Patterico's Pontifications

7/27/2019

Nick Sandmann’s Lawsuit Against The Washington Post Is Dismissed

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:13 am



[guest post by Dana]

Remember Nick Sandmann? He was the 16 year old Covington High School student who wore a red Make America Great hat and a so called smirk during a face-to-face encounter with Native American Nathan Phillips. Video of their meet went viral, and internet lynch mobs and social media users attacked Sandmann as an arrogant, white and Catholic Trump supporter being disrespectful to an elder tribesman. The accusation stuck in spite of later-released video showing the fuller story.

Attorneys for Sandmann later filed a lawsuit against the Washington Post for $250 million for compensatory and punitive damages:

The lawsuit claims that 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.”

The lawsuit adds that the Post engaged in “a modern-day form of McCarthyism” and “ignored basic journalist standards.”

“They didn’t investigate it,” Wood said. “They got it wrong. They published the false narrative and did not publish the truth.”

Yesterday it was reported that U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman dismissed the lawsuit. Responding to Sandmann and his attorney’s argument that that in its original story, The Post had put forward that Sandmann “had assaulted or physically intimidated Nathan Phillips and engaged in racist taunts,” Judge Bertelsman wrote that “this is not supported by the plain languages in the article, which states none of these things”:

As the Court explained at oral argument on this motion, in modern libel law there are many affirmative defenses, even for blames based on defamatory statements. These defenses are calculated to protect defendants, especially the press, from strict liability.

The defense that a statement of opinion is not actionable protects freedom of speech and the press guaranteed by the First Amendment.

More from the ruling:

The Court accepts Sandmann’s statement that, when he was standing motionless in the confrontation with Phillips, his intent was to calm the situation and not to impede or block anyone,” the judge wrote.

“However, Phillips did not see it that way. He concluded that he was being ‘blocked’ and not allowed to ‘retreat.’ He passed the conclusions on to The Post. They may have been erroneous, but, as discussed above, they are opinion protected by the First Amendment,” Bertelsman wrote. “And The Post is not liable for publishing these opinions.”

The suit against the Washington Post was the first of three suits filed against media outlets. The other two pending suits are against CNN and NBC.

The Sandmann family plans to appeal.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

94 Responses to “Nick Sandmann’s Lawsuit Against The Washington Post Is Dismissed”

  1. Good morning.

    Dana (bb0678)

  2. $250M in damages

    LOL

    Dave (1bb933)

  3. Both NBC and CNN are being sued for $275 million each.

    Dana (bb0678)

  4. He was lying, Dorsey deplatforned the fellow who pointed out private maytag.

    Narciso (f848af)

  5. Kid standing in ‘front’ of you blocks your ‘retreat’.

    Got it!

    If the news services who flamed the initial false narrative for at least two days after the full video was common knowledge get away with it, it’s a sham.

    harkin (0f62bd)

  6. If the young man wasn’t a public figure back then he certainly is now. His treatment by much of the media was shameful and even a few commenters here – who are old enough to know better – called him a “racist punk”.

    It must’ve been the MAGA hat that triggers all of them.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  7. The judge was a Carter appointee… SFB…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  8. “However, Phillips did not see it that way. He concluded that he was being ‘blocked’ and not allowed to ‘retreat.’ He passed the conclusions on to The Post. They may have been erroneous, but, as discussed above, they are opinion protected by the First Amendment”

    Where are the cites to the inevitably now deleted individual Wapo articles (and of course, the active history of changes made to them) to support this conclusion? And whether or not they were originally opinion, when those opinions are published as fact by opinion-makers and especially their rabid reporters paid by the media outlet on social media, what then? Oh, wait:

    “Bertelsman also wrote that it was irrelevant to the defamation case that Sandmann was scorned on social media.”

    IOW, ‘The actual defamatory effect is irrelevant to whether a defamation case can be brought.’ Very poor judgment! Sad! Trump was always right when he declared the press and circuit court judges the “enemies of the people”, and everything he’s been doing to replace or destroy them has centuries of justification in the making!

    The current state of affairs is that the only way to get damages is to have Nick Denton deliberately circulate a private video of you having sex while running a website literally called “defamer.com”, then get a billionaire to bankroll your lawsuit against a defendant too ******* dumb from fluid-depleting chemsex to keep his gay mouth shut about it. For almost anyone that’s several bank shots too many!

