Patterico's Pontifications

2/19/2019

Revenge of the Smirk: Nicholas Sandmann Sues the Washington Post

Filed under: General — JVW @ 3:44 pm



[guest post by JVW]

To the surprise of no one, Nicholas Sandmann (along with his parents) filed suit in U.S. District Court, Eastern Division of Kentucky, Northern District, located in Covington, against the Washington Post Company, regarding what they determined was biased and skewed coverage. The suit requests compensatory damages of at least $50 million, and punitive damages of at least $200 million. The filing is viewable and/or downloadable here on Dropbox. It’s super long, and I have only read about 1/3 of it, so I won’t try to summarize the points here.

And since I am merely a layperson with reactionary opinions, I will leave it up to the experts here to weigh in on the plausibility of this suit.

H/T Jerry Dunleavy on Twitter.

– JVW

169 Responses to “Revenge of the Smirk: Nicholas Sandmann Sues the Washington Post”

  1. It’s “super long” if, like me, you are incapable of plowing through 38 pages of legal arguments without getting distracted by other matters.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  2. Hope this kid cashes in from the compost.

    mg (8cbc69)

  3. There are commenters here who cling to the opinion that the kid’s a racist.

    Munroe (92b5e3)

  4. Yes, there are. Still hanging on to their original take, they took the bait, hook line and sinker.

    Colonel Haiku (273e2b)

  5. that was a pretty devastating presentation, there really is no way that the Post was not practicing malice in it’s reporting specially by the third story,

    narciso (d1f714)

  6. How that kid didn’t deck the old jerk is beyond me.

    mg (8cbc69)

  7. I just read it.

    Wow. Simply wow.

    $250M – I hope the Post has to pay every penny of it.

    jim2 (a5dc71)

  8. How strange is it that multiple news services could be forced to start applying journalistic standards because of monetary loss and not because of integrity/training/policy?

    Years ago I read that the most-stated goal of journalism students’ had changed from ‘inform the public’ to ‘change the world’. They changed it all right.

    harkin (b5e7fd)

  9. It reads real good. Judgment for Plaintiff.

    nk (dbc370)

  10. “There are commenters here who cling to the opinion that the kid’s a racist.”
    __
    “Yes, there are. Still hanging on to their original take, they took the bait, hook line and sinker.”

    __

    Some of them even doubled-down after it was obvious that the original video and news/social media sh*tstorm was problematic.

    Imagine being so blinded by hate and ignorance that you could project same onto others based on nothing more than a person’s smiling face.

    harkin (b5e7fd)

  11. “How that kid didn’t deck the old jerk is beyond me.”

    Nah, Sandmann and his folks wanted to get medieval and hit that jerk where it hurts most: in the wallet.

    MarkJ (b08f44)

  12. The only reason this bullschiff media – including the WP – is not called out all the time for their lies and collusion with the Democrat Party is because they run the “calling out” business too.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  13. 10… yes, imagine that.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  14. I just read the whole thing. Wow Is right. It looks good for the kid. Let Justice be done upon WP.

    felipe (023cc9)

  15. At least as regards the first and second articles, a big part of the complaint seems to be that by truthfully reporting on what one person said, the wapo became liable for defamation because what that person said was defamatory.

    I mean, for example, the complaint says that this statement is false and defamatory:

    > “In an interview Saturday, Phillips, 64, said he felt threatened by the teens and that they suddenly swarmed around him as he and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave.”

    Maybe Phillips was lying, but there’s no evidence introduced that the Post was lying when it said Phillips said that.

    The same problem attaches to every specific quote in Paragraph 118.

    Similarly, the complaint alleges that the following was false and defamatory:

    > “‘We [Bishop Foys and the Diocese of Covington] condemn the actions of the Covington Catholic High School students towards Nathan Phillips specifically, and Native Americans in general,’ the statement said. ‘The matter is being investigated and we will take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion.’ … The diocese’s statement expressed regret that jeering, disrespectful students from a Catholic school had become the enduring image of the march.”

    since this is a direct quote from a statement released by the Diocese of Covington, it’s certainly not *false* to report that they issued a statement saying it, and it’s unlikely to be defamatory *to report on the issuance of the statement*.

    The underlying premise seems to be that by truthfully repeating what Phillips, the Diocese, and others said, the WaPo became responsible for making false and defamatory statements.

    i don’t think that works, and if it did, then the entire news media *and* most online political discussion would have to come to a grinding halt.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  16. How many times did they fail to do due diligence, when evidence was presented they ignored it, then they published statements that were based on their unscrupulous reporting

    Narciso (37ef78)

  17. The argument that they were negligent in publishing Philipps’ statements without simultaneously getting statements from Sandmann is a *different argument* than the argument that by publishing Phillipps’ statements they were publishing false and defamatory statements.

    I think the former is an interesting conversation (although ultimately I think the Post’s behavior can be explained by the whole competitive must-be-first-to-publish-so-we-can’t-actually-research problem that has plagued the industry for decades, and so probably cannot be negligence on the grounds that calling it such would imply that the entire industry is not behaving like reasonable people, a step which I think courts would be loathe to take).

    But the latter? If it’s defamation to truthfully report that the diocese condemned Sandmann, quoting the condemnation explicitly, then I think it becomes impossible to report *anything* without running the risk of being held liable for defamation.

    Maybe you can squeeze something together based on the difference between public and private individuals, but if the Post can’t report that the Covington Diocese condemned Sandmann (quoting from the condemnation), then how can they report on *any* adverse action taken by a group against an individual?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  18. The person liable for libel is the person publishing it. They cannot hide behind quotation marks, and be the catspaws of a defamer. It does help them that they name their sources under the new scienter rules for defamation. And they can always implead Phillips (snicker) and the Diocese for contribution.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. > The person liable for libel is the person publishing it.

    So, to use a reductio ad absurdum hypothetical, if President Trump tweets that Ted Cruz is a liar, and the Washington Post accurately reports that Trump has done so, Cruz can sue the *Post* and win?

    That’s an untenable standard which would make reporting impossible.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  20. “That’s an untenable standard which would make reporting impossible”

    “Reporting”… I don’t think that word means what you and the MSM think it means.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  21. That’s an untenable standard which would make reporting impossible.

