It's Official..Sandmann Family Sues CNN For 275 Million..Kathy Griffin's Next!

a reply to: shawmanfromny

I salute this brave family

Could it be? Could the Sandmann's result in the termination of the Enemy of the People?

Tear this leftist filth down!

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I’m all for those entities being held to account. However, don’t these dollar amounts in these lawsuits seem excessive?
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Very excessive and absurd - over a quarter of a billion for having feelings hurt? People don't get 1/1000th of that if wrongly jailed for years.

It's defamation of a minor, which isn't acceptable journalism and deserves some compensation but not this ridiculous figure.

It wasn't just defamation, they tweeted school and home information of some of the kids. Personal info and had people show up on campus to 'protest' them they had to cancel classes for safety reasons. Some even got called at their home. This went on for weeks with no backing down or objectivity. Late night tv, comedians and major networks in unison.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I’m all for those entities being held to account. However, don’t these dollar amounts in these lawsuits seem excessive?
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Very excessive and absurd - over a quarter of a billion for having feelings hurt? People don't get 1/1000th of that if wrongly jailed for years.

It's defamation of a minor, which isn't acceptable journalism and deserves some compensation but not this ridiculous figure.

LOL every one of them had a chance to retract their statements and face no lawsuits, every single one of them.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Watching a bit, the following can be stated:

This is going to be an interesting case and one that will have consequence if the person wins.

When bringing up a defamation of character claim in court there are three things that are going to have to be proven, any failure on any will result in a losing of the case:
1) What was said or written against the person was false.
2) The person who wrote or spoke the falsehoods against you did it with the intention of doing harm.
3) The person must prove that harm actually occurred.



So this kid is going to have to prove that there was actual harm done to him, usually in the way of either a ruining of a business, or loss of money.

The far hardest part is that they will also have to show in court that the intention was to ruin this child life, in the reporting of the news.

And there will be back and forth, and finally a judge will have to rule.

The question is what if the kid loses then what?

what of these 3 things will be hard to prove? This should be an easy win. Damages might not be awarded quite as high as being asked but that is besides the point. Defamation in this case will be easily proven.

And defamation cases have far less of burden to meet in court for private citizens than for public persons.

I hope all who are sued, lose their proverbial shirts and I hope a precedent is set so the lefty mob will think twice about pulling this # on some other innocent child.

How does this kid deserve 275 million? LMAO! He's famous because of the media and is a conservative icon right now. He could literally start his own show or youtube channel and start making tons of money. LOL @ 275 million. That is just insane. This is why the American Justice system is screwed.

Once again they could have retracted their statements and there would have been no lawsuit at all, but they choose not to, thus they are getting sued just like the letter said they would if they didn't retract. Believe they had 30 days to comply. How hard is that they were obviously wrong. Not to mention this needs to hurt the media or they will keep doing it.

Wow, holy #. You Americans really are buggered. Lol you watch fox news? You watch FOX NEWS!? hahaha Do you know how bad the rest of the world is laughing at you lot? We have whole lectures in our universities about how most of your country lacks critical thinking skills, and gets into this "HE SAYS SHE SAYS" crap by your own media. You would rather name an opposing view as an enemy and just abuse and attack it over the internet then actually have a constructive conversation in your country and try and better things for yourselves. You've got some kid rallying to take away your very own rights, and your defending him? haha that is so un-patriotic its insane. But "the leftists did this!" "but the right did that!". Nothing but a bunch of un-educated white #s, who are pissed off that the world is evolving. Yup your so evolved, "Oh theres a peaceful rally, lets drive a car through it", "oh theres a shopping mall, lets shoot everyone", "hey there's a reality t.v star with no political background who has failed every personal business hes started, lets let him control the country because he represents me - the racist". Hands down worst country in the world.

AAaaww the little snowflake got his feelings hurt and wants millions of dollars. lol #ing hypocrites. Standing in front of a native american, people who never got anything for the 30 million plus genocide on their people and he personally wants millions of dollars because people teased him. Do you people honestly not see the irony of this? Its so strange, people who would complain about mainstream media are now backing it because it backs their racist views. Weak, sellout users

Editted out the hippo crates

originally posted by: AmericasDoomed
lol #ing Hippocrates.

Hey new guy, I've got your hippo crate where do you want it?

a reply to: shawmanfromny
From a law site. Just a brief segment on defamation.

www.nolo.com...

