If he wins either/both of them, all of the others will quickly become fair game.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
9.1  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  1stwarrior @9    2 months ago

Maybe that's why one of the lawyers said:

“Our plan is to come out with an additional lawsuit every few weeks or months. We have to issue opportunities for these news organizations to provide retractions,” McMurtry told the "Todd Starnes Radio Show."
 
 
 
evilgenius
10  evilgenius    2 months ago

Nice! I hope they win. This way Fox News (and every alt+right "news" site online) could be sued into insolvency. We all know it's not going to happen. It's just a ploy to keep MAGA parents and their lawyer on TV and Fox's way to perpetuate victimhood. But I really, really, truly hope they win. The line to file suite against Fox News, Breitbart and others would be soooo long - that in itself would make news.

 
 
 
Rmando
10.1  Rmando  replied to  evilgenius @10    2 months ago

Fox hasn't gone after minors the way CNN did. I don't recall any Fox commentators calling any kids "asswipes" like the classy people at CNN did.

 
 
 
evilgenius
10.1.1  evilgenius  replied to  Rmando @10.1    2 months ago
Fox hasn't gone after minors the way CNN did.

Oh yeah. Fox is a bastion of journalistic integrity.

Journalism ethics and standards.

While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability, as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.

Not saying that CNN is perfect or awesome (see my original comment). Perhaps you shouldn't put up a company with "News" in their title that argued in a court of law that they are NOT a "news organization" as a group with any kind of integrity.

 
 
 
Rmando
10.1.2  Rmando  replied to  evilgenius @10.1.1    2 months ago

The difference between Fox and CNN is that Fox makes a clear distinction between straight news and opinion shows. CNN editorialized all day while pretending to be balanced.

 
 
 
evilgenius
10.1.3  evilgenius  replied to  Rmando @10.1.2    2 months ago
The difference between Fox and CNN is that...

The audience of CNN knows it's editorializing all day while Fox's audience believes everything they say as gospel truth. 

 
 
 
Rmando
10.1.4  Rmando  replied to  evilgenius @10.1.3    2 months ago

"The audience of CNN knows it's editorializing all day while Fox's audience believes everything they say as gospel truth."

The audience of CNN is tuning in just to get their TDS fix. CNN and the facts haven't been on speaking terms in a long time.

 
 
 
evilgenius
10.1.5  evilgenius  replied to  Rmando @10.1.4    2 months ago
The audience of CNN is tuning in just to get their TDS fix. CNN and the facts haven't been on speaking terms in a long time.

Yeah... Okay. I'm done reading you repeat yourself. I don't watch CNN so I don't give two fucks what happens to them. Actually I don't give two fucks if they all get sued to oblivion. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
10.2  KDMichigan  replied to  evilgenius @10    2 months ago
It's just a ploy to keep MAGA parents and their lawyer

Is it? You mean the whole one time that  Sandmann has been on TV?

Now if you are referring to the honor thief Nathan Phillips he has hit every left wing media "NEWS" station. I'm pretty sure Sandmann never even appeared on FOX

 
 
 
evilgenius
10.2.1  evilgenius  replied to  KDMichigan @10.2    2 months ago
Nathan Phillips he has hit every left wing media "NEWS" station.

You actually watch every left wing media "NEWS" station or is this just something you heard on Fox "NEWS"? 

Actually I couldn't give a shit less. I'm still hoping the kid's lawyer wins - it will be fun to watch the aftermath.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
10.2.2  KDMichigan  replied to  evilgenius @10.2.1    2 months ago
You actually watch every left wing media "NEWS" station

Why yes I do. I take in all news sources not just the ones that appeal to me. 

And you could even use google to see what news stations he appeared on, I know shocker right?

 
 
 
Rmando
11  Rmando    2 months ago

I've heard of the face that launched a thousand ships. Now we have the smirk that launched a thousand lawsuits.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
11.1  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  Rmando @11    2 months ago

Good one, Rmando. Funny thing is that no matter how hard I try to understand that Nick was "smirking", I just don't see a smirk. He was smiling, albeit nervously.

 
 
 
Rmando
11.1.1  Rmando  replied to  Jasper2529 @11.1    2 months ago

Just using the language of the left to make a point... They do love their face crimes.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
11.1.2  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  Rmando @11.1.1    2 months ago

Some won't understand the Marlowe reference.  jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Split Personality
11.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  Jasper2529 @11.1    2 months ago
I just don't see a smirk. He was smiling

While we could argue "degrees of smiling, this is Nick smiling .

Completely different from whatever was going on between him & Phillips.

384

 
 
 
Jasper2529
11.1.4  seeder  Jasper2529  replied to  Split Personality @11.1.3    2 months ago
While we could argue "degrees of smiling, this is Nick smiling . Completely different from whatever was going on between him & Phillips.

It's silly to nitpick "degrees of smiling", because a photo is merely a photographic moment captured in time. Some called the most famous photograph "a smirk", and others called it "a smile".

Here's another one with NBC's Savannah Guthrie. Is he smirking or smiling? Is she smirking or smiling? Does it matter? IMO, no. What matters is the extent to which left-wing media went to vilify this young man for something he did not do. Hence, the lawsuits.

nick_sandmann_savannah_guthrie.jpg

 
 
 
Jasper2529
12  seeder  Jasper2529    2 months ago

This seed is now locked - I'm having dinner and then spending time with my family. No other reason.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Bob Nelson
lady in black


30 visitors