'Covington kid' Nicholas Sandmann loses lawsuits against media outlets including NYT, ABC, and Rolling Stone
Category: News & Politics
Via: tessylo • 2 years ago • 136 commentsBy: Mia Jankowicz, Business Insider
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
'Covington kid' Nicholas Sandmann loses lawsuits against media outlets including NYT, ABC, and Rolling Stone
Mia Jankowicz Thu, July 28, 2022 at 10:24 AM 
-
Nicholas Sandmann, the former Covington high schooler, has lost a handful of defamation cases.
-
He tried to sue outlets including The New York Times and ABC News over coverage of a 2019 protest encounter.
-
On Tuesday the judge threw the cases out, saying they were based on unverifiable opinion.
Nicholas Sandmann, the teen who appeared in a viral video in an apparent confrontation with a Native American elder in 2019, has lost his defamation lawsuits against several media companies.
A federal judge struck the cases filed by Sandmann against The New York Times, CBS News, ABC News, NBC Universal Media, Rolling Stone, and Gannett on Tuesday, court documents show.
Sandmann's lawsuit was based around statements by the elder, Nathan Phillips, that Sandmann had blocked his path in the encounter — which were widely aired in the media.
In summary, however, Judge William O. Bertelsman said these were "objectively unverifiable and thus unactionable opinions."
Sandmann said in a Wednesday tweet that the ruling was a "disappointment," saying he plans to appeal.
The case stems back to a widely-covered encounter at an Indigenous People's March in Washington, D.C. in January 2019, when a crowd of students from Covington Catholic High — many wearing "MAGA" hats – met with the march in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
One short video showed Sandmann, then 16 years old, standing in front of Phillips with a smile on his face, as Phillips played a drum. The fellow high schoolers Sandmann was with danced and yelled along with the drumming.
The footage was widely shared on social media and on mainstream media outlets, and sparked criticism of Sandmann and the school.
While many commentators interpreted Sandmann's demeanor as smirking and blocking Phillips, Sandmann said he was trying to "defuse the situation" by "remaining motionless and calm,"CNN reported.
Further footage emerged a day later, providing much greater context — including the fact that a separate group of protesters had been yelling offensive terms at the group that Sandmann was standing with, prior to the moment Phillips approached him.
Sandmann filed several lawsuits with news outlets that had sympathetically interviewed Phillips following the encounter. He objected to widely-reported statements by Phillips to the effect that Sandmann had "blocked" him and "would not allow him to retreat."
But the judge said that these are "objectively unverifiable" and so can only count as opinion, which is unactionable in this case, as it is protected speech.
Bertelsman also said: "The media defendants were covering a matter of great public interest, and they reported Phillips's first-person view of what he experienced.
"This would put the reader on notice that Phillips was simply giving his perspective on the incident."
The case came at a time of widespread racial tension, but the judge said his decisions were made "with no consideration of the rancorous political debate associated with these cases."
Since the incident, Sandmann has become a cause célèbre in conservative circles. Sandmann addressed the Republican National Convention in 2020 in apre-recorded speech.
Fox News' Tucker Carlson argued in 2019that the furor wasn't "an argument about facts and evidence and truth. It's an argument about identity," in reference Sandmann's apparently conservative politics.
BothCNNandThe Washington Post, who Sandmann also sued, settled in 2020 for undisclosed sums. Neither outlet admitted any wrongdoing in their coverage.
Read the original article onBusiness Insider
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
271 visitors
Nicholas Sandmann pictured in a Republican National Convention video from 2021, wearing a MAGA hat. RNC via Reuters
Nicholas Sandmann, the former Covington high schooler, has lost a handful of defamation cases.
He tried to sue outlets including The New York Times and ABC News over coverage of a 2019 protest encounter.
On Tuesday the judge threw the cases out, saying they were based on unverifiable opinion.
Nicholas Sandmann, the teen who appeared in a viral video in an apparent confrontation with a Native American elder in 2019, has lost his defamation lawsuits against several media companies.