    Tough cookies. But that is the common law of slander and libel. And you know what else? The truth is an absolute defense in America (if not in other places).

    And you know what more else? “Don’t spread lies even if you did not make them up but heard them from others” is a very good rule. A very, very, very good rule.

    nk (dbc370)

  22. Colonel Haiku: thank you for, yet again, turning the conversation personal. It’s so refreshing to have a discussion about what the law is (and how the law works) be converted into a discussion about the qualities of the individuals involved in the discussion.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  23. No that’s an opinion, this was a chatacterization of an event based on very biased sourcing, but we see the same situation in Chicago, although with even less ground.

    Narciso (37ef78)

  24. Thats a kind from the princess bride, how often does the media falsely accuse the left of provoking gun owners or Christian’s or veterans, it doesn’t happen. Because the splc and cair and Daniel Sheehan’s outfit wont let it.

    Narciso (37ef78)

  25. NK: the public would be ill served by a rule which made it impossible for a media outfit to honestly report what people and organizations *said* without first verifying whether or not what the people or organization said was true.

    Note that, for example, by this standard, by quoting the part of the complaint which is a direct quote of the article, which is in turn a direct quote of the condemnation issued by the diocese, *I* am guilty of libel.

    The first amendment would be worthless if the decision came out that way.

    (Note that i’m not saying the complaint is meritless; i’m saying that the particular parts of the complaint which allege that the WaPo made false and defamatory statements by repeating statements made by others is problematic, because it makes reporting impossible).

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  26. Expanding on that, Ted Cruz is a public official, not to mention a Republican, and he would have to prove that WaPo recklessly disregarded evidence that he is not a liar.

    nk (dbc370)

  27. Wood rather methodically delineated every instance where they could have been responsible.

    Narciso (37ef78)

  28. Maybe it’s time to revisit Sullivan there was some piecemeal revisions in the 70s and 80s

    Narciso (37ef78)

  29. The public is more ill-served by the dissemination of false information. To paraphrase Mark Twain, better to be uninformed than misinformed.

    nk (dbc370)

  30. nk – sure, and there’s a difference between the standard for public figures vs. private individuals.

    but when does a news story convert a private individual into a public figure?

    if, for example, my house burned down, and for some reason my landlord thought i’d burned it down, and said so to the SF Chronicle, and the SF Chronicle reported that he’d said it without independently investigating whether or not it was true, could I sue the *Chronicle* for libel?

    i think that it would be unreasonable of me to expect that the Chronicle independently investigate that before reporting it, especially if there was an ongoing tweetstorm about it.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  31. There’s nothing personal in what I wrote, aphrael. Anyone who believes that what much of the media does is reporting “facts” and not putting a decided spin on it is incredibly generous. That is what I’m saying.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  32. NYT v. Sullivan is a William Travis of a Shamrock. It’s not based on anything other than that the New York Times, a member of the Warren Court’s tribe, told a lie that the Warren Court liked, about a Southern prosecutor, when the Warren Court was pushing desegregation. It is definitely not based on any previous jurisprudence, whether First Amendment, statutory or common law.

    nk (dbc370)

  33. I’m not claiming to believe that much of what the media does is reporting ‘facts’ and not putting a decided spin on it.

    I’m claiming that a standard which holds that honestly reporting on the actions of the local diocese *is publishing a false and defamatory statement* would render reporting impossible.

    you’re worried about the disease. i’m saying the proposed cure has it’s own harms and pointing out what those harms would be.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  34. Well the story which ignore the other 300,000 marchers at the March for life, fancy that, only emerged because of weaponized tweets.

    Narciso (37ef78)

  35. And when I write “much of the media”, I mean to say the NYT, the WaPo, the LAT, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, the New Yorker, the Atlantic, etc.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  36. Well he was the highest ranking law enforcement in the county, and he had a pretty rotten record, why did they have to lie?

    Narciso (37ef78)

  37. 33… okay, I understand what you are getting at.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  38. Wow, they wrote seven articles over three days and kept repeating the lies even after most folks had seen the full video and the actual facts were common knowledge? Democracy Dies In Darkness indeed.

    Negligence is right and you can’t but assume malice after such complete disregard to all the info that came in over the following 48 hours.

    Plus his lawyers stress the point that Sandmann was not only a private figure (‘having lived his entire life out of the public eye’) but a minor, making the Post’s actions even more despicable, if that was possible.

    I love the line: “the only catagory of individuals present at the Jan 18 incident that the Post chose not to rely upon was the CovCath students.”

    harkin (b5e7fd)

  39. aphrael at 30. There is actually case law about that. There is no such thing as an involuntary public figure. You have to put yourself in the limelight. Now, burning down your house is a voluntary act that would place you in the limelight, but it would need to be shown by a preponderance of the evidence, and it’s the same as the defense of truth.

    And, yes, you should be able to sue the Chronicle for slander, but I don’t know in what state Rose Bird and Stephen Reinhardt have left defamation law in California.

    nk (dbc370)

  40. I cite the example of what happened in Sanford, which I was privy to the heralds malpractice in particular, but ABC and the New York times presented deliberately redacted info from ths get go.

    Narciso (37ef78)

  41. Is attending a protest sufficient to place yourself in the limelight?

    If not, can the kids at Parkland successfully sue a newspaper for (honestly) reporting that various people on the right were calling them crisis actors?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  42. aphrael,

    If you’re familiar with the accusations against Justin Fairfax: Vanessa Tyson did approach the Washington Post last year and told them that Fairfax had raped her. They interviewed Fairfax and he denied it. According to the Washington Post’s statements now, the two narratives balanced, they did not know which to believe, and they decided not to publish Tyson’s allegations.

    So, it seems to me, the Washington Post does follow my rule when it’s a black Democrat politician from next door in Virginia, and not when it’s white fifteen-year old Catholic school boys from “MAGA country”.

    nk (dbc370)

  43. At least as regards the first and second articles, a big part of the complaint seems to be that by truthfully reporting on what one person said, the wapo became liable for defamation because what that person said was defamatory.

