Social Covington HS Kids Thread v2: CNN faces 250M lawsuit

[PHATV]

CNN faces $250M suit for 'vicious' attacks on Covington student...

CNN is likely to be hit with a massive lawsuit worth more than $250 million over alleged “vicious” and “direct attacks” on Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann, his lawyer has told Fox News.

Lawyer L. Lin Wood discussed his decision to sue CNN for its reporting and coverage of his client during an interview that will air on Fox News Channel’s “Life, Liberty & Levin” on Sunday at 10 p.m. ET

Previous thread (v1)

 

[Liquid Smoke]

CNN faces $250M suit for 'vicious' attacks on Covington student...

Good fuck 'em.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Good fuck 'em.

Good....exactly my position on this as well

 

[Happy Man]

Sue em all!

Imagine if he wins. How media will be forced to change.

 

[King in the North]

Sue em all!

Imagine if he wins. How media will be forced to change.

EDIT: I posted the wrong standard. Disregard the rest of my post. I’m a goof.


He obviously won’t win though.

The standard he would have to meet is publishing something knowingly false and that’s virtually impossible to meet.

Wet dream for media-hating Trumpers but not going to happen.

 

[llperez22]

He obviously won’t win though.

The standard he would have to meet is publishing something knowingly false and that’s virtually impossible to meet.

Wet dream for media-hating Trumpers but not going to happen.

not saying youre wrong but do you have a source on the standard being "knowingly false"? I heard a legal expert on some site the other day say that while the standard for public figures is high such as knowingly false, the standard is lower for private citizens who are under age minors such as sandmann. They would just need to prove a certain degree of gross journalistic negligence that resulted in hardship and character defamation.

 

[cincymma79]

not saying youre wrong but do you have a source on the standard being "knowingly false"? I heard a legal expert on some site the other day say that while the standard for public figures is high such as knowingly false, the standard is lower for private citizens who are under age minors such as sandmann. They would just need to prove a certain degree of gross journalistic negligence that resulted in hardship and character defamation.

Not watching the whole video before slicing clips up to play would seem like gross negligence at best

 

[Sir Galahad]

Good. This story deserves as much attention as it can get. That fraud Phillips flat out lied and the video evidence proves it. What he did was cause a nation to look at ways to strike out at innocent children over nothing. The most disgusting social event I have witnessed in my life.

 

[King in the North]

not saying youre wrong but do you have a source on the standard being "knowingly false"? I heard a legal expert on some site the other day say that while the standard for public figures is high such as knowingly false, the standard is lower for private citizens who are under age minors such as sandmann. They would just need to prove a certain degree of gross journalistic negligence that resulted in hardship and character defamation.

No, that’s actually a decent summarization. First Amendment issues aren’t really my area of expertise, you’ll have to forgive me.

You’re correct that The NY Times v Sullivan (actual malice) only applies to public officials. The standard is closer to gross negligence when it comes to private citizens. For what it’s worth, I don’t think they can meet that standard either.

The only thing I would say is I know the lowers courts have expanded “public officials” greatly to include many more people that would seem to be more like private citizens. Not sure if the kid being a minor changes anything. We would need an attorney who deals specifically in this subject to give us an answer I trust.

I definitely misspoke and you’ve got good information.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

The standard he would have to meet is publishing something knowingly false and that’s virtually impossible to meet.

Watch the videos that they posted stills from and post this again. Dumbass.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Shut up, dipshit. Unlike you weirdos I’m not obsessed with taking any victory I can get.

See the revised post. You’re not worth the time as you’re a confirmed retard.

Keep posting here weirdo! You'll show us how much you don't care...

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Like I said, you’re a confirmed retard and not worth the time.

You sound upset I'll give you a little time to cool off.

 

[King in the North]

You sound upset I'll give you a little time to cool off.

Calling someone upset is the go-to move for every dumbass on here when they don’t have anything of substance to post. So I’m not surprised.

Sorry you felt the need to chime in on a subject that is way over your head. Keep watching your YouTube videos, bozo.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Calling someone upset is the go-to move for every dumbass on here when they don’t have anything of substance to post. So I’m not surprised.

Sorry you felt the need to chime in on a subject that is way over your head. Keep watching your YouTube videos, bozo.

The incident in question was on video. Not watching it is gross negligence.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Do you have anything to back that up? Do you know what gross negligence is as a legal standard? Is there any case law you can point out for us? Similar situations? I don’t even know if you’re wrong.

I don't know the legal definition of gross negligence, but here's what we do know:

1. They reported the story.
2. Prominent people on twitter (e.g. Kathy Griffin) began calling for them to be doxxed and physically assaulted.
3. Video evidence came out directly contradicting the original reports.
4. ...crickets...
5. The school had to be shut down because of death threats.
6. After days or weeks, they news organizations finally reported a retraction. And some of the most half assed apologies ever.

I'm no lawyer, but I say MAKE THEM PAY.

 

[King in the North]

I don't know the legal definition of gross negligence, but here's what we do know:

1. They reported the story.
2. Prominent people on twitter (e.g. Kathy Griffin) began calling for them to be doxxed and physically assaulted.
3. Video evidence came out directly contradicting the original reports.
4. ...crickets...
5. The school had to be shut down because of death threats.
6. After days or weeks, they news organizations finally reported a retraction. And some of the most half assed apologies ever.

I'm no lawyer, but I say MAKE THEM PAY.

Yeah I don’t think it’s frivolous. I thought it was, now I don’t. That doesn’t mean he would win, should this actually go to trial (it won’t).

What’s the update on this? If a judge says this is moving forward after the defense tries to get it dismissed, then they are going to settle up and this kid will get paid.


I’m not going to be upset if they do pay the kid. Out of principle I always cheer for the “MAKE THEM PAY” result. Especially when we’re going after deep pockets.

 

[MicroBrew]

Sue em all!

Imagine if he wins. How media will be forced to change.

He won't win. They are protected by the 1st amend. This case looks like the media getting it wrong , unintentionally. There is nothing new in media getting facts wrong then issuing corrections. Deliberate deception or lies is a different matter, which is why Daily Mail got sued and lost.

All media? Cause Fox and every minor right leaning media will be heavily affected too.

 

[Happy Man]

He won't win. They are protected by the 1st amend.

All media? Cause Fox and every minor right leaning media will be heavily affected too.

If they are guilty of the same stuff, then let them pay as well.

These kids were not public figures, and if that extended video didn’t come out, their entire lives were over. Bc the media tried to destroy their lives.

The media HAS to pay for shit like that. It has to. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech

 

[MicroBrew]

If they are guilty of the same stuff, then let them pay as well.

These kids were not public figures, and if that extended video didn’t come out, their entire lives were over. Bc the media tried to destroy their lives.

The media HAS to pay for shit like that. It has to. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech

Why would being a public figure matter?

I didn't see Breitbart and O'Keefe being sued into bankruptcy for deliberate deception and propagation of the deception.

 

[abiG]

He won't win. They are protected by the 1st amend. This case looks like the media getting it wrong , unintentionally. There is nothing new in media getting facts wrong then issuing corrections. Deliberate deception or lies is a different matter, which is why Daily Mail got sued and lost.

All media? Cause Fox and every minor right leaning media will be heavily affected too.

You are still going with "the actually that fucking stupid" defense?

Figures.