A federal judge struck the cases filed by Sandmann against The New York Times, CBS News, ABC News, NBC Universal Media, Rolling Stone, and Gannett on Tuesday, court documents show.
A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit filed against NBC by Covington Catholic graduate Nick Sandmann.
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy
"A federal judge struck the cases filed by Sandmann against The New York Times, CBS News, ABC News, NBC Universal Media, Rolling Stone, and Gannett on Tuesday, court documents show."
The little maga maggot prick lost!
No actually he had already won previously and is now a millionaire. Life sucks don't it?
.... I hadn’t heard that. Good for him.
He’s already made more money than all the losers here bagging on him.
Hilarious!
Why would life suck? No one knows how much the little prick got from those lawsuits and that includes you!
He lost against all the others.
Now you may FUCK OFF!
Forbes reports that he has a net worth of $1M and an annual income of $100K.
You first...
Not once he has to pay all their legal fees.
"Both CNN and The Washington Post , who Sandmann also sued, settled in 2020 for undisclosed sums. Neither outlet admitted any wrongdoing in their coverage."
I guess the smug little prick thought he'd be riding the gravy train on these bogus lawsuits.
CNN and The Washington Post should have never settled with the little maga maggot.
That's for sure. The settlement amount was confidential, but many of the rightwingers on here claimed he was paid tens of millions of dollars even though, as usual, they knew nothing. We can expect them to keep up the pretense.
C'mon - tell us the inside scoop.
No, I'll leave the fairy tales to you.
[Deleted]
Lol yeah, the sums paid were confidential because they were so painfully low. /S
You are obviously ignorant about the machinations of the legal system and settlements. I've been involved with settlements of varying amounts where the settlement is confidential. I've seen confidential settlements from $10,000 to $10,000 000. What is your experience in this area?
None directly.
So, were those “low confidential payments” nationally high profile cases against multi billion dollar corporations like NBC?
They were settlements with multi-billion dollar insurance companies.
Ah, insurance settlements.
Not even close to the same thing.
No operative difference whatsoever. The settling defendant corporations in the Sandman case most certainly had insurance coverage for this matter, and the insurance companies paid for the settlement unless the settlement was within their insureds' self-insured retention (deductible). Libel and slander coverage (defamation) is known as "advertising injury" coverage. Every media company has "advertising injury" coverage.
The best assessment from legal experts in the defamation field was that the settling corporations' insurance companies evaluated their exposure in line with the results in the reported case here - no liability - as did the plaintiff's attorneys. As is not unusual, the insurance companies made a business decision to enter into a settlement, taking into consideration their costs of defense and limited potential exposure. The plaintiff's attorneys were undoubtedly happy to get whatever they could, despite their PR bravado.
I disagree, in my career our insurance companies paid out several claims. Never were we held to a non disclosure agreement. Never.
So meh, you know no more about what was awarded than I do. You think it was low, I think it was high. This argument is stupid.
You disagree with what? I have been involved in several cases where a confidentiality agreement was part of the terms and conditions of the settlement. You can't disagree with that. Maybe in your experience you have never encountered a confidentiality agreement, but so what? That doesn't prove anything.
Not true. I have no idea as to the amount of tbe settlement, and neither do you. I merely indicated what experts in the field have opined, but they do not know the actual amount of the settlement either.
It's all what they think. Who gives a fuck what they think?
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
Covington Catholic graduate Nicholas Sandmann reaches settlement in lawsuit against NBC
How long do you think it will take for some right wing conservative to claim the judge was somehow corrupt or somehow a judicial activist bent on canceling Religious conservatives in America? Or they will research who he was appointed by and claim that makes them die hard partisans with extreme bias against conservatives regardless of the judges actual record.
That's what I'm waiting for now . . . . always the victims . . .
What does religion have to do with this?
I take it you didn't hear the religious conservative outcry after this incident? I thought it was pretty apparent to anyone with eyes, a brain and even a smattering of knowledge about it. Since they are the ones now having a judges ruling thrown in their faces after they cheered in unison at the "vindication" of the supposedly spurious claims made by the liberal secular 'MSM' you would think they would be the first ones to bemoan and whine about the recent ruling.