    I see “reckless disregard” for facts in such a reliance. SInce the individual libeled was not a public figure prior to the libel, and a minor, and the damage is real and potentially life-long, he will probably win.

    That being said, I think $50 million is on the high side for damages. $1-3 million and punitive damages of $15-20 million seem more likely. I also think the Post will settle this quickly and for an undisclosed amount. There is no upside for the Post here, and defending AND LOSING would simply inflame the jury.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  44. The Tyson accusation seems credible. The Madison one, not so much.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  45. Is attending a protest sufficient to place yourself in the limelight?

    To the degree that anyone can say anything without the slightest regard to fact-finding? No. The ONLY thing that put the kid in the limelight was the LIBEL itself. Until that happened maybe 50 people knew who he was, tops.

    Not. A. Public. Figure.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  46. Democracy Dies In Darkness

    Democracy Dies When the Press Lies

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  47. Again the post is reporting some one else opinion, (have I said how stupid Alex Jones is?) Noe it took quite a while to reveal the extraordinary negligence at all levels of govt from the principals office to the dojs civil rights division complicity in this tragedy

    Narciso (37ef78)

  48. Is attending a protest sufficient to place yourself in the limelight?

    Possibly. A limited public figure for events at the protest.

    If not, can the kids at Parkland successfully sue a newspaper for (honestly) reporting that various people on the right were calling them crisis actors?

    Did the newspaper make the public believe that the kids were crisis actors? If not, there is no damage to their reputations, and no monetary damages. If yes, yes.

    nk (dbc370)

  49. NYT v. Sullivan is a William Travis of a Shamrock

    In this case it’s a non sequitur. Not. A. Public. Figure. If he WAS a public figure, proving the WaPo showed a pattern malice towards Trump and his ilk would require 10 front pages, picked at random.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  50. BTW, these kids were not AT a protest. They were waiting for a fricking bus. They HAD been at a protest (Catholic school kids against abortion, if you can imagine), but nothing that occurred regarding the smirk, the MAGA hat or the ensuing pile-on had to do with the protest, at least until much later.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  51. I agree, Kevin. I was answering aphrael in a broader context.

    nk (dbc370)

  52. As I said, I don’t expect anything like the money they are asking for — it’s not like he got burned up by a Pinto gas tank. BUT. Once he wins, there are about 100 other suits to file….

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  53. In the Sanford case, neither the local court nor the appeals court made NBC news accountable.

    Narciso (37ef78)

  54. nk, sometimes I get lost in the threads. It’s a problem.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  55. “How strange is it that multiple news services could be forced to start applying journalistic standards because of monetary loss and not because of integrity/training/policy?”

    This just means they don’t have to do anything but keep the lawyers on speed dial. No unpleasant ethics or any of that other old fashioned white guy stuff. Case by case.

    Thud Muffle (5a4596)

  56. OT, but K-toe Harris can’t catch a break…

    As a Los Angeles Times article described her, she was the “privileged child of foreign grad students”.

    Senator Harris, who had previously opposed drug legalization, denied that she opposed marijuana legalization. “Half my family’s from Jamaica, are you kidding me,” she retorted.

    Her family is from Jamaica. But Senator Harris is cynically playing on stereotypes about drug use.

    Donald Harris’ Stanford bio describes him as an “economic consultant to the Government of Jamaica and as economic adviser to successive Prime Ministers”. He had been a Fellow at Cambridge and a Fulbright Scholar in South America. He had even done consulting work for the UN and the World Bank.

    The Harris family is descended from slave-owner Hamilton Brown. His grandfather, Joseph Alexander Harris, was a landowner.

    And the Harris family does not find Kamala’s pot joke amusing.

    Professor Donald Harris Kamala Harris’ Jamaican father, has vigorously dissociated himself from statements made on the New York Breakfast Club radio show earlier this week attributing her support for smoking marijuana to her Jamaican heritage. Professor Harris has issued a statement to jamaicaglobalonline.com in which he declares:

    “My dear departed grandmothers(whose extraordinary legacy I described in a recent essay on this website), as well as my deceased parents , must be turning in their grave right now to see their family’s name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics. Speaking for myself and my immediate Jamaican family, we wish to categorically dissociate ourselves from this travesty.”

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/272918/kamala-harris-dad-blasts-her-jamaican-pot-joke-daniel-greenfield

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  57. Kids! They’re never too old to break your heart.

    nk (dbc370)

  58. “If not, can the kids at Parkland successfully sue a newspaper for (honestly) reporting that various people on the right were calling them crisis actors?”

    Are you talking about the kids who went on CNN in prime time and blamed the NRA for a mass shooting by a student still allowed to possess firearms and attend school after 39 police visits to deal with everything from threatening the lives of students to bringing knives and bullets to school?

    harkin (b5e7fd)

  59. “can the kids at Parkland successfully sue a newspaper for (honestly) reporting that various people on the right were calling them crisis actors?”
    aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/19/2019 @ 6:37 pm

    No, since “crisis actor” is an opinion, not a statement of fact.

    Sandmann’s complaint alleges that WaPo misstated the facts with malice.

    So, the commenters here who opined that he was a “racist” and/or “racist punk” are safe from any lawsuit.

    Munroe (dba1c6)

  60. One that comes to mind posts often here, another drops in occasionally to practice his trolling…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  61. Careful now, if the two minute hate isnt on consistently it’s not balanced.

    Narciso (37ef78)

  62. Ganja Kamala and the going nowhere express

    mg (8cbc69)

  63. How many know her father upbraided her, of those how many care?

    Narciso (37ef78)

  64. So, the commenters here who opined that he was a “racist” and/or “racist punk” are safe from any lawsuit.

    Since they “only knew what they read in the papers”, they are evidence of the damage to the kids’ reputations caused by the media.

    nk (dbc370)

  65. What often happens is ths truth is fossilized and layers of narrative bury it.

    Narciso (37ef78)

  66. So, the commenters here who opined that he was a “racist” and/or “racist punk” are safe from any lawsuit.

    Not worth the lawsuit even if.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  67. The post should be pros, and instead they were sloppy. The version of the video I saw is very misleading because it conveys the wrong impression of who confronted who. The young men puffing up and refusing to back down, while acting like idiots, is a lot different than the young men seeking out, surrounding, and bullying an old man about his being a native American. And it’s time the press paid for being sloppy. I don’t think the post knew about the full video. I think they really just bought that this short video was a valuable insight into what MAGA hat wearing guys are really about.