    Sankara (73b272)

  9. Via Volokh, on the final six pages of the ruling is a grid that shows the DDID’s statements that Sandmann’s attorneys asserted were defamatory, along the with the judge’s summary as to why every single statement was not. I don’t see this going anywhere on appeal, nor with the lawsuits against CNN and ABC. As I said elsewhere, because of Sullivan, the threshold is high to prove malice.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  10. I saw plenty of malice from commenters here on this blog, seemingly still proud of themselves for it.

    Munroe (0b2761)

  11. So, defamation based solely on an interview with an activist is protected because it was opinion? The judge seems to be treating the young man as a public figure, not a private citizen where the reporters have a duty to investigate, if just a little bit.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  12. As I said elsewhere, because of Sullivan, the threshold is high to prove malice.

    Sullivan does not apply to a private citizen. The boy was a public figure ONLY because of the prior defamation. Saying otherwise is dishonest.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  13. The left protects their own. Just like they did with the lock swinger antifa criminal.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  14. Having read through the court’s reasoning, and the table of particulars, I see room for appeal.

    The court has Balkanized the Post article, separating the defamatory statements as “not about Sandman” from those that specifically mention him, and in doing so has completely sundered all contextual meaning from the article. And it is in the context where the defamation lies.

    In a sequence like “blah blah racists blah blah Klan … Patterico was there … blah blah racists blah blah Klan”, Patterico has been defamed even though “Patterico was there” is not in itself defamatory. The context is everything, the implications are clear and intended, and analyzing sentences as if they stood alone is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  15. It is also unclear if the same can be done with a video report like CNN’s. The cases are dissimilar.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  16. The judge does not reference Sullivan. ^F – Sullivan has no hits.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  17. In a sequence like “blah blah racists blah blah Klan … Patterico was there … blah blah racists blah blah Klan”, Patterico has been defamed even though “Patterico was there” is not in itself defamatory. The context is everything, the implications are clear and intended, and analyzing sentences as if they stood alone is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

    My impression is exactly the opposite. All that matters is precisely what was said about the allegedly defamed person.

    Also, truth is a defense, so in your example, if Patterico was, in fact, present, and the article’s statements about him were limited solely to that undisputed fact, there is no possibility of an actionable defamation claim.

    Dave (1bb933)

  18. Sullivan does not apply to a private citizen.
    Bzzt. Wrong answer on the flashcard. This all happened during an “event of public interest”.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  19. Curtis v. Butts and another case extended the scope of Sullivan to private citizens.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  20. About the ruling:

    In his ruling, Bertelsman also cited the case, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., writing that statements that are “loose, figurative” or “rhetorical hyperbole” are protected by the First Amendment because they can’t be proved true or false.

    Bertelsman identified words used by The Post to describe the students as falling under the protection established in Milkovich: “swarmed,” “taunting,” “disrespect,” aggressive” and “rambunctious,” among others.

    As has been pointed out, those are words of opinion, and not fact.

    Dana (bb0678)

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

    Leviticus (efada1) — 2/21/2019 @ 2:56 pm

    Leviticus (4d38bd)

  22. Didn’t this punk want a quarter of a billion dollars because someone criticized his actions? No one forced this young man to show up in front of all those cameras and have some drama. While the internet tries to assign people to the cool and uncool table, and skew all facts accordingly, this man wanted the attention he got. If he has something to say related to tomahawks and native american chants, that’s his right, but if he wants to sue everyone to shut up about him, well he’s in the wrong country. God bless America and our right to call people as we see people.

    Dustin (e01605)

  23. Sullivan does not apply to a private citizen. The boy was a public figure ONLY because of the prior defamation. Saying otherwise is dishonest.

    Kevin M (21ca15) — 7/27/2019 @ 9:22 am

    he is a public figure because he did something really stupid in a way that was intended to get attention. You can’t be a racist where MLK gave the I Have a Dream Speech with 100 cameras pointed at you and then say “this wasn’t public”. Saying otherwise is … well I wont’ say dishonest because I know many of his supporters are intending to be genuine, but it’s dumb.

    Did they reference the native weirdo’s race? Yes. You might not see racism there, but I see it differently, and when public protests get responded to with speech and speech alone, that’s how it’s supposed to happen. Suing for a bazillion dollars every time you regret your actions is Streisand Effect behavior.

    These guys are from that same school with the blackface basketball cheer, right? I think they have plenty of money to appeal and sue. These are good issues to test with savvy lawyers on both sides.

