Washington post and CNN getting sued big time

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Oh please. CNN can withstand a lot more than a petty lawsuit. Histrionics. There's nothing big time about it.

That’s not the point... it’s about making the networks responsible for blatant attacks and misinformation based on a radical political mission, which we know they are doing.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Thank you.

That post jogged my memory, and I do remember they were chanting school stuff to drown out the slurs.

Now I'm wondering, exactly what should they have done to not become a public figure? Listen to the slurs without responding? Have a different face? I mean, come on, are we to the point that just trying to get oneself out of a bad situation that one did not cause is justification for the MSM destroying a reputation?

We truly live in Idiocracy. "Yeah, but yer honor, he was in my way when I attacked him or he wouldn't have gotten hurt. It's his fault, and he don't like American Idol either!" *courtroom erupts into cries of "hang him!"*

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Now I'm wondering, exactly what should they have done to not become a public figure?

I mentioned facetiously that they probably should have just lain on the ground in a fetal position whilst all others carried on berating and insulting them way back in Grambler's thread.

It seems as though some think that might have actually been the only acceptable response.

Some people's logic isn't even circular or pretzle shaped, it's nonexistent entirely.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Some people's logic isn't even circular or pretzle shaped, it's nonexistent entirely.

Well, at least that explains why I cannot follow it...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: 727Sky
This is a video of the why the law suits are being filed against the Washington Post and CNN both of whom ran with a totally false story just to smear Nick Sandmann (the kid with the MAGA hat)..

I do believe in a free press ... I do not believe in a press who intentionally publishes/pushes lies... Something needs to be done and this just may be the first step in rectifying the abuse of power... which is exactly what it is IMO. youtu.be... The CNN lawsuit will be filed on Monday or Tuesday of this coming week... I for one hope the lawsuit is successful..

Daftest thing you could ever hear...not that it seems you have heard it.

Had it been more that the youngster was the main concern of the suit, rather than an accusation of a lying press et al...(which is what Sandemann is basically saying) a suit might hold more water where there is an area of be concern for the youngsters wellbeing, or whatever.
The WP and CNN both have a while ago, already posted an error response and that needs to be acknowledged whatever anybody thinks.

The attorney is obviously on something that's not good for his wallet!

if someone prints a retraction, should that negate a libelous story that was allowed to run 24/7 for days? What if it is shown that those pushing the narrative knew it was bogus? Guess we will find out with this lawsuit I suppose.

It's the 1st amendment that's in the picture...love it or hate it, however the suit appears to be attacking the 1st as per the lawyer, the youngster is presented as just a piece of meat.

Wrong. your amendments rights end where you infringe on anothers rights.

a reply to: Scepticaldem

You wave that "liar" word around pretty casually. I haven't lied in this thread, or any thread. I have no need to lie, and you have no evidence of any lies, just biased "feels" about my posts.

You're one to talk about defending this defamation lawsuit, while you defame ATS posters without a 2nd thought.

a reply to: yuppa

How, exactly, were Nickolas Sandmann's right infringed?

You don't consider what took place a big deal? What would be a big deal? If it was Fox News and a poor minority kid?

Careful your prejudice is showing.


a reply to: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: yuppa

How, exactly, were Nickolas Sandmann's right infringed?

Well for one Lying and causing harm to someone from your free speech is a federal no no according to the founding documents for one. www.lawyers.com...

Oh read this too.
oll.libertyfund.org...

You are not stupid. i assume you can think logically and are just acting like you have no sense.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: yuppa

How, exactly, were Nickolas Sandmann's right infringed?

Well for one Lying and causing harm to someone from your free speech is a federal no no according to the founding documents for one. www.lawyers.com...

Oh read this too.
oll.libertyfund.org...

You are not stupid. i assume you can think logically and are just acting like you have no sense.

Thinking logically, but acting like they have no sense, IS being stupid.

(The left and the MSM do this exact thing constantly which you already know, and this technique seems to work on anyone who needs to keep believing like they do, to keep their deceptive narratives alive).

Pretty smart on Sandmann's part. Either way he's going to get a major payout.

The first scenario is he actually wins the lawsuits. Personally I don't see this happening. Without proof of financial harm libel suits are almost impossible to win. I would be surprised if the Sandmann family hasn't actually seen their financial situation improve since the video.

The other scenario is that Sandmann loses and goes on GoFundMe to help cover his legal costs. Considering how well that dumb Wall campaign did I wouldn't be surprised if such a campaign raked in enough to cover his legal fees and then some.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: yuppa

How, exactly, were Nickolas Sandmann's right infringed?