    The post will indeed probably settle, but I don’t see any materially false statements by the post in the lawsuit. The lawsuit sounds really good against Phillips, but as soon as the Wapo learned Phillips wasn’t credible, and the video they were using was not the full story, they retracted the story. The Wapo didn’t make the cut up video. It’s true that Phillips’s account and the video ‘licensed the Wapo readers’ to have opinions about a young man the Wapo didn’t even name. On some level, that really means that the WAPO was fooled by those sources (and they tend to be more trusting when they like the narrative). But cynically, Sandmann is going after a target that probably didn’t intend to be deceptive at all, simply because that target has more money than the actual bad guy.

    The lawsuit distinguishes Sandmann from the swarm of young men he was with, but the Wapo didn’t name any people in the article, and some of the young men were actually being racist in my book (mocking native Americans much like many people on this blog were). And I know this thought is abhorrent to most of the readers here, but those young men put themselves on camera instead of avoiding that. They did so with red political signs on their heads, while some mocked a man’s race, and others got in his face, and one smirked like he sure was on board with bullying. The more you learn about it, the more you realize they were pushed into that immature reaction… they were reacting and not seeking this confrontation out. But they aren’t innocent kids in my opinion.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  68. So the gang of eight new about spying on Trump. Can Ryan, Burr and McConnell hang for this? I don’t believe Nunes didn’t object.

    mg (8cbc69)

  69. Sandmann’s complaint alleges that WaPo misstated the facts with malice.

    Which covers the “public figure” checkbox. Nothing wrong with overkill.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  70. But they aren’t innocent kids in my opinion.

    This sentence has some internal tension. As kids, they are not responsible for their actions, so they are “innocent” so far as knowing that their lack of caution could result in them being defamed.

    In ANY event, the WaPo acted with the same malice it consistently applies to Trump and his supporters. Proof? Take the front pages from October 2018 through the end of the year, pick any ten at random and the balance of pro vs con stories regarding Trump will be 1 in 10 worse, and those negative stories will be somewhat unhinged. It’s worse if you turn to the opinion pages. The paper and its editors HATE Trump with a fury once reserved for Hitler.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  71. Actually no, but that is the power of narrative you dont see what’s actually there even after you are told, this is how al Sharpton has prevailed for 30 years, and Daniel Sheehan survived after crawling out of Miami nearly as long ago.

    Narciso (37ef78)

  72. *1 in 10 OR worse

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  73. Actually mg in the book he said he never got around to telling the gang of 8, so he lied again.

    Narciso (37ef78)

  74. .67 I agree with some of what you said. The WaPo is guilty of shoddy journalism but not defamation imo for the reasons you state. Also agree that the lawsuit seems like a stunt.

    But disagree that the kids did one thing wrong. Wearing a red hat isn’t wrong. The “smirking” kid has some awkward mannerisms. I’ve seen him in interviews. He was smiling uncomfortably because he was in an awkward position. He had an a-hole beating a drum in his face and the Black hebrews shouting at him. I would not have had his composure in that situation. One of his friends started talking loudly and Sandmann motioned for him to be quiet. He was actually trying to defuse what could have been very very ugly (as opposed to Phillips who was trying to provoke).

    As for the “mocking” you describe I see it as a function and an extension of the sports cheers they were doing to keep their spirits and solidarity up. They were chanting they were rowdy, they were in rally mode. I give them a pass on that. And I give them a pass period. They’re just kids, and they seem like good kids. And I’m a liberal btw.for whatever that’s worth. Probably not much.

    JRH (fe281f)

  75. Colonel Haiku: thank you for, yet again, turning the conversation personal. It’s so refreshing to have a discussion about what the law is (and how the law works) be converted into a discussion about the qualities of the individuals involved in the discussion.

    aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/19/2019 @ 6:04 pm

    Two rules to this blog. In every thread, Haiku will be insulting people. In every thread, Haiku will insist he is not doing that. He will often complain the loudest about whatever it is he’s doing (I believe this is called gaslighting). Manipulative, passive aggressive, somewhat subtle (for some reason he wants whoever he’s talking about to know it, and he wants others to not be sure).

    One that comes to mind posts often here, another drops in occasionally to practice his trolling…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/19/2019 @ 7:18 pm

    This is a good example. You have to actually read Munroe’s comment, then the thread he’s talking about, to figure out that Haiku is talking about me. But of course I know he’s talking about me, and Haiku wants me to complain about it so he can shrug his shoulders in dismay, while laughing that he got a reaction. In other words, Haiku is trolling and projecting his behavior onto others.

    Patterico banned Happyfeet, but he needs to ban Haiku as well. This blog with a month free of its two major trolls would be an opportunity.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  76. What would you consider slander or libel what would the post have to do beyond the reckless disregard it showed for the truth, wood is very methodical at each step of the process

    Narciso (37ef78)

  77. But disagree that the kids did one thing wrong. Wearing a red hat isn’t wrong. The “smirking” kid has some awkward mannerisms. I’ve seen him in interviews. He was smiling uncomfortably because he was in an awkward position. He had an a-hole beating a drum in his face and the Black hebrews shouting at him. I would not have had his composure in that situation. One of his friends started talking loudly and Sandmann motioned for him to be quiet. He was actually trying to defuse what could have been very very ugly (as opposed to Phillips who was trying to provoke).

    As for the “mocking” you describe I see it as a function and an extension of the sports cheers they were doing to keep their spirits and solidarity up. They were chanting they were rowdy, they were in rally mode. I give them a pass on that. And I give them a pass period. They’re just kids, and they seem like good kids. And I’m a liberal btw.for whatever that’s worth. Probably not much.

    JRH (fe281f) — 2/19/2019 @ 7:56 pm

    Well said. I also don’t think there’s anything inherently or necessarily wrong with wearing a MAGA hat (since neo nazis and the KKK also have used the MAGA expression in their endorsement of Trump, I do not think the MAGA statement is always innocent… sometimes it actually is intended to be racist, but that’s not relevant to these kids).