    Dustin (e01605)

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

    Leviticus (efada1) — 2/21/2019 @ 2:56 pm

    Leviticus (4d38bd) — 7/27/2019 @ 10:36 am

    But he had a MAGA hat on. Therefore he’s a victim. They should make MAGA hankies for these guys to cry into.

    Dustin (e01605)

  25. Are they treating Sandmann as a public figure or a private individual? I have never heard of treating a private individual as a public figure because of the incident for which defamation is alleged. Using that logic, no private individual would ever have a successful defamation claim once the national media did a story on him/her unless they could prove actual malice.

    It doesn’t sound like that is what happened here, though. It sounds like the judge held that the media has an absolute defense because it acted without malice in publishing the defamatory opinion of a participant/witness.

    DRJ (15874d)

  26. I bet Sandmann feels the media was way too enthusiastic about publishing this opinion. I understand feeling that way but IMO the legal claim for that is negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, not defamation. (It is hard to prove.)

    DRJ (15874d)

  27. they don’t care drj, they wanted to obliterate any positive impression of the right to life rally, because 58 million lives sacrificed on the pyre of expedience isn’t enough, it’s very hard to win a judgement like this even when the facts are on ones’ side, when malice was clearly spelled, when the Post had multiple instance in which they could have corrected the record, but they were criminally negligent, probably not for the first time that month,

    narciso (d1f714)

  28. This all happened during an “event of public interest”.

    Well, then, anyone a newspaper reports on is fair game. Your assertion makes the distinctions in Sullivan meaningless.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  29. Narciso, I don’t think this had much to do with abortion. I think this is due to the assumption many have that MAGA hats as associated with racism. It’s not a fair assumption, but it’s a real one and it’s not entirely baseless as Trump is pretty outspoken about hating people on the basis of heritage. I know it’s frustrating that we all don’t just go back where we came from, as though we’re Americans or something.

    I don’t understand how you can jump in front of a camera in the most attention grabbing manner possible and then complain this wasn’t a public matter, but DRJ is probably right that the court didn’t see the Post’s opinions and reporting as malicious.

    Even today, it’s hard to find someone who isn’t amenable to Trump, post the racist tweet, who thinks the Post owes this young man a quarter billion dollars.

    Dustin (e01605)

  30. Curtis v. Butts and another case extended the scope of Sullivan to private citizens.

    Again, the judge does not use Sullivan as precedent. Nor do the words “Butts” or “Curtis” occur in the decision.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  31. Well, then, anyone a newspaper reports on is fair game. Your assertion makes the distinctions in Sullivan meaningless.

    Kevin M (21ca15) — 7/27/2019 @ 11:33 am

    Indeed, anyone is fair game for good faith reporting. Or at the very least, the government shouldn’t shut down speech that someone doesn’t like just because its opinions are uncharitable.

    Now, had the Post lied about Nick that would be very, very different.

    Dustin (e01605)

  32. Some professional malcontent last seen at the pipeline, supportee by Daniel Sheehan and al Sharpton decides to make a nuisance of himself, I think I’m one of the few Latinos here, I dont take that inference, which is as dubious as it was with the tea party.

    Narciso (f848af)

  33. It sounds like the judge held that the media has an absolute defense because it acted without malice in publishing the defamatory opinion of a participant/witness.

    The judge separated distinct statements, ignored the context of the whole, and in each instance said the statements were not defamatory. Sometimes because they did not reference Sandmann directly, sometimes they were opinion.

    Never mind that the whole piece, and the context of the article clearly labels a private citizen as racist and no attempt is made on the part of the Post to check its story. Never mind the sequential editing and “corrections” that underscore their initial lack of vetting.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  34. Or at the very least, the government shouldn’t shut down speech that someone doesn’t like just because its opinions are uncharitable.

    This has nothing to do with “shutting down speech.” You know better than to type such rot.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  35. The young man was done a disservice by the media and their ginned-up pack of lies. And I see the lies continue to be repeated, even today.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  36. Now, had the Post lied about Nick that would be very, very different.

    Instead, they printed the assertions of one person in a conflict, never talked to the other, and acccepted the activists characterizations uncritically. But no, they did not lie. There was at least 0.01% truth involved.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  37. And I see the lies continue to be repeated, even today.