The fact that he attended a church school only mattered to the religious conservatives who rushed to his defense. Now that their proclamations of justice have been shown premature and foolish clearly they are the ones with something stuck in their craws.
Also, I have nothing against religious folk, I know many of them that are absolutely delightful humans. They are humble, thoughtful and respectful of others regardless of their lifestyles, faith or lack thereof. Sadly, I also know many who think far higher of themselves than they deserve and use their faith as a cudgel to browbeat and coerce others into submission, always trying to force their religious beliefs on others. They are almost always the whiners, forever self-proclaiming themselves victims even while they persecute and discriminate against anyone they have deemed 'sinners', thus they do not deserve any respect or sympathy.
Which proclamations?
Not a thing, but it's something the left can throw at a wall and see if it sticks. They really do not have much else. They know damn well he has already won a previous round of lawsuits and been awarded a large sum from those. The fact that the kid was in the right, no pun intended, just sticks in the craw of lefties.
Yes. I recall. I recall that the left leaning MSM made a big deal about the fact that he attended a religious school, Covington Catholic High School, making the fact a part of the smear campaign and prompting the 'religious conservative outcry' to which you refer.
Not sure what you would consider as having the ruling 'thrown in their faces' as consisting of but while you, for one, might expect such a reaction, have you seen one?
As for me, the MSM acted so egregiously in the effort to produce their narrative of this event, in my opinion, I am baffled by this judge's ruling.
An interesting point of view, given that he's already 'won' several cases, even if it they were settled out of court. Further, this is not necessarily the end of the affair. There is an appeals process to think of, for instance.
No.
He was not "awarded" anything. The amount of his settlements is confidential and anyone not involved in the settlements who claims to know the amount of the settlements is engaged in pure speculation.
No.
I beg to differ. Even if it was a settlement out of court, I would consider that a win. It seems to me that, had MSM lawyers felt they had a decent chance of winning they would not have settled.
Somewhat correct. While the amount would be speculation, since it hasn't been made public as far as I am aware of, one could reasonably assume the amount wasn't small or Sandmann's lawyers would not have settled.
You, of course, can see it any way you wish to.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it does indicate that you may have a limited understanding of insurance claims handling. Approximately 95% of all claims settle without going to trial.
That is not a reasonable assumption at all. One could also conclude that Sandmann's lawyers decided they had a potential loser and recommended that their client settle for a nominal sum in order that he receive something rather than incur the time and expense of going to trial and end up gettting nothing. Or worse, end up with their client owing money to the defendants. Unless the loss reported in this article is overturned on appeal, their client Sandmann may be liable for all or a large part of the defense costs incurred to date. As you may or may not be aware, Stormy Daniels lost the appeal of her failed defamation case against Trump and now owes Trump $300,000 as a result.
Litigation is a risky business. All experienced legal practitioners, and knowledgeable insurance claims professsionals, carefully evaluate the risks in every case.
They're always bemoaning and whining about something!
BINGO!
They said the snot nosed little bastard would make a killing off of suing all the outlets named and I think it's foolish those who settled out with the punk but the rest of them, NO DICE!
Obviously 'a thing' to the faux religious and small c christians here no matter how much you blame everything on the 'liberal left'. Your convenient scapegoat.
You are correct as usual, Gsquared. It doesn't matter what drak considers a win.
Definition of bemoan
transitive verb
Who told you?
Aw jeez - here comes the Kavanaugh/Barret fan club.
This is what happens when you ogle pics of Perry Mason and fantasize he's your lawyer.
Is that why I do it?
All that education and even that escapes you.
All that education
Get a job and stop trying to get rich through litigation.
He done both, Forbes estimates his net worth at $1M, annual income $100K while he goes to college.
His income is described as coming from part-time jobs while fundamentally a student.
You think a student working part-time jobs would generate $100,000 annual income?
If he has such an income I would bet it comes predominantly from the money (his $1M wealth) that he 'earned' through settlements.