    I think you have a point about what the mocking really was. In the short video, it is very convincing that the young men approached and surrounded this poor old man, and then started mocking his being native American. What really happened is a lot different, but the mocking, at least some of it, was about the man being native American, which I describe as “immature”. I feel I’m being generous.

    But sometimes people say and think racist stuff as they grow up. People say and think a lot of dumb stuff. They shouldn’t have their lives ruined for it. Giving them a pass for it is reasonable when you realize they were pushed into that position. Doesn’t mean their conduct wasn’t stupid in a lot of ways.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  78. It’s clear the black Israelites were provoking at some point, Phillips comes into the picture because he is a professional agitator ths last 40 years, a criminal malcontent most recently at the pipeline pritests

    Narciso (37ef78)

  79. What would you consider slander or libel what would the post have to do beyond the reckless disregard it showed for the truth, wood is very methodical at each step of the process

    Narciso (37ef78) — 2/19/2019 @ 8:03 pm

    Malice. IF Trump told Sean Hannity that Obama drank all the oceans away, and the Earth was not without water, and Hannity told his audience the same, that wouldn’t be malicious. Hannity is an idiot, you see.

    This is what many political folks don’t realize. People aren’t trying to be evil when they practice bias. If the democrats really thought republicans were great people, with no racism, who just wanted an ethical government… they would be republicans. More often than not, people really believe Palin said she saw Russia, or Bush did 9/11, or Hillary killed Foster. They believe that stuff, largely on faith, but they still believe.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  80. Phillips comes into the picture because he is a professional agitator ths last 40 years, a criminal malcontent most recently at the pipeline pritests

    Narciso (37ef78) — 2/19/2019 @ 8:11 pm

    If he had $250,000,000 I would happily award it to Sandmann. Not only did he lie, but he lied as he saw the rage build, and he lied hoping to ride that wave for personal benefit.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  81. This sentence has some internal tension. As kids, they are not responsible for their actions, so they are “innocent” so far as knowing that their lack of caution could result in them being defamed.

    They aren’t 3 year olds with no sense of right and wrong. They are moral agents, and no reasonable person has ever said that all people one day under 18 are “innocent” of sin. They certainly knew they were on camera, and certainly were making political speech to thousands of people. They also intentionally referenced the race of the man they were mocking and getting in the face of. The only tension in that sentence is from your twisting it to fit your narrative.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  82. > Patterico banned Happyfeet

    I missed that.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  83. But you say they dont meet the legal standard, of course the post will hold on to as much cash as usual, since recent events mire than ever.

    Narciso (37ef78)

  84. The only mocking going on was by the Philip’s gang and the black racists.

    Jb (10a949)

  85. >The post will indeed probably settle, but I don’t see any materially false statements by the post in the lawsuit. The lawsuit sounds really good against Phillips,

    That’s about where I am. The allegedly false statements were all true reports of either what Phillips (or others on his side of the argument said), or about what the Diocese said and did.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  86. On the “Patterico at PJMedia” post, aphrael.

    nk (dbc370)

  87. Pikachu has been very nasty for a long time, I’m informed it’s a Andy Kaufman type act, not just on this platform but at Goldstein’s blog.

    Narciso (37ef78)

  88. happyfeet is brilliant, but at a certain point, and not recently, his comments detracted from the conversation instead of being a little extra chuckle. Some of his jokes really crossed the line unfortunately. He’s obviously not a bad person because he never insults any other commenters, no matter what’s said of him. He can’t defend himself from what is said about him now so it’s not good form to dish it out.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  89. Geoffrey Ingersoll
    @GPIngersoll
    It’s been a really bad month for the woke media. First the Buzzfeed story falls to pieces. Days later, woke media [ed.note: and a few mook here] pounces on innocent kids while amplifying the words of an obvious huckster. Northam happens and the woke ones are left flat footed. Then the Smollett case implodes

    Colonel Haiku (273e2b) — 2/18/2019 @ 10:04 am

    Fascinating how young men become kids, racist intimidation becomes innocence, if that narrative serves the Trump grievance industry.

    But it’s really been a bad month for the Trump cause. Government shutdown, billions wasted, all so Pelosi can win a game of chicken. I can understand the urge to change the subject.

    Dustin (d6e596) — 2/18/2019 @ 10:54 am

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  90. Aphrael and I cleared up our understanding earlier this evening.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  91. Just don’t be a hypocrite…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  92. I will second that, Haiku.

    Sometimes i’m quick to perceive insult. It’s a failing, even though I understand where it comes from.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  93. Dustin – IIRC happyfeet was here when I got here, back in 2003. There’s a special place in my heart for all of that crew, even those who annoy me now.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  94. Illustrating the point, coronello, the post couldn’t deny that the March was happening did they know that their man quilted northam was going to go full thuggee possibly

    Narciso (37ef78)

  95. 92… thanks, aphrael. And I’d meant to write misunderstanding 🙂

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  96. It’s undeniable that a few folks completely misread what had actually transpired in the Covington/Philips incident and were quick to condemn them… and their racist smirking and racists racist red hats.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  97. Gwyneth Paltrow almost didn’t make ‘Shakespeare in Love’ because of her ‘terrible’ breakup with Brad Pitt

    Oh!-Mi!-Gosh! Who knew!

    Sh!t. If the Founding Fathers had known what kind of garbage “the press” would feed the people, they would have left out that clause in the First Amendment. I guarantee you, believe you me!

    nk (dbc370)

  98. Lol at anyone still insisting these kids did anything wrong.

    Such a laughingly horrible take.

    And the Washington Post, four days after the incident and still trying to find a way to avoid admitting they’d cr*pped the bed and instead blame the president, actually printed a piece called:

    A viral story spread, the mainstream media rushed to keep up. The Trump Internet pounced’

    A Post writer named Abby Ohlheiser actually accused the ‘Trump Internet’ of pouncing into the gap between the release of the initial video and when most of the facts came in. Got that? People pointing out the mistakes and smears (you know, doing the fact-checking the Post declined to do) were the problem.

    https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2019/01/22/washington-post-learns-nothing-from-covington-reporting-says-the-trump-internet-pounced/

    harkin (b5e7fd)

  99. 98… and yet they still do, full video and eye-witness evidence to the contrary.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  100. 97… that “steaming” regimen got her right as rain though, nk…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  101. Being quick to condemn and being so completely 180 degrees wrong would normally conjure up some serious self reflection.

