They are appealing
Covington Catholic Collegiate Boys DC stand off with Native & Black Hebrew Protesters
- Thread starter NoMoreTO
- Start date
Foolsgo1d
Peacock
I reckon the media lobby or whatever it calls itself is exerting pressure onc ertain individuals who have sway over things like this. They dont want to be sued by thousands of people after this case is settled.
They want to be free to slander and ridicule any private citizen if they're caught out in public.
They want to be free to slander and ridicule any private citizen if they're caught out in public.
Apparently WaPo gets to skate because they didn't name names. They were hyperbolic and ultimately incorrect on the facts reported, but that is still protected speech.
I have a problem with each of these. First is that Sandman's smirking, punchable face is everywhere and I suspect it was prominently displayed in the Wapo article (although I am not sure of that). If so, what logic says that you can publish a person's mug, talk shit about them, and then escape a defamation accusation because you didn't specifically name him?
Second is questioning what amounts to malice. I don't know a lot about US defamation law but my understanding is that you can talk shit and be wrong as long as there was not "malice". So an honest mistake is one thing but going after someone and purposefully lying about them is another. The kid wasn't a public figure (until the media made him one) and pretty much everyone right of centre figures that it was <i>narrative uber alles</i>, and the facts be damned. Here's young white male Trump supporters and an Indian, let's get the white kids! Is that malice? What about willful blindness or gross negligence as to the facts? I'm not sure how that works.
For what it's worth, the judge is a Carter appointee, about 80 years old, and perhaps past his best before date.
I have a problem with each of these. First is that Sandman's smirking, punchable face is everywhere and I suspect it was prominently displayed in the Wapo article (although I am not sure of that). If so, what logic says that you can publish a person's mug, talk shit about them, and then escape a defamation accusation because you didn't specifically name him?
Second is questioning what amounts to malice. I don't know a lot about US defamation law but my understanding is that you can talk shit and be wrong as long as there was not "malice". So an honest mistake is one thing but going after someone and purposefully lying about them is another. The kid wasn't a public figure (until the media made him one) and pretty much everyone right of centre figures that it was <i>narrative uber alles</i>, and the facts be damned. Here's young white male Trump supporters and an Indian, let's get the white kids! Is that malice? What about willful blindness or gross negligence as to the facts? I'm not sure how that works.
For what it's worth, the judge is a Carter appointee, about 80 years old, and perhaps past his best before date.
BlastbeatCasanova
Kingfisher
I was just thinking the other day how this huge story kind faded away, like most big stories. With the news cycle being so fast and everyone having 24/7 info/news blasted at them, it's just a constant stream.
But damn, can we get some justice? This shit looking like it's not going to pan out, Jussie Smollet case fading from public memory and him probably getting off easy, Epstein probably going to get off, I mean damn. Not trying to be a downer but it's discouraging, I want to see these people pay for their crimes.
But damn, can we get some justice? This shit looking like it's not going to pan out, Jussie Smollet case fading from public memory and him probably getting off easy, Epstein probably going to get off, I mean damn. Not trying to be a downer but it's discouraging, I want to see these people pay for their crimes.
RE: Covington Catholic Collegiate Boys DC stand off with Native & Black Hebrew Pro...
The National Review issued a non-apology that's sickening. A. He never says he was wrong, just that he was excessive. B. He never says he's sorry, just that he regrets writing it.
Liberal papers gave better apologies.
The kid's own bishop gave a half-assed apology. And the pro-gay bishop of Lexington didn't even apologize! He says he has nothing to apologize for because the kids wore MAGA hats and ORANGE MAN BAD!
The National Review issued a non-apology that's sickening. A. He never says he was wrong, just that he was excessive. B. He never says he's sorry, just that he regrets writing it.
Liberal papers gave better apologies.
The kid's own bishop gave a half-assed apology. And the pro-gay bishop of Lexington didn't even apologize! He says he has nothing to apologize for because the kids wore MAGA hats and ORANGE MAN BAD!
RE: Covington Catholic Collegiate Boys DC stand off with Native & Black Hebrew Pro...
Looks like CNN settled.
Daily Wire - Covington Catholic Settlement CNN
Looks like CNN settled.