Forbes reported his annual $100K income is from endorsement and social media deals and the $1M from the settled lawsuits.
And that is something I could believe; he is cashing in on his minor celebrity, not working a job. Importantly, he is attempting to get rich through lawsuits.
I find that to be slimy. Do you?
Forbes reported that he had a large social media following prior to the trip to DC, from short music videos and vacation videos.
The lawsuits were filed by his parents, he was a minor.
I know nothing about him personally. I subscribe to the WPost. They assigned a reporter at at about noon on a Sat after seeing an Instagram post and a short, edited video. Several hours later, the reporter telephone Philips, the NA. At 5:00PM they published their first story. They hadn't talked to this kid or any school official on the trip. They knew nothing about the Black Hebrew Israelites part of the truth. The headline was something like, It's Getting Ugly, NA Encounter with MAGA Hat Teens'.
Network media and social media outrage followed without any context or much facts. I nthink that is slimy. Do you?
"...he is cashing in on his minor celebrity, not working a job."
Every dweezle who has worked for the government, then authored a kiss-and-tell book has done that.
Are you suggesting that he is not in support of this?
I am saying that trying to get rich via lawsuits is slimy. This has nothing to do with any other factors of this individual.
Leaping to a conclusion by a group to pursue its political or ideological goals is slimy. If that is the case then yes.
What is your point? Are you suggesting that this constitutes a job? If so, I disagree. This is cashing in on celebrity.
My objection is his litigation activities.
Thus I repeat:
Do you support playing the legal system to get wealthy?
I've suggested nothing. Are you asserting that a kid would defy his parents publicly over this?
Do you see all lawsuits as "trying to get rich"?
Then why mention his parents if you are not trying to put the blame on them for pursuing wealth through lawsuits?
No. Generalize much?
It's a fact. Why accuse him of attempting to get rich through lawsuits?
I don't think so.
He should get a hard-hitting job like Chelsea Clinton did? Her vast business acumen was worth $700k a year!
“Do you see all lawsuits…”
A suit is a means of recovering some devaluation. This pissing all over Sandmann shows he is lesser for the jaded publicity.
Lol .... Chelsea Clinton is Albert Einstein compared to Hunter Biden.
I agree. So many suits out there aren't for justice but for money. I do not believe that is the case with Sandmann. What the MSM did to him was so egregious in my opinion that he deserves what he can get for punitive reasons alone. I don't know what Sandmann's motives are but, in my opinion, he deserves whatever he can get from them. The MSM deliberately crafted a narrative that had no connection to the truth and did not attempt to ascertain what the truth was.
That said, had this happened to me, I don't believe I would have settled out of court. The MSM does this crap constantly and intentionally. They need to be held accountable for it and I would do my best to make it happen.
I agree. But what I strongly suspect is that this is not so much a principled stand but a pursuit of wealth. It might not be Sandmann driving this (no way to know). So if it is attorneys churning (or Sandmann driving a churn) I find this to be slimy.
There are levels of egregiousness. I would have much more sympathy for those whose careers have been trashed, whose loved one committed suicide due to false media exposure, the failure of a marriage based on false rumors, etc. than what Sandmann suffered. I am not suggesting he does not deserve compensation, I just find his damages to be rather low. There might be facts about this that would change my position, but based on what I know that is my take.
It seems to me that is a metric that is rather difficult to determine. Quite a number of the population, thanks to the MSM, is still against this kid. It would be difficult, I think, to determine what effect this will have on his employability going forward, not to mention the social aspects in the future.
It is, it is a judgment call. That is why I offered examples.
Doubtful.
Some folks say we have TDS - sounds like you have CDS
WTF does Chelsea Clinton have to do with this?
What harm did he actually suffer? I forgot about this kid until just now because of this seed.
He needs to grow up, get a real job or join the military. He's gonna end up a career student if he stays in school
His reputation was trashed; it was dishonest character assassination by the media. So I can appreciate the reasoning behind a lawsuit. What I do not appreciate is moving from getting justice into getting rich. And that, based on what I have observed, seems to be what is now going on.