    Ain’t a lot of that going on.

    Instead, hearing a lot about what the kids should or shouldn’t have done.

    Munroe (66ab04)

  102. Tmi. Coronello she has a decidedly narrow range who named her kid apple in a clear lack of sanity.

    Narciso (37ef78)

  103. 94… quilted Northam? Lol… don’t squeeze teh Charmin!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  104. He stitched himself well. Noe black face herring without irony, decides what is and isnt an emergency

    Narciso (37ef78)

  105. > all so Pelosi can win a game of chicken.

    it turns out she’s a *very good* Parliamentary tactician.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  106. Reads like a declaration of war…

    Lin Wood
    @LLinWood
    Here is the Complaint filed today against The Washington Post on behalf of Nick Sandmann. All members of the mainstream & social media mob of bullies who recklessly & viciously attacked Nick would be well-served to read it carefully.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  107. it turns out she’s a *very good* Parliamentary tactician.

    Trump against Nancy Pelosi in Congress is like Trump against Venus Williams on a tennis court.

    nk (dbc370)

  108. > Patterico banned Happyfeet

    I believe it’s a trial separation. Our host wants to see if an enforced absence of happyfeet leads some long-time commenters who have stayed away recently to start participating once again. It shall be interesting to see.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  109. Being quick to condemn and being so completely 180 degrees wrong would normally conjure up some serious self reflection.

    Ain’t a lot of that going on.

    Instead, hearing a lot about what the kids should or shouldn’t have done.

    Munroe (66ab04) — 2/19/2019 @ 9:24 pm

    You guys really like to insist that everyone who disagrees with you isn’t just wrong, but so completely horribly wrong they shouldn’t dare offer their opinions again. It’s not because you’re confident in your views that you guys argue this way.

    It’s not my fault the KKK likes to say Make America Great Again. I didn’t print that in their paper. I’m not the presidential candidate who waffled when asked to repudiate David Duke, either.

    And I haven’t changed my view of the behavior of these young men (always kids to you, because you are trying to suggest they aren’t responsible for their choices… you wouldn’t need to do that if you thought their choices were good ones). They shouldn’t have gotten in someone’s face, or mocked his race. Neither should the commenters on this blog.

    Haiku was once called out for lying about racist comments he directed at me. He even apologized, but then shifted back, apologized again, etc etc. The self reflection I gained from dealing with trolls is to not worry what they think. I just call them directly what I think of them.

    If these young men were democrats, and got in the face of Tea Partiers, you would be insisting they were the devil. Your partisanship is showing.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  110. Have a good night, Dustin. Be well.

    Colonel Haiku (273e2b)

  111. Fascinating how young men become kids, racist intimidation becomes innocence, if that narrative serves the Trump grievance industry.

    But it’s really been a bad month for the Trump cause. Government shutdown, billions wasted, all so Pelosi can win a game of chicken. I can understand the urge to change the subject.

    Dustin (d6e596) — 2/18/2019 @ 10:54 am

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/19/2019 @ 8:56 pm

    This comment is not a deviation from what I’ve said in this thread. I actually like the way I make the point better in the quote. I hope you didn’t spend too much time furiously googling my comments in other threads. I know you sometimes spend too much time and effort attacking me.

    Haiku, you should just apologize for calling me a troll. I hadn’t even participated in the thread yet when you did that. I would rather just come here and talk about the issues. If you plan to pretend you didn’t mean ‘me’ when you said that, please go ahead and tell us who the two commenters were that you were insulting.

    Aphrael, I appreciate that you are being generous with Haiku. I’ve done that a hundred times. At a certain point it’s more convenient to just ask him to knock it off directly than to pretend he isn’t doing it so he saves face. And I definitely think if Happyfeet is being banned for a month for insulting famous people, Haiku should be banned for a month for insulting commenters here.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  112. > Our host wants to see if an enforced absence of happyfeet leads some long-time commenters who have stayed away recently to start participating once again.

    I’m not entirely sure how they’d notice, if they aren’t here.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  113. Dustin, my preference when i’m not actively feeling attacked is to be generous of spirit. To me, that’s the essence of liberalism. :)

    aphrael (3f0569)

  114. I don’t understand the personal attacks, but I’ve tired of them. I’ve posted fewer and fewer posts because it’s become too partisan.

    If you hate Trump, so be it. Don’t let it color your posts. If you love Trump, so be it. But follow the same.

    Dustin, I saw Haiku’s post and didn’t think he was referencing you. I saw others in my mind. But to each his own.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  115. They are kids. And they didn’t act like children as some do here.

    mg (8cbc69)

  116. I don’t understand the personal attacks, but I’ve tired of them. I’ve posted fewer and fewer posts because it’s become too partisan.

    If you hate Trump, so be it. Don’t let it color your posts. If you love Trump, so be it. But follow the same.

    Dustin, I saw Haiku’s post and didn’t think he was referencing you. I saw others in my mind. But to each his own.

    NJRob (4d595c) — 2/19/2019 @ 10:58 pm

    NJRob, thank you for your comment. I disagree with you on the larger political picture. We should not “love” or “hate” or dear political leaders. We should not ally ourselves with personas, but instead we should agree or disagree with various policies, and approve or disapprove of performance. I do not approve of Trump’s deficit spending any more than I did of Bush’s or Obama’s, for example. It’s a consistent view that has nothing to do with how much I love our leaders (I love none of them).

    Haiku’s insult was referencing Munroe’s comment, and was basically an extension of it. Munroe that was criticizing ‘someone’ for saying “racist punk.” For some reason, Munroe and Haiku did not say who that was, but there is only one commenter here who has said that. Me. So with all due respect, sir, you are wrong that he wasn’t talking about me. They were clearly insulting two commenters here, so I am not sure how your defense of Haiku was helpful. It is against the rules to personally attack others, so … if it’s not me, so what? But it was.