    Tribalism at its worst.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  38. Sullivan doesn’t apply, as Sandmann was not a “public” figure. That came later.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  39. The judge is a Carter appointee, whose only other notable case was a defamation lawsuit where he also ruled against the plaintiffs.

    The judge shopping fell short here. That’s the sum of it.

    Munroe (0b2761)

  40. Again, the judge does not use Sullivan as precedent.

    You’re right. The case was judged under Kentucky defamation law, among other cites. Interesting thing, the plaintiffs never raised the issue (that I could see) about Sandmann being a “private citizen”. Nevertheless, the court viewed the incident as “inherently a matter of public concern”, given the venue. I’m sure this a been a good legal education for the teenage plaintiff.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  41. Meanwhile the dems turn to throw Mueller under the bus, anonymously in the post, and then back over him, swalwell doesn’t know enough to stay silent

    Narciso (f848af)

  42. Freedom of the press is costly and some innocent people will suffer ;but the press must knowingly know something is false and go with it anyway. absence of malice is and should be the standard unless you want AOC to decide whats fit to print.

    lany (f2f668)

  43. Freedom of the press is costly and some innocent people will suffer ;but the press must knowingly know something is false and go with it anyway. absence of malice is and should be the standard unless you want AOC to decide whats fit to print.

    lany (f2f668) — 7/27/2019 @ 12:39 pm

    The solution to the problem of the Post saying stuff Trump and his supporters don’t agree with isn’t to destroy the Post with a bazillion dollar lawsuit on the slightest offense. It’s 2019 and that is counterproductive. The solution is to offer your contrary view and to appreciate our shared freedom to say what we think.

    I’m sad so many long time Republicans don’t get this.

    Dustin (e01605)

  44. Akshually, the way to “destroy” the Post, the NYT, Watsisfacebook, and others of the ilk, is to amend the Securities Exchange Act to make all publicly-traded stock voting stock. That way they would be answerable to the shareholders who fund them and not the boss-boys who sold non-voting stock and kept the voting stock for themselves.

    nk (dbc370)

  45. I am afraid my earlier comment may be misleading so permit me a long comment to make up for it:

    Defamation law is a matter of state law so the law varies among states, but not a lot because all the laws must be consistent with the SCOTUS Sullivan vs NY Times defamation law case. Sandmann vs WP Company case was filed in Kentucky because that is where the plaintiff Sandmann resides. It was either filed in or it was removed to Kentucky federal court (instead of Kentucky state court) because defendant WP Company is not a Kentucky business. The Kentucky federal court applied Kentucky defamation law.

    I cannot tell you what Kentucky law provides but the Sandmann Court Opinion states and explains each of the elements of law a defamation plaintiff must prove in Kentucky (Opinion p. 6):

    In Kentucky, a cognizable claim for defamation requires:

    a). a false and defamatory statement concerning another;

    b). an unprivileged publication to a third party;

    c). fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher [Note: malice, if the plaintiff is a public figure]; and

    d). either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existing stence of special harm caused by the publication.

    [Citations omitted.] But a “defamation claim against a media defendant cannot derive from ‘a statement of opinion relating to matters of public concern [that] does not contain a provably false factual connotation'” unless ‘the challenged statement connotes actual, objectively verifiable facts.” [Citation omitted] (emphasis added).

    The Court notes that the present motion [Note: the Motion to Dismiss] does not require the Court to address the elements of truth/falsity, publication (which is not disputed), or negligence. At issue are only whether they are fact or opinion, and whether they are defamatory.

    This was a hearing on defendant’s Motion to Dismiss — that is, a hearing to decide as a matter of law whether Sandmann stated a claim for which the law provides relief. to show he is entitled to relief, Sandmann must show some evidence regarding each element. The law requires the Court in a Motion to Dismiss hearing to consider all evidence in the light most favorable to nonmoving party, Sandmann.

    The problem for Sandmann is that the Court found he could not prove the first element as a matter of law because all claims were based on opinions, not facts (Opinion pp. 15-16):

    Few principles of law are as well-established as the rule that statements of opinion are not actionable in libel actions.

    This rule is based on the right to freedom of speech in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [citations omitted.]

    Under these authorities, the statements that Sandmann challenges constitute protected opinions that may not form the basis for a defamation claim.”