Daily Wire - Covington Catholic Settlement CNN
RE: Covington Catholic Collegiate Boys DC stand off with Native & Black Hebrew Pro...
There is good and bad here. The bad is easy to discern: It's not a clear-cut victory.
But the good is that for CNN to settle, their team(s) of lawyers had to realize they had a big chance of ultimately losing in court. Which means there was deliberate malice involved. For details, see the classic 1980 movie "Absence of Malice," which is a good look into journalistic practices.
What it comes down to is this. Libel cannot be committed against public figures because if it could, then reporters wouldn't be able to criticize politicians or review movies without threats of lawsuits.
But libel can be committed against ordinary citizens who didn't ask for a spotlight. The current "cancel culture" generation doesn't seem to know this. When reporters do this, that's called "malice" because it means their intent was bad. A settlement means their lawyers realized this (since they evidently didn't).
It was one thing when such smears occurred on social media. But reporters seem to have forgotten that regular media is not social media. And if you tarnish the reputations of ordinary citizens, you can be held accountable by your company.
So, in that sense, this settlement is good. No one likes to lose money and having to settle will force all media sites to vet their stories better. Since about 2014, reporters have been writing these kinds of stories as if they're part of a Twitter pile-on instead of meant for actual news Web sites. This might put an end to that.
I just hope CNN fired the reporter who broke this non-story and cost them millions of dollars in lawyer's fees and settlement payments.
Buck Wild said:
There is good and bad here. The bad is easy to discern: It's not a clear-cut victory.
But the good is that for CNN to settle, their team(s) of lawyers had to realize they had a big chance of ultimately losing in court. Which means there was deliberate malice involved. For details, see the classic 1980 movie "Absence of Malice," which is a good look into journalistic practices.
What it comes down to is this. Libel cannot be committed against public figures because if it could, then reporters wouldn't be able to criticize politicians or review movies without threats of lawsuits.
But libel can be committed against ordinary citizens who didn't ask for a spotlight. The current "cancel culture" generation doesn't seem to know this. When reporters do this, that's called "malice" because it means their intent was bad. A settlement means their lawyers realized this (since they evidently didn't).
It was one thing when such smears occurred on social media. But reporters seem to have forgotten that regular media is not social media. And if you tarnish the reputations of ordinary citizens, you can be held accountable by your company.
So, in that sense, this settlement is good. No one likes to lose money and having to settle will force all media sites to vet their stories better. Since about 2014, reporters have been writing these kinds of stories as if they're part of a Twitter pile-on instead of meant for actual news Web sites. This might put an end to that.
I just hope CNN fired the reporter who broke this non-story and cost them millions of dollars in lawyer's fees and settlement payments.
RE: Covington Catholic Collegiate Boys DC stand off with Native & Black Hebrew Pro...
Since news is no longer first and foremost about accurately reporting facts but rather about being the first to feed the outrage monster the most then I doubt this will be anything more than an item in the calculated loss ratio on their balance sheet.
Journalistic integrity is an obsolete luxury item
Days of Broken Arrows said:
Since news is no longer first and foremost about accurately reporting facts but rather about being the first to feed the outrage monster the most then I doubt this will be anything more than an item in the calculated loss ratio on their balance sheet.
Journalistic integrity is an obsolete luxury item
It's good for the young man but it's a shame you yanks can't know how much he got nor get a precedent ruling that would make future cases easier to win.
I think if victims and lawyers realised they could get an easy payday out of these bastards then either the abuse would stop or at very least they would have to start paying through the nose for their cultural warfare.
I think if victims and lawyers realised they could get an easy payday out of these bastards then either the abuse would stop or at very least they would have to start paying through the nose for their cultural warfare.
RE: Covington Catholic Collegiate Boys DC stand off with Native & Black Hebrew Pro...
They're going hard now !
More lawsuits to come.
They're going hard now !
More lawsuits to come.
Good - let them pay!
"Putting leftist media to sleep since 2019"
Nicholas, you can thank me later --- and bring me a dream. Keep up the good work with Mr. Lin Wood. Well done.
Nicholas, you can thank me later --- and bring me a dream. Keep up the good work with Mr. Lin Wood. Well done.
Good for him! Glad to hear justice is on his side.
What do you think he actually got?