Reply With Quote
I was looking to see what tribe Philips was so I could hopefully make a Sioux pun.
Anyway...he wasn't (Sioux) but I did learn that he's in a Skrillex video.
If the kids cash out, Mr Philips should sue as well.
I was looking to see what tribe Philips was so I could hopefully make a Sioux pun.
Anyway...he wasn't (Sioux) but I did learn that he's in a Skrillex video.
The Nick Sandmann Lawsuit Is Basically a Wild Right-Wing Blog Post
it’s likely that the lawyers already blew their chance at the $200 million in punitive damages due to their failure to follow Kentucky law:
The punitive damages, however, may be a problem due to a requirement under Kentucky law to give sufficient notice in libel cases.There are multiple allegations, for instance,
The statute, KRS 411.051, says that in order to collect punitive damages, a plaintiff has to show that the defendant “failed to make con uous and timely publication of a correction after receiving a sufficient demand for correction.”
The law specifies that a “timely” correction has to be within 10 business days after receiving a demand for one.
Sandmann’s complaint, which was filed and dated Feb. 19, 2019, says that his counsel [sent] a demand for a retraction on Feb. 14.
That’s just five days before they filed the lawsuit, which appears to be an insufficient amount of time.
that the Post targeted and specifically meant to hurt Sandmann because he is white:
The Post wrongfully targeted and bullied Nicholas because he was the white, Catholic student wearing a red “Make America Great Again” souvenir cap on a school field trip to the January 18 March for Life in Washington, D.C.
when he was unexpectedly and suddenly confronted by Nathan Phillips (“Phillips”), a known Native American activist, who beat a drum and sang loudly within inches of his face (“the January 18 incident”).
[...]
The Post published its False and Defamatory Accusations with common law malice, including because it intended to harm Nicholas because he was a white, Catholic boy wearing a MAGA hat, and consciously ignored the threats of harm that it knew would inevitably ensue, in favor of its political agenda.
There’s a line asserting America’s obligation to protect the right of children to wear a hat:
In this country, our society is dedicated to the protection of children regardless of the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, or the cap they wear.
There’s a line about Sandmann’s stats:
Nicholas is 16-years of age, is 5’9” in height and weighs 115 pounds.
There’s this insane justification for why Sandmann deserves $250 million (emphasis mine):
In order to fully compensate Nicholas for his damages and
to punish, deter, and teach the Post a lesson it will never forget,
this action seeks money damages in excess of Two Hundred and Fifty Million Dollars ($250,000,000.00) – the amount Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, paid in cash for the Post when his company, Nash Holdings, purchased the newspaper in 2013.
The complaint also goes to great lengths to clarify that
Sandmann didn’t “bring this lawsuit to use the judicial system to further a political agenda,”
but includes three mentions of the term “anti-Trump,” including this:
“Nicholas was targeted by a professional activist whose false accusations neatly fit the mainstream and social media’s anti-Trump agenda.”
Social media’s anti-Trump agenda!
https://splinternews.com/the-nick-sa...ign=2019-02-20
Of course the original coverage was political. Would the original incident have ever made the news if he was wearing a spurs hat?
What exactly did they report that cons utes libel? I admit I didn't pay much attention to this story because it was always a stupid thing to be outraged over, but unless the Post fabricated reported details or quotes on its own with malicious intent, I'm not sure how they're liable for anything.
^Still confused?
“In a span of three (3) days in January of this year commencing on January 19, the Post engaged in a modern-day form of McCarthyism by competing with CNN and NBC, among others, to claim leadership of a mainstream and social media mob of bullies which attacked, vilified, and threatened Nicholas Sandmann (“Nicholas”), an innocent secondary school child"
Quoting the lawsuit directly does not cons ute a sound argument.
You can save yourself some time, because my question definitely wasn't posed to you.
"leadership of social media"
Boils down to holding WaPo responsible for the comments section -- the free speech of others.
Man, if accuracy in reporting is the point then people should sue the out of Faux News. People can interpret the same situation differently, depending on your bias...the Washington Posts views were one interpretation...protect free speech..
the incident was political (a wealthy, privileged, mother- ing stupid white kid surrounded by his chanting mob in political MAGA caps, facing down a Native American), so the coverage was political.
"his chanting mob"
Boo, your total disconnect from reality is ing hilarious.
Seems frivolous tbh.
I don't get the value assessment of this kid's reputation. A man was wrongly imprisoned for 40 years and gets 20mil. This kid is somehow worth 500 million or so at his age?
I get the point of pushing for absurd amounts, but why all the talk about the amount? It's just the lawsuit that's going to be expensive, there won't be much of a reward if any.
not racist....right...
That's "new proof"??? Everyone's seen that vid.
And what's racist about it?
glad the judge saw through the BS
The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.
I doubt even a stacked partisan SCOTUS can overturn that.
Did you think this ridiculous lawsuit had anything going for it in the first place?
Asking for 250 million dollars out of the gate..for god knows what offense.
"Victim" Indian said he didn't feel safe after he approached the kids and beat his drum in their face. Mainstream media ran with it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