    The Court continues with a discussion of the alleged defamatory statements and explains why each is opinion, not fact. In general, defendant published statements by the participant/witness Phillips about his perceptions of what happened that day. Accordingly, the Court held that the paper was reporting opinions, not facts. (To avoid making this an even longer comment, I refer you to pages 15-28 of the Sandmann Court Opinion for the Court’s explanation of why each defamation claim was not actionable.

    Sandmann relied on the “false and defamatory gist” of the various WP Company reports, articles, and tweets that he felt portrayed him as an aggressor. But to the Court, that conclusion was based on opinion and not any specific verifiable defamatory fact published by the WP Company.

    DRJ (15874d)

  46. Exit the Sandman

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  47. that’s why the archdioceses reacted so vigorously, because it was an opinion, no because in lieu of any other counter, that was the picture presented for days at a time, years later, some admissions officer or human resources, will google nick sandmann and they will find those lies like the ones that the times and a hundred other publications put out,

    narciso (d1f714)

  48. 49… that’s the Truth, narciso!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  49. Thanks for the clear explanation, DRJ.

    Dave (329aed)

  50. he is a public figure because he did something really stupid in a way that was intended to get attention.

    Not true. Just not true. Why do you say things that are just not true?

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  51. The judge found the article was in no place defamatory, and not because it was true, but because the press is somehow entitled to print someone else’s lies uncritically and have no responsibility for it.

    And, just the same, Sandmann has been defamed. The judge just thinks the law allows him no recourse.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  52. I’m one of the token center-to-lefties that lurks here, but I think Sandmann got a raw deal, not from the media perhaps but from the twitter mob, from one or two folks here, and from more than a few of my friends, who formed an opinion based on incomplete facts and video. For one thing, he’s a kid, who was placed in a bad and potentially dangerous position. It’s not against the law to wear a hat, and it’s not against the law to smirk. I saw a kid trying not to exacerbate what could have been a bad situation. I saw the dumb chants and stuff, but it looked exactly what dumb kids do at basketball games. Take of their shirts and cheer. I think they were in an awkward position, and they did absolutely nothing wrong other than perhaps show some mild immaturity,

    However suing the wapo was just a stunt imo .

    JRH (52aed3)

  53. 1. Opinion: everything someone says can be called “opinion.” If I say that “Haiku is a racist”, that defames him. If I say that “Haiku killed Kennedy” that defames him less because it is provable nonsense. If the law treats the latter as actionable, and the former not, then the law is broken.

    2. For the Post to print a damaging opinion uncritically, carelessly and with a whiff of bias should be actionable.

    3. In his campaign Trump said that libel laws needed fixing. Apparently he was right.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  54. “The solution to the problem of the Post saying stuff Trump and his supporters don’t agree with isn’t to destroy the Post with a bazillion dollar lawsuit on the slightest offense.“
    Dustin (e01605) — 7/27/2019 @ 12:43 pm

    Right. And, the solution to a teen triggering NeverTrump with a MAGA hat is destroy his reputation with baseless smears.

    Munroe (cea31b)

  55. I should clarify I didn’t see sandmann being immature, iirc. Just some of his friends. I believe this kid acted about as well as one could.

    JRH (52aed3)

  56. I really hate finding out things where Trump was right.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  57. Sometimes I take Trump’s side, sometimes I don’t. I really wish that some other Republican (or a sane Democrat, were there one) was President.

    I’d say that 90% of the people here are hopelessly tribal. This is a case in point.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  58. Why do you say things that are just not true?

    Because he’s a jerk. And likely a lawyer. BIRM. But it’s ok when lawyers are jerks so long as there are enough lawyers around to speak up for them on technical grounds even when they disagree otherwise. Because the Guild closes ranks like the snake pit that they are. Even when the subject of the derision is a 17 year old young man. You’re all despicable and I pray there’s a God that you will one day have to answer to. Though lately I’m beginning to question that.

    Ptw (385fa4)

  59. Yup. We’re all lawyers. And we control everything. You’ve heard of the Rothschilds? The Illuminati? The Reptilians from Draco, Orion, and Sirius? We control all of them. So watch Uranus, Ptw!

    nk (dbc370)

  60. And there it is. Close ranks. But one day, the Gods of the Copybook Headings are going to show up, with their terror and slaughter. And they generally don’t discriminate very well.

    Ptw (385fa4)

  61. To be clear, for Dustin to lay into Sandman like he does above, after all this time, with plenty of opportunity to review exactly what happened, is one of the more despicable things I’ve witnessed from your guild. But hey, I do everything in my power to avoid the anarchic BS of our so-called legal system. Despicable. But hey, that’s just my opinion. Can’t ban me for it, right?