    Haiku was also insulting Dave, who is the comment section’s punching bag most of the time. Haiku was being intentional in his passive aggressive style. He wants to insult someone by referencing them, or by tacking his insult on to someone else’s comment, or by needling them about a detail most people aren’t aware of. He would happily just spew pages and pages of profanity about me, but he’s been moderated a few times and apparently he wants to find a way around that.

    Haiku has a history of personal attacks towards me. Patterico pointed out that Haiku probably needled me over the loss of my infant son. Really. honestly just recalling this is enough for me to just be done commenting here. Stashiu3 called Haiku a liar for denying authoring a comment that made fun of my arab heritage. This is possibly the reason we have those hashes by our names now. It’s been ten years of this stuff. That he is still insulting me is totally unacceptable.

    But you guys win. I will not return to this blog.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  117. What the heck happened while I was out watching a Brahms chamber music concert?

    Don’t say that, Dustin. Talk to me.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  118. On repeating what others say, I think you guys are debating the possible application of the fair report privilege. It has greater applicability when you’re reporting on government statements than when reporting what someone said about a high school kid.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  119. > needled me over the loss of my infant son

    i wasn’t paying attention when this happened — i’ve been here for sixteen years but it’s an on-again off-again thing — but wow. that’s … terrible. i’m sorry that was done to you. :{

    aphrael (3f0569)

  120. I don’t know what’s going on here but I know Haiku likes to play the passive aggressive game — he’s done it with me — and that Dustin is one of the few people here I really care about.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  121. Might be worth reaching out to him in email, then; he strikes me as the sort of person who wouldn’t stick around to see what people were saying after he left.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  122. The passive aggressive game is often folllowed by the wide-eyed “my I have no idea what you mean” game so look for that one soon.

    It’s a game and I’ve seen him play it. We’re not stupid. We notice things.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  123. aphrael,

    Done. Now I gotta go to bed.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  124. success will depend on where case is tried kentucky maybe washington d.c. good luck with all black jury. then courts will decide libel laws in this case. ist amendment usually wins outside the south.

    lany (d5d1d5)

  125. Good grief Conyers played exactly that trick with the tea party, the spitting and cursing he fed that to mcclatchy.

    Narciso (927fb3)

  126. Because it seems clever to insult the President because he is pure evil, even though he is doing good things on balance, Obama was never good for anything, his finger prints are all over this smollett affair, who in turn is part of this modern minstrel show named empire,

    .

    Narciso (927fb3)

  127. I have not insulted Dustin. http://patterico.com/2019/02/19/revenge-of-the-smirk-nicholas-sandmann-sues-the-washington-post/#comment-2193380

    ^^^That^^^ was posted in response to the post from Munroe. He also continues to make reference to something that happened 7 years ago this month.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  128. What does poor Obama have to do with The Smollett Affair? Kenya is on the other side of the African continent from Nigeria.

    nk (dbc370)

  129. I’m thinking that whole lurid enterprise is just a way for Stella (and Steve) to get their groove back. That might be the only reason Taraji Henson is on there:
    http://blockclubchicago.org/2019/02/19/states-attorney-kim-foxx-recuses-herself-from-jussie-smollett-case-citing-familiarity-with-potential-witnesses/?fbclid=IwAR19McXIu269-axyfug8eDnRhckZTpV6jNipBsCaYnxfd4WPXUJZITrfcOw

    urbanleftbehind (9b10d3)

  130. “Haiku has a history of personal attacks towards me. Patterico pointed out that Haiku probably needled me over the loss of my infant son. Really. honestly just recalling this is enough for me to just be done commenting here. Stashiu3 called Haiku a liar for denying authoring a comment that made fun of my arab heritage. This is possibly the reason we have those hashes by our names now. It’s been ten years of this stuff. That he is still insulting me is totally unacceptable.”

    This is absolute nonsense: Needled Dustin about the loss of his infant son!?!? Please pull up the quote. If Dustin took insult to what I wrote there is something that has gone horribly wrong.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  131. No sooner is HF pushed aside and Haiku becomes the new burr under the saddle. Interesting. Predictable but interesting none the less. Mostly for how quickly we got here.

    JSkorcher (222d4a)

  132. I previously asked Dustin about Haiku this was his reply. IMO Dustin has been convincing and consistent.

    DRJ (15874d)

  133. The comment that bothered Dustin.

    DRJ (15874d)

  134. Kudos to the mods for making this a place where people are actually human to each other most of the time. I imagine that isn’t easy esp when passions run strong.

    JRH (fe281f)

  135. DRJ… good morning.
    Find the original comment that was posted after we all learned of Dustin’s personal loss please. For the context.

    I get that you may have a dislike for me. The “racist” comment that happened 7 years ago was in reference to this:
    https://youtu.be/bryQTv6OGHc

    I wrote “prawn of Arab loins”. #1: Dustin is not of “Arab” heritage. #2: it was a silly Yellowbeard scene. #3: Dustin would not accept an apology. #4: it was 7 years ago.

    I could pull up dozens of insulting comments Dustin has made in reference to me. You could as well, but that would be consistent. When someone is hellbent on finding insults that are apparently written in code, something is wrong

    Colonel Haiku (273e2b)

  136. On the topic of happyfeet I had long ago gotten a mental reflex to just skip my eyes down when the characteristic grammar/punctuation style showed up. Couldn’t tell you if he/she/it posted or not.

    Ingot9455 (74ce6e)

  137. I am hijacking this thread. Andy Griffith and Don Knotts discussing Global Warming fifty years ago. About one minute in, if you can’t bear to “watch the whole thing”.

    There is nothing new under the sun, and nothing original in hoaxes.

    nk (dbc370)

  138. No sooner is HF pushed aside and Haiku becomes the new burr under the saddle. Interesting. Predictable but interesting none the less. Mostly for how quickly we got here.

    JSkorcher (222d4a) — 2/20/2019 @ 6:12 am

    do you disagree with having Happyfeet take a break? In the PJ Media thread I pointed out why I thought it was appropriate.