So there might be future evidence that justifies continuing lawsuits, but until then my position is that this kid is cashing in on an opportunity and doing so in a slimy manner.
Something we can agree on.
Tort reform is needed badly is this country but I’m afraid we are going in the opposite direction of that these days.
I don't appreciate the reasoning behind the lawsuit.
That's the propaganda talking point of the insurance companies, the moneyed interests, the reactionary right and those who want to deny the average person in America access to justice.
Did you appreciate the death threats that shut down the school for awhile? Death threats for the smirk heard round the world.
Appreciate it?????/
[Deleted]
I forgot all about the smug little brat too. Nice to see him get a little what for
Typical hive minded drone nonsense from him
He still looks like a brat.
Exactly, he should grow scruffy beard.
Yes, a nice Lenin style goat would do nicely for them don’t you think?
We all know who the 'nationalists' are...
Doubtful .....
Doubtful? When they admit it...It seems some people just like to make things up.
You should put me back on ignore. This is not going to end well for you.
As if anything here ever ends well for you.
A threat? Funny...
Nothing does except in their imaginations...
I have him on ignore. If he's threatening anyone, please flag. Thank you.
When you disagree with me, I know it ends well for me. Almost every time.
It’s quite comforting so much appreciated John.
Based on your comments here your judgements of who is and isn’t a “Nationalist” is nearly worthless.
Which actually, that isn’t funny at all.
Have you ever been in a good mood? At least once in your life? Holy hell dude, being that negative all the time cannot be healthy.
Lol ..... now who’s zoomin who?
The lNTer liberal mafia that’s who .... now that is funny.
And there’s the personal attack.
Newsflash, just because someone disagrees with you, doesn’t mean they are in a bad mood.
I know that can be a tough concept for the some of the triggered here to grasp but there it is.
Personal attack? No, just an observation, that you seem to be enforcing...
[Deleted]
Some folks just have their panties perpetually in a wad up their butt.
Still on ignore - so are you being accused of personally attacking someone?
meh, that picture looks like he just found out ma and pa smoked and drank away his last cash settlement, and then admitted to him they were already related prior to their marriage...
I’m sure he’s disappointed. He may have to get an actual job if he ever hopes to have enough money to afford those Kyle Rittenhouse and George Zimmerman tattoos.
One million buys a lot of tattoos.
Sounds like some folks are just flat out jealous that young Sandman just happened to be in the right place at the right time and won't admit they would not do the same thing for their kid. Give me a break!
Jealous of what?
Your heroes are losers!
You have absolutely no idea who my heroes are, and you wouldn't recognize them if you did. Have a nice day.
[deleted]
the tattoos were cheap, it was the laser removal process to correct all the spelling errors on them.
Because them maga maggots are so, like, smart
Loh he will get an actual job. He has gotten and has excellent conservative values that unsure that. Only liberals fall to get actual jobs and expect others to support them. Bernie Sanders is an excellent example of that. He has never held a real job in his life. He is also one of the few people to get kicked out of a liberal commune for not pulling his own weight.
Hey!!!!!
Didn't you know a social justice or liberal arts degree can get you a good closing manager job at any fast food restaurant of their choice?\
C'mon, man...
[Deleted]
Bernie never had one of those jobs either
Anyone that watched the entire video saw that the Covington students and Native Americans had been harassed by racist and misogynist Black Israelites. Phillips lied about trying to mediate between the groups. He picked out Sandmann as his target, walked up to him to block his path and began beating his drum.
Bang a gong man!
Get it on, bang a gong, get it on.
Nathan Phillips lied about serving in Vietnam as a Marine walking patrols. Truth was he was a refrigerator mechanic in the Marine Corps Reserve, never left CONUS and got out after 4 years private, E-1, due to his frequent AWOLs. Several years early he had a similar confrontation with college student.
Nathan lied and the media and Dems bought it.
A real DD candidate that one .....
Maybe a PTSD victim from:
Chlorinated Fluorocarbon poisoning perhaps?
While adding to climate change, Nathan is a victim many times over
You forgot huffing freon!