    Ptw (385fa4)

  62. You are as wrong as you could possibly be about Dustin’s background and profession, but I have no right to tell you more than that.

    nk (dbc370)

  63. If I were the Post, I’d settle before this gets to a higher court. Many feel that that the “opinion” defense did not cover the public beating this kid got for the standing in one place with a hat.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (6b1442)

  64. And yet you spoke up for him as if he was one rather than directly deny it. Odd that. But of course irrelevant. Either way, a den of snakes and snake wannabes.

    Ptw (385fa4)

  65. Just for the record, Ptw speaks for himself. I’m disappointed with some of the kneejerk tribalism on this post, but I’ve transgressed elsewhere. It has taken me a long time to get to a point where it isn’t about Trump.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  66. Well Kevin, since you referenced me, don’t you find it quite odd that you even feel the need to point this out? Where/how/why would any reasonable person think otherwise?

    Ptw (385fa4)

  67. Of course something else that shouldn’t need to be pointed out/repeated but…17 year old high school student, minding his own business, waiting for a bus. A known political radical, who we now know to have lied about who he is, a man old enough to be the kid’s grandfather, singles him out of a crowd, obviously (to normal people) trying to provoke a confrontation, and the kid behaves calmly and as politely, more politely, than one could reasonably expect of most adults in this situation. And Dustin makes the comments he makes above, and lawyers are more interested in defending the jerk than the 17 year old. And now one guy with the limited guts to defend the kid is afraid to be associated with someone who is stating the bloody obvious more directly. Pathetic.

    Ptw (385fa4)

  68. The courts didnt serve Zimmerman despite the obvious media malpractice and seven years latwe did the same to the huntress, more evidence appears re the abysmal diligence showed in Marjorie stoneman Douglas but they waved the red shirt there,

    Narciso (f848af)

  69. From what I’ve read, most of the center-right lawyers who comment elsewhere thought from day one that Sandmann’s attorney erred in his approach. I do think Sandmann was wronged, however, and the Post is left with a stench that increases almost daily with their ineptitude and outright malevolence.

    And most of us know who the true punks are.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  70. I’ll tell you all, I didn’t know what to make of the judge’s ruling, but Ptw’s comments have been eye-opening. It’s obvious to me now:

    The judge hates lawyers as much as Ptw does, and particularly the plaintiff’s lawyers who filed the case as opposed to the WaPo lawyers who were only defending it, and that’s why he dismissed it. It all makes sense!

    Thanks, Ptw!

    nk (dbc370)

  71. Now, I still can’t figure out why people who hate lawyers support Trump, who must hold some kind of a record with 3,500 lawsuits before he became President, but go figure.

    nk (dbc370)

  72. 55… for the record, I was in 6th grade and called in off the playground with my classmates to watch the sad events of that day on the classroom TV.

    But another memory I have of that weekend is sitting in our den on Sunday, just me and my father, eating breakfast from a TV tray while watching the Dallas PD walking Oswald thru that garage. I told my dad, “they ought to torture that guy until he talks” and the nervous laugh I got in return before he corrected me. And then Ruby shot Oswald.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  73. Yeah, nk. Where did I say anything about the judge’s ruling? You inferred that from my comments? And you’re a lawyer? Good thing you stay anonymous. NTTAWWT. Obviously. But you do seem to have a burning need to comment on this. Interesting.

    Ptw (385fa4)

  74. 55… for the record, I was in 6th grade and called in off the playground with my classmates to watch the sad events of that day on the classroom TV.

    I remember when Reagan was shot. I was in a large college lecture hall. The professor made a reference at the beginning of class, in order that his lecture not be disturbed, “you may have heard some discussion that the president has been shot. Yes, it’s true. If you feel the need to leave the room, please leave now.”

    Ptw (385fa4)

  75. I would like to nominate nk for “guy who has to change the ‘troll-free for xx days’ sign!”

    Can I get a second?

    felipe (023cc9)

  76. Yes also he’s funny as hell and his humor gets kinda lost in translation by people who take stuff really seriously, which i guess is most of us.

    JRH (52aed3)

  77. He’s a wine, swarthy women, and song kinda guy…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  78. ..and the voice of one yelling in the wilderness.

    felipe (023cc9)

  79. Put it this way, how many times were Epstein, Weinstein Madoff and co sued, with what we know now, you think it was they were squeaky clean?

