Nicholas Sandmann Files 250 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against The Washington Post

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: Athetos

I think you are correct in that thought.

However the defense will point to facts that surrounded the event and if the school or sandmann were in the wrong then they will say that the defamation was due to their own actions.

They might claim that waiting on a bus in an area for protesting for hours on end led to the situation and that perhaps the chaperones giving the students permission to counter protest also led to the situation getting out of hand.

Nicks lawyers already know all this and is why they list his as a secondary bystander not responsible or able to change his situation.

This puts the liability of the event on the school and sets them up for possible counter suits.

We can know for sure that if they were not there none of this would have happened.

Well duhhhhhh LOL they were there, they could legally be there it's a public place and there is nothing illegal about chanting anything, you know that free speech thing, Going to wait and see what Johnnie C wannabe pulls that excuse at of his nether regions. Whats amazing is this point you continue to grasp this counter protesting point maybe you ought to call WaPo and tell them how they can beat this. Sounds flimsy as hell to me

a reply to: putnam6

sorry but gathering on the national mall and doing a counter protest requires a time and date specific permit.

If you and i and several dozen of our friends went to the national mall without a permit and countered an ongoing protest for 3 hours and then claimed we were waiting for a bus then we would be told this is not a bus stop and we would be fined or jailed.

originally posted by: Athetos
Could just as easily say that if the media didn’t pick up the story at all there would be no problem or that if they showed the whole video which they had edited down and let people decide from them selves they also would be a problem.

The problem wasn’t the boy standing in a public place. It wasn’t even the protesters or the drummer. It was all how the events were portrayed by the media.

Yes and if they hadn’t been born it wouldn’t have happened either and if there was no drummer it wouldn’t have happend and if there was no school trip and and no school for that matter it wouldn’t have happend. 🤷‍♂️

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

It is legal to have a news paper it is not legal to insert yourself into ongoing debates.

Either way we get to see what the courts think.

It is illegal to print a new paper full of slander with the the express purpose of defamation.
There presence some how consisutes a counter protest?

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: putnam6

sorry but gathering on the national mall and doing a counter protest requires a time and date specific permit.

If you and i and several dozen of our friends went to the national mall without a permit and countered an ongoing protest for 3 hours and then claimed we were waiting for a bus then we would be told this is not a bus stop and we would be fined or jailed.

Again take it to WaPo's lawyers LOL,if this goes to court I'll almost guarantee this counter protesting angle isnt even broached it's an incredibly dubious assumption, and your analogy doesn't fit because it was a school function not a bunch of friends farting around LOL and even then doubt some lawyer would use that as an excuse. I think you just like being contrarian nothing wrong with that makes for good debate but, unless they an extremely lenient or bought judge counter protest isn't gonna be broached. But I think you know that anyway. Seriously though call WaPo's lawyers and see what they say? you could find yourself in court as an expert witness on counter protest permits in the Washington DC mall area.

but there is this snippet from DC Peace Center about protests even if you call Covington that ....Demonstrations on public sidewalks are legally permissable without a permit so long as they don't block the walkway and fewer than 100 people are expected.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: Athetos

I think you are correct in that thought.

However the defense will point to facts that surrounded the event and if the school or sandmann were in the wrong then they will say that the defamation was due to their own actions.

They might claim that waiting on a bus in an area for protesting for hours on end led to the situation and that perhaps the chaperones giving the students permission to counter protest also led to the situation getting out of hand.

Nicks lawyers already know all this and is why they list his as a secondary bystander not responsible or able to change his situation.

This puts the liability of the event on the school and sets them up for possible counter suits.

We can know for sure that if they were not there none of this would have happened.

I have read quite a few of your responses to quite a few threads, and it appears to me as if you would like to come across as knowledgeable, but you do not, at all.

There are many failures, not least of which is your insistence on blaming Sandmann for the event, and his school also.

Why would you even do that? What possible motive would you have?

originally posted by: Athetos
It is illegal to print a new paper full of slander with the the express purpose of defamation.
There presence some how consisutes a counter protest?