    Time123 (b53270)

  139. So…does this case actually have merit? Reading through the filing, it looks like the Post published 7 articles over 3(?) days about the case. The first 2 articles were about the original video clip, the next 4 were about Nathan Phillip’s description of the event and/or the Diocese’s response to the clip. The last one as “it’s more complicated” while re-iterating the most of the false claims against Sandmann and the other students (e.g. Sandmann confronted Phillips, the boys were yelling at the Black Israelites, the boys chanted “build the wall!”).

    I’m guessing any other articles in the Post about the story (if there were any) came after the Israelites’ full video was released showing them being generally terrible to everyone and calling the boys “future school shooters” and telling one of their black classmates “Get Out N*****” because the white students were going to harvest his organs. The racist taunts at their black classmate by the Israelites is what prompted the school chants in the first place.

    Xmas (e63a38)

  140. Aunt Bea knew how to deal w Barney:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TN7GvfhaIr8

    harkin (e15868)

  141. So…if this is legit can Obama sue everyone that published the claim that he wasn’t an American Citizen? How about the people pushing the Pizzagate conspiracy? Can Hillary sue them? I read somewhere that Alex Jones popularized the crisis actors theory for the parkland shooting…can he be sued? Can anyone that publishes the his claim be sued? Can they be sued successfully under this theory?

    Follow up question

    The remedy seems to be be that only things found to be true by the publisher be published. If that’s the new plan i expect to see a lot of out of work talking heads. Which could make cable news a lot better

    If it turns out the Jessie Smollet(SP?) was actually attacked can everyone that’s writing about it being a set up be sued?

    I guess I want to see what the proposed new standard is. The current one is that you can report things that have happened and quote what people say with attribution. If you get it wrong you need to publish a correction.

    Given the fact that the media took a adolescent and threw him into the deep end of the political debate I think a LOT of media outlets owe him an apology and an explanation of how it went wrong. This should be above and beyond just a retraction.

    Time123 (441f53)

  142. “What does poor Obama have to do with The Smollett Affair?”

    I would imagine nothing at all other than he was a politician who never let a good racist hoax (e.g. hands up, don’t shoot) go to waste in regards to further dividing people……and he’s not the only one.

    It would not surprise me at all if Smollet’s phone is suddenly lost/destroyed.

    harkin (e15868)

  143. Maybe it’s time to revisit Sullivan there was some piecemeal revisions in the 70s and 80s

    Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday called for the Supreme Court to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 ruling interpreting the First Amendment to make it hard for public officials to prevail in libel suits.

    He said the decision had no basis in the Constitution as it was understood by the people who drafted and ratified it.

    “New York Times and the court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law,” Justice Thomas wrote.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/politics/clarence-thomas-first-amendment-libel.html

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  144. That’s what I said! Yesterday, too!

    nk (dbc370)

  145. Er, while my sympathies are with the kid, and I hope he takes ’em for a bundle, this lawsuit seems like a total loser, right?

    matt d (d4aa6f)

  146. I think its the dollar amount which makes people queasy, which makes sense if its the whole group of CCHS students that was with Sandmann in DC or the school’s enrollment itself. Had the Diocese not rushed to its initial judgement, they could have been seen as the good knight and been among the parties filing a similar lawsuit out of concern for the educational brand.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  147. Yes but they didnt so they inflicted collateral damage.

    Narciso (026cbf)

  148. But you guys win. I will not return to this blog.

    I hope Pat can persuade you to stick around. Often I’ll just skim comments looking for the names I’ve come to associate with an interesting take on things, and “Dustin” is one of them.

    Radegunda (694c3c)

  149. Please, Dustin, do not go. I add my voice to all the others who plead that you remain.

    felipe (5b25e2)

  150. Back on topic, what the Washington Post did to Sandmann was malicious and libelous. It was done with intent to harm the young man and destroy him as a warning to all other Trump supporters that they must remain in the closet or be destroyed.

    I hope he bankrupts them and takes Bezos to the cleaners.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  151. FWIW, Dustin, please stick around.

    Paul Montagu (0eb929)

  152. Dustin, when felipe asks you to stay, it’s a big deal. Felipe is one of the kindest and best commenters here. Please consider his request.

    And even mine.

    Simon Jester (548267)

  153. @137. LOL awfully cold where they are now. But ahhhh, yes, the good ol’days– when there was an Arctic ice cap at the North Pole.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  154. Stick around, Dustin. Been tradin’ short-burst copy w/Haiku for years. OT– BTW, near the end of the war, the Zero was an EZ shootdown.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  155. @142
    It would not surprise me at all if Smollet’s phone is suddenly lost/destroyed.

    Like Tom Brady’s?

    Tom M (55c638)

  156. “Like Tom Brady’s?”

    Brady’s phone was small potatoes compared to the league destroying the Spygate evidence.

    harkin (e15868)


  157. “The reason I destroyed the tapes is they were totally consistent with what the team told me,” Goodell said during his State of the NFL speech. “It was the appropriate thing to do and I think it sent a message.”

    Sure did buddy.

    harkin (b5e7fd)

  158. Dustin, you piss me off to no end, but please stay.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  159. If it weren’t for the people who piss me off, this blog would be uninteresting.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  160. #6 and reloading for 7

    mg (8cbc69)

  161. Dustin,

    I understand how you feel. Take a break if you need it and only post on topics that interest you. But don’t walk away unless it’s truly what you desire.

    This too shall pass.

    NJRob (528a30)

  162. Speaking of a smirk, see if you can guess from this photo why officials at a CA college alerted police about a piece of paper with no words.

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/campusreform/11894/15506119298191.jpg

    These snowflakes sure trigger easy.

    harkin (b5e7fd)

  163. Looks to me like an embarrassingly weak defamation claim. I expect it will be dismissed on motions.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  164. Hokus Pokus Motions, no doubt.

    mg (7e0e37)

  165. Lin Wood, is the jedi or highlander of defamation law, I think he knows what he is doing,

    narciso (d1f714)

  166. If suing for libel became too easy, one day the media could sue their critics.

    Sammy Finkelman (b0ece0)

  167. Charles Ponzi won a libel suit.

    Sammy Finkelman (b0ece0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.4376 secs.