    Narciso (f848af)

  80. 80… it’s best described as howling…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  81. Yes also he’s funny as hell and his humor gets kinda lost in translation by people who take stuff really seriously, which i guess is most of us.

    Happyfeet is back? Where?

    Ptw (385fa4)

  82. nk is happyfeet’s evil twin

    Dave (1bb933)

  83. who went to law school

    Dave (1bb933)

  84. Je suis nk!

    felipe (023cc9)

  85. Went to law school. Somebody has to play the piano. Not that all hos are disgraceful. The decent ones acknowledge and accept who they are. Sometimes it’s really not their fault. It’s just the hand they were dealt before understanding what it was. Sometimes.

    He’s still banned, I take it?

    Ptw (385fa4)

  86. “Our administration… our president – ME – we’ve done a great job.”

    The guy cracks me up. That he pisses so many people off and effortlessly brings their hatred and lunacy to the surface is amusing, as well.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  87. OT, but after this past week, needs to be said: All this Collusion/Conspiracy/Obstruction horseschiff has so little importance and impact on the endgame. What an effing joke.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  88. “However, Phillips did not see it that way.

    This assumes that Phillips was telling the truth. I find that problematical.

    While U.S. courts start off with the assumption that everybody is telling the truth (or else they should be charged with perjury) but that is not the case in fact. And it was not necessary for the judge to assume so in deciding the case, and in fact his opinion could be stronger if he didn’t, so he shoudn’t have done so,.

    It is enough that Phillips told the Washington Post that hed been blocked etc , and it is not a reckless disregard for the truth to believe what you are told, especially of yo give your source. (unless you have areally strong reason to think the person is lying)

    And even then if what you state is that someone accused someone else of something it should avoid being a reckless disregard for the truth. Otherwise everything would need to be fact chcecked before it could be reported.

    Bertelsman should have written: “The Post is not liable for publishing lies it accepted in good faith.”

    If that is not what he wanted to say, then Nick Sandmann can appeal on the grounds that he intends to show in his case that Phillips lied, and maybe, if that is required to avoid dismissal, that that the Washington Post had no good reason to believe these lies, or good reason not to.

    Now if the Washington Post avoided correcting itself when it knew the truth then he also has a case.

    And it may also be that it can’t be conclusively said Phillips lied rather than being mistaken.

    Sammy Finkelman (fbd892)

  89. And then Ruby shot Oswald.

    Yeah. I saw that live, too. Two years younger but just as aware.

    Thirty some years later, Imelda Marcos tried that again with Aquino, but no one believed it.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  90. hf can be found in the Instapundit comment sewer.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  91. 90. I should say that I don’t think Nate Phillips said in any sworn affidavit or to any federal official that he was blocked, but courts anyway take the approach that everybody is telling the truth (as he sees it) until it isestablised otherwise.

    Sammy Finkelman (fbd892)

  92. Not true. Just not true. Why do you say things that are just not true?

    Kevin M (21ca15) — 7/27/2019 @ 5:34 pm

    I watched the same footage everyone else did. I just don’t care that much that the young men were trolled by others. I think they were all jerks, and I think they all knew they were on many cameras. They sought and got attention. Many elements of the speech of this group were obviously insulting Phillips being a native American. The consequence for being a racist in an attention getting way is that you get criticized a lot. I think that’s good.

    Are these victim-men entitled to a bazillion dollars? I can’t see how.

    Now, I can’t get into the heads of these punks and prove they were racist. I’m sure we all saw the blackface basketball stuff, know Trump is an outspoken racist, and have come to conclusions that many MAGA hat wearers are super racist, and this fact is incredibly sad and inconvenient to the GOP movement, which should be rooted in individual equality before the law. We shouldn’t have a president calling for a Muslim ban, or telling people with my ethnicity to ‘go back where we came from’. But those are inner thoughts.

    I’m sure you know MAGA hats are racist, just as I do, but not in a way that I can chart out as ‘truth’. I’ll just go on calling it like I see it. The only defense to this is to find a token social media entrepreneur POC. I don’t find that kind of thing compelling, and neither does anyone else, but this isn’t about truth… so what are we talking about in the first place?

    we’re talking about defending racism, and you shouldn’t.

    Dustin (6d7686)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3610 secs.