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

They asked their chaperone if they could do school chants to counter the ongoing protest. They did not have a permit for that so they are not completely innocent in the situation.

Everyone is basing their opinion from the fact the indian went up to sandmann and beat his drum. That would have never happened if the boys were not illegally countering the indians protest.

yes it is illegal to print slander but it is not illegal to post facts even if people disagree with their conclusions. If the post believes what they posted then it will be the job of lawyers to prove the post wrong in their conclusions.

you can not break the law then complain people are defaming you and expect a payday even if you do try to claim you are not old enough to be responsible for your actions and that is just shifting responsibility to the schol who may end up footing the bill for sandmann in the long run.

a reply to: putnam6

You leave out the fact that sandmanns lawyers said he was a secondary observer that day. That matters much and shifts responsibility and the court very well may grant money based on the fact sandmann was not responsible for his actions even if they were illegal. Then the school would have to pay.

I do like under dogs...........

a reply to: Jonjonj

Awwwwwwwww you do not like my post.

Poor little sandmann. He is a public figure when he decided to protest. He broke the law by sticking his nose in an ongoing protest.

Thrown out in court.

Can you defame a minor?

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: putnam6

You leave out the fact that sandmanns lawyers said he was a secondary observer that day. That matters much and shifts responsibility and the court very well may grant money based on the fact sandmann was not responsible for his actions even if they were illegal. Then the school would have to pay.

I do like under dogs...........

Of course he would he is a juvenile on a school sanctioned outing thats why the school has permission slips that they are reponsible for your kids on said trip.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: Jonjonj

Awwwwwwwww you do not like my post.

Poor little sandmann. He is a public figure when he decided to protest. He broke the law by sticking his nose in an ongoing protest.

Thrown out in court.

Correct, I don't like your post. Did you create that law that a person who protests is a public figure? Is that enshrined in law?

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
Can you defame a minor?

Jon Benet's brother won a lawsuit that basically says so.

Yes they did use their school chant however the chant was used at least in my opinion to insulate them selves from the barrage of insults being hurled at them by the black Israelites. It wasn’t to counter their arguments again in my opinion.

The issue again isn’t the event but how the media portrayed an individual.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Sure you can defame him. You can cause damages that can effect his future and income. They tried to have him removed from school. There are those who want to hurt him and his family because of this incident. He has been wrongly labeled as somthing he is not and his parents school and classmates by extension.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
Can you defame a minor?

Jon Benet's brother won a lawsuit that basically says so.

That was a settled suit.

The law claims minors do not have a reputation to defame.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: Jonjonj

Awwwwwwwww you do not like my post.

Poor little sandmann. He is a public figure when he decided to protest. He broke the law by sticking his nose in an ongoing protest.

Thrown out in court.

Correct, I don't like your post. Did you create that law that a person who protests is a public figure? Is that enshrined in law?

No i have not made any laws. I like that you consider it a possibility though. There was a judge saying that sandmann became a limited public figure when he decided to protest in public and that allowed for the freedom of speech concerning him to go forth.

originally posted by: Athetos
Yes they did use their school chant however the chant was used at least in my opinion to insulate them selves from the barrage of insults being hurled at them by the black Israelites. It wasn’t to counter their arguments again in my opinion.

The issue again isn’t the event but how the media portrayed an individual.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Insulation was not needed. They needed to leave the area if they did not want to be in a protest and show up in the news and have people sit around and talk smack about them.

originally posted by: Athetos
Sure you can defame him. You can cause damages that can effect his future and income. They tried to have him removed from school. There are those who want to hurt him and his family because of this incident. He has been wrongly labeled as somthing he is not and his parents school and classmates by extension.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

I agree with your thoughts here but the law has ruled that a minor has no reputation to defame. Something i just heard judge nap. say.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

There was a judge saying that sandmann became a limited public figure when he decided to protest in public and that allowed for the freedom of speech concerning him to go forth.

Show some evidence that A: the judge is correct and B: Why you would agree with the judge in such a massively overarching decision on freedom of speech and the limitations created by what he said. In essence, which judge, when and who the feck is he?