What Does the Victim Need to Prove to Establish Defamation? The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show there's been a statement that is all of the following: published false injurious unprivileged Let's look at each of these defamation claim elements in detail. 1. First, the "statement" can be spoken, written, pictured, or even gestured. Because written statements last longer than spoken statements, most courts, juries, and insurance companies consider libel more harmful than slander. 2. "Published" means that a third party heard or saw the statement -- that is, someone other than the person who made the statement or the person the statement was about. "Published" doesn't necessarily mean that the statement was printed in a book -- it just needs to have been made public through social media, television, radio, speeches, gossip, or even loud conversation. Of course, it could also have been written in magazines, books, newspapers, leaflets, or on picket signs. 3. A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false. › 4. The statement must be "injurious." Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement -- for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit. 5. Finally, to qualify as a defamatory statement, the offending statement must be "unprivileged." Under some circumstances, you cannot sue someone for defamation even if they make a statement that can be proved false. For example, witnesses who testify falsely in court or at a deposition can't be sued. (Although witnesses who testify to something they know is false could theoretically be prosecuted for perjury.) Lawmakers have decided that in these and other situations, which are considered "privileged," free speech is so important that the speakers should not be constrained by worries that they will be sued for defamation. Lawmakers themselves also enjoy this privilege: They aren't liable for statements made in the legislative chamber or in official materials, even if they say or write things that would otherwise be defamatory.

I dont think they have a case. CNN didn't run the story alone and they didnt run the story in an attempt to injure the young man. And he has not suffered any financial or measurable loss. Thats two out of the four.
Now consider what part of CNNs dialog was false. Was it false or did they just report what occurred?
I can see a lawyer wanting to get his name in lights but a good attorney/ counselor will advise a client according to law. They cant tell a client not to bring a suit but they should have the responsibility of telling the client the law they are up against.
I have no dog in this fight. The laws seem pretty clear cut.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

What did they say that was false?

a reply to: toolgal462

This is going to be harder than that.

1) What business does this kid have? He would have produce records of a loss of business and or loss of money from this.

2) Prove the intention was to do him harm. That is far harder, cause now he will have to prove in court that the people who reported this on the news, did such knowing him and that they intended to ruin his life.

Its funny how the ATS lawyers are ignoring the interviews given by the families lawyer (who has successfully won similar high profile cases) when he explained the reasons the level of evidence required goes down significantly when the victim is a minor, especially in the state the family lives in.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

This is not going to be an open and shut case, as they are going to have to prove all three points to win the case, not just one point.

When it comes to Kathy Griffin for what? And how is that any different than what has been going on for years between various groups out there?

Careful now, it could go in ways that no one is wanting.

a reply to: Irishhaf

The case was settled " to the satisfaction of all parties"... The amount of the initial suit was 750M.
No settlement amount was revealed and no party to the suit can speak about it.
www.dailycamera.com...

Just the first article that came up.

a reply to: Sillyolme


*shrugs*


You are right I give up, obviously the google fu of ats lawyers is far superior to the knowledge of a practicing lawyer with experience in this area.

a reply to: toolgal462

Did CNN report the story with the intent of doing him harm?
Was what CNN reported false? What was essentially false about what they reported?
I do not watch CNN except sometimes on weekend nights when MSNBC runs some lock up show or something else I'm not interested in.
I only know the barest minimum about the story having not participated in any threads about it.
What lies did they report?

a reply to: putnam6

What statements were they? What did they say? Was what they said a lie or an opinion?
According to the law article I linked an opinion cannot be proven false.

originally posted by: AmericasDoomed
Wow, holy #. You Americans really are buggered. Lol you watch fox news? You watch FOX NEWS!? hahaha Do you know how bad the rest of the world is laughing at you lot? We have whole lectures in our universities about how most of your country lacks critical thinking skills, and gets into this "HE SAYS SHE SAYS" crap by your own media. You would rather name an opposing view as an enemy and just abuse and attack it over the internet then actually have a constructive conversation in your country and try and better things for yourselves. You've got some kid rallying to take away your very own rights, and your defending him? haha that is so un-patriotic its insane. But "the leftists did this!" "but the right did that!". Nothing but a bunch of un-educated white #s, who are pissed off that the world is evolving. Yup your so evolved, "Oh theres a peaceful rally, lets drive a car through it", "oh theres a shopping mall, lets shoot everyone", "hey there's a reality t.v star with no political background who has failed every personal business hes started, lets let him control the country because he represents me - the racist". Hands down worst country in the world.

You sound like your from England, so I have one word... May

a reply to: underpass61

haha thanks for pointing that out, I misspelled it horribly and it got auto-corrected to be that philosophers name lol.
Sweet pic haha