Well for one Lying and causing harm to someone from your free speech is a federal no no according to the founding documents for one. www.lawyers.com...

Oh read this too.
oll.libertyfund.org...

You are not stupid. i assume you can think logically and are just acting like you have no sense.

No one is guaranteed the right not to be lied about or criticized. Lying is part of free speech. Criticism is part of free speech.

If Nicholas Sandmann thinks he's been "defamed" he can, as he has, file a civil suit. What the media outlets are being accused of is not a federal "no no" or a federal crime.

No crime has been committed. No laws have been broken here. Nobody's civil rights were violated here.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No one is guaranteed the right not to be lied about or criticized. Lying is part of free speech. Criticism is part of free speech.

Lying is not part of free speech. Criticism is, but what happened was not criticism. Criticism is founded in facts.

No crime has been committed. No laws have been broken here. Nobody's civil rights were violated here.

There are indeed civil laws against slander, and his rights have indeed been violated. All laws do not involve criminal penalites.

I suggest you let your lawyer do all the talking. With thinking like that, you would lose your shirt in a open-and-shut case.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Fraud and false advertising are crimes. Lying is not. Lying is free speech and not illegal. Lying under oath or to police & federal investigators in order to obstruct justice is a crime.

Besides WAPO denies it lied. It admits it did not report the whole story. Same with all the other media outlets.

Nobody has the right not to be lied to or about. Everyone has the right to ask a judge for damages that lies cause.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You are certainly confused. No matter... if lying was not illegal, then there could be no damages. Judges do not make law; judges apply laws. In most cases the damages from minor lies is insignificant and a case will never be heard for that reason but when it rises to the level of libel and slander, they certainly can be heard.

Not all laws are criminal. There is such a thing as civil law. It might not be a "crime" to lie about someone, but it is certainly illegal.

As far as not having a right to not be lied about?



TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

if lying was not illegal, then there could be no damages.

If lying was illegal Donald Trump would be in jail.

Not all laws are criminal. There is such a thing as civil law. It might not be a "crime" to lie about someone, but it is certainly illegal.

I think you're the one that's confused. The Sandmanns filed a civil suit for $250 million in damages under civil "tort laws".

Civil tort law is that branch of law that deals with breaches of civil duties, rather than a contractual duty or a general societal duty. Although many violations may be classified as either a tort or a crime, there are some major differences between a tort and crime. Crimes are typically prosecuted by the state, whereas any citizen who has been injured can file a lawsuit for tort.

www.legalmatch.com...

Tort law refers to the set of laws that provides remedies to individuals who have suffered harm by the unreasonable acts of another. The law of tort is based on the idea that people are liable for the consequences of their actions, whether intentional or accidental, if they cause harm to another person or entity. Torts are the civil wrongs that form the basis of civil lawsuits. To explore this concept, consider the following tort law definition.

legaldictionary.net...


There have been no laws broken and no criminal prosecution of the media outlets. Sandmann's civil rights have not been violated.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Anybody can file a lawsuit over anything, doesn’t mean they’ll win

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hahaha, you are funny, I'll give you that.

You just posted two different excerpts that specified that tort laws are indeed laws, then claimed that no laws were being broken. Really?

Have you thought about going on tour? You could team up with AOC and out-perform Blue Collar Comedy.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: BlueJacket

Why are you being so blatantly oblivious to negative treatment of a child, by adults and news outlets?

Please show me where in the Constitution it says freedom of the press can be revoked when minors are in the news?

Weren't the Central Park Five just kids?

there is a difference between "freedom of the press" and liable/slander. Both of which the Post and CNN are clearly guilty of both, no two ways to cut it. They lied, and worse yet knew (the full video was posted and shared well within 24 hrs of the incident taking place) they had lied and kept it going for several days. This is clearly documented in their archives/social media/etc. They are going to lose/settle out of court, the only question how much is it going to cost them in the end.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: 727Sky

This a looser law suit. The "Sand Man" will loose.

They showed a heavily-edited version of a video and used that edited video to push a false narrative when the full video told a different story. They would have had access to the full version of the video or should have done their due diligence in finding the full version.

Either way, they acted negligently in airing only the edited video and pushing the false narrative displayed by that video.

Look -- I'm certainly no supporter of president Trump, but we can't go around falsely demonizing and defaming people in the national media who appear to support a certain political ideology; that behavior goes against the values of this country. This kid will be looking for colleges and employment in the future, and because the news media pushed this false narrative based on an edited video, that now will be more difficult, and opportunities will be closed to him due to it.