It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
What are the purposed lies and how do they weigh against the fact that the school group was not permitted to be in that area at the time?
If you look at the so called stare down it takes on a new light if you realize that the school group is on film for hours "waitin on a bus" in an area they were not authorized to be in.
In Kentucky, when someone says or prints things about you that harm your or your businesses reputation, this is referred to as defamation. Often these negative type comments are done intentionally or recklessly and are intended to cause harm to you or your businesses reputation. Kentucky law allows a person to bring a lawsuit against the spreaders of lies about you if they have done so intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth. To be actionable, the defamation must have caused a provable economic harm or damages as a result of the lie being told to others. Just because someone expressed or printed something that was not true does not make a case. If you feel that someone has defamed or slander you, your reputation or your businesses reputation, you should speak with a lawyer about the particular facts of your case to determine if you are in a position to take legal action against such persons. Many times people intentionally say or print negative things about another person’s character or business to harm or hurt the person or business. It may even be done to attempt to gain another’s business and profits for their own benefit. No matter the reasons why, if lies have been told or printed about you and you have been harmed as a result, you should know your legal rights under the Kentucky law.
Kentucky defines defamation as causing harm to the reputation of a person or business, by communicating to a third party, via words that are false and meant to humiliate, degrade, or incite contempt or hatred.
To establish a claim for defamation, the following elements must exist: (1) defamatory language, (2) about the plaintiff, (3) which is published, and (4) which causes injury to reputation. Stringer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 151 S.W.3d 781, 793 (Ky. 2004). Moreover, “defamatory language is broadly construed as language that ‘tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.’” Id.
I agree with you that the boys did what they were told and they are even on film asking the teacher if they can do school chants to counter the protest.
The first Indigenous Peoples' March was a political demonstration on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on January 18, 2019. The event included speeches, prayers, songs, and dance, and was intended to draw attention to global injustices against indigenous peoples.
The March For Life also had a permit for a First Amendment demonstrations on the National Mall on that day. According to The Cut, CovCath sends an annual delegation of its students to attend the anti-abortion March For Life in Washington.
The first March for Life, which was founded by Nellie Gray, was held on January 22, 1974, on the West Steps of the Capitol, with an estimated 20,000 supporters in attendance.
Speaking to the Free Press by phone, Phillips, 64, of Ypsilanti, explained what happened after 5 p.m. Friday during the Indigenous Peoples' March he was attending and spoke of his history working for the cause of Native American people.
originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
I agree with you that the boys did what they were told and they are even on film asking the teacher if they can do school chants to counter the protest. The teacher said yes and i am hoping people close to the students will get on the right side of this and set a good example for the boys by acknowledging that they were wrong for disrupting the protest and it is not wise to wait for hours for a bus in the middle of a protest. Instead people just want to double down and try to claim they have some right to sue cause of feelings.
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: PublicOpinion
And all for what? What was their "crime"?
this may be what it hinges on but replace politician with child ,as i guess its easier for non public officials to use defamation and slander lawsuits.
Definition of Actual Malice The 1964 Supreme Court case Hustler v Falwell defined the term “actual malice,” ruling the term applies to cases in which defamatory statements were made with blatant disregard for whether they were true or false. This setting of precedent determined that a public figure could only win a defamation lawsuit if the statements made against him were not an honest mistake, and were made with the intent to cause harm. For example, XYZ Magazine published a story based on hearsay, stating a politician cheated on his wife. If the magazine did not take the time to research whether this was true or not prior to printing, and the politician suffered harm as a result, the magazine may be sued for libel.
so id go with the lawyer taking this approach to the matter that it was published negligently
It would seem that any charge of defamation would hurt freedom of speech. However, the court in the NY Times case said the right to not be defamed in the public arena is balanced against the right of free speech. A private person gets the most protection as all they have to do is prove that it was false and it was published negligently. However, if the person is a public figure, they are afforded the least amount of protection because they are in the public eye voluntarily. The idea is that since they are already in the public eye, they have media access to set the record straight if a false statement is made.
id say they go with the emotional damages aspect what with him getting death threats over this and his school being shut down for a few days due to said threats
So What are the Elements of a Defamation Case? The elements of a charge are like ingredients. In a civil charge, if just one of the elements is not met, then there is no case. There are four elements to a defamation case: 1) A statement must be made that is false; and 2) It must be published to someone other than the object of the statement; and 3) The statement must be made with: a) negligence for a private figure, or b) with actual malice for a public figure; and 4) There must be actual monetary damages like loss of a job, or special damages that include emotional harm.
No shrinking violet, Dial can take care of herself on social media and has a thick skin, but she feels Hammond's comment crossed a line of civility that she could not tolerate. She hopes the large settlement amount conveys a strong message to the general public in an age when most interactions with other people are virtual. "It tells you you need to be careful on social media and not put stuff out to the world that is untrue — that you might do it to someone who will hold you accountable for what you’re doing," Dial said. "It’s too easy these days to do this sort of thing and let it go out to the public. As you well know, in the past when things got published, there was an editor or there was some sort of filter. You don’t have that anymore, because now everybody is free to be their own sounding board out to the community."
Their crime was opening themselves up to public humiliation / painting a very public target on their backs.
Look as far as I'm concerned that's nothing more than a need to stroke ego, and in my opinion those boys were in no physical danger and should have walked away, laughed it off.
Yes it is media's job to tell people what to think, on the other side of that is people are responsible for the information they taken board, personal responsibility and all that, media care only about making money, that's it nothing else, they will sell whatever it takes to get those clicks and it's all done at the expense of the truth.