After Suing CNN, Sandmann’s legal team now targeting Bill Maher, Kathy Griffin, HBO, NBC and AP

[Rustic]

No shit, this is great news! 'Bout time somebody held the media accountable for their slander and character assassination. And I agree 100% about that dickhead Bill Maher. He's the most obnoxious prick in Hollywood.

Got an example of this here "slander"? (Actually in media it would be libel but still, same question)

They lied about the incident, asshole. Tried to say Sandman was harassing the drunken Indian when it was the other way around...asshole.

Okay. *SHOW ME* where "they" said that.

I mean this is a six-word sentence. Shouldn't take two months to figure out.

I don't have to show you shit. You're nobody. If your memory is that bad, try youtube or google to get your proof, although we all know that's not what you're looking for.

Hey, I put the open question out there TWO MONTHS ago. Literally nobody has ever presented any evidence.

Literally not once. None. Zero.

It's your claim, ergo your burden of proof, not mine. BRING that, and we'll have a starting point. Be the first. Until then it's a lot of echobabblicious mythological bullshit.

Lol
They will settle out of court, They obviously attacked that minor for no reason.
That fucked up Indian activist approached that kid not the other way around the video is proof, and even that is fucking up Indian activist said he put himself in the situation several times on interviews.
And on top of that he’s just a paid protester a total fraud that’s not even his real name I lying piece of fucking shit the motherfucker should be scalped... The main stream media ran with the politically correct story that they made up. You fell for a fucking fraud you fucking moron.

 

[hadit]

The kids life was almost ruined. Over nothing.

Why is the right raising their kids to be such fragile little sissy cupcakes?

Why not raise them to take responsibility for what they say and do.

Never mind. The parents don't do that so how can they teach it to their kids.

Thing is, the day will come when mommy and daddy won't be able to protect them an they'll have not choice but to face the consequences of their words and actions.

Take responsibility? Seems the press and Nathan need to do that, aren’t they already adults?

The kid stood nose-to-nose trolling with a smirk. No big deal, kids do that. Just MAN UP to it and quit hiding behind a prepared PR script. That's all there is to it.

The adult approached the minor. That's not the kid's fault. The adult got in the minor's face, beating a drum and chanting. That's also not the kid's fault. The minor did not speak to the adult. The minor did not attempt to physically remove the adult from his personal space. He smiled.

For all that, you insist he's somehow responsible for the incident. Dumb.

Once AGAIN I said nothing about who's "responsible for the incident". I did note who's not responsible when some wag tried the old sagging deflection of "b-but but the racist black guys over there" which had zero to do with the Smirk. That's a deflection intended to shift the spotlight off the Smirk -- and that's what I do, call fouls on bad logic.

The Smirk Boy is responsible for the Smirk. That's it, end of story.

Yeah, he's responsible for the expression on his face. Big whoop-de-flippin-doo. You're struggling with perhaps the least significant part of the story. You might as well complain that Obama wore Mom jeans while crafting obamadon'tcare.

Come to think of it, however, since the expression wouldn't have been on the kid's face and you wouldn't have become aware of it and your delicate sensibilities gotten so permanently damaged by its existence had the adult not invaded his personal space and attempted to create an incident, I posit that the adult is actually responsible for the expression.

 

[BlindBoo]

Then Trump is in deep shit if butthurt little Nicky wins

Cite examples.

Everybody he’s ever slandered on twitter, in speeaches, etc. For example, slandering Hillary by spending years calling her a criminal and murderer

She's a public figure, dumbass. Sandman is not.

He became a public figure after the first tweeter post didn't he? Whoever posted that original tweet was also the one who posted the false narrative based on an incomplete video clip of the incident. If posting and/or publishing a false narrative based on a partial quote or partial video clip is liable or slander, then Faux News, GOP, the Anti-Choice Crowd, will all have a huge problem on their hands. Suing media outlets for reporting on that viral video posted on Tweeter? Or a comedian who referenced it in a monologue? If the lawyers who filed the suits had to pay the defense legal fees if they lose the case, I bet there would be many fewer suits like these.

No, he didn't.

Seems to be an important matter of opinion.

Sandmann is not considered a public figure, but he could be deemed a limited-purpose public figure who thrust himself into the controversy to influence the resolution of the issue. However, he could also be considered an involuntary public figure who was thrust into the spotlight against his will.

LoMonte agrees that the case hinges on this determination. “It’s always a perilous gamble to predict whether someone will or will not be deemed a public figure when they had no prior public profile, but if I had to bet, I would say that once your behavior at a public event like a protest becomes a matter of intense national public attention and scrutiny, you probably are a limited-purpose public figure for the purposes of covering that behavior,” he said.

Frank LoMonte Comments on Nicholas Sandmann Lawsuit Against The Washington Post – Brechner Center for Freedom of Information

 

[Pogo]

Why is the right raising their kids to be such fragile little sissy cupcakes?

Why not raise them to take responsibility for what they say and do.

Never mind. The parents don't do that so how can they teach it to their kids.

Thing is, the day will come when mommy and daddy won't be able to protect them an they'll have not choice but to face the consequences of their words and actions.

Take responsibility? Seems the press and Nathan need to do that, aren’t they already adults?

The kid stood nose-to-nose trolling with a smirk. No big deal, kids do that. Just MAN UP to it and quit hiding behind a prepared PR script. That's all there is to it.

The adult approached the minor. That's not the kid's fault. The adult got in the minor's face, beating a drum and chanting. That's also not the kid's fault. The minor did not speak to the adult. The minor did not attempt to physically remove the adult from his personal space. He smiled.

For all that, you insist he's somehow responsible for the incident. Dumb.

Once AGAIN I said nothing about who's "responsible for the incident". I did note who's not responsible when some wag tried the old sagging deflection of "b-but but the racist black guys over there" which had zero to do with the Smirk. That's a deflection intended to shift the spotlight off the Smirk -- and that's what I do, call fouls on bad logic.

The Smirk Boy is responsible for the Smirk. That's it, end of story.

Yeah, he's responsible for the expression on his face. Big whoop-de-flippin-doo.

Exactly. That's all there is to it.

You're struggling with perhaps the least significant part of the story.

It's the ONLY part of the story and it's not a "struggle" at all. It couldn't be simpler. As you and I just agreed.

I posit that the adult is actually responsible for the expression.

I'm sure in the world of the Fascisti the idea of controlling other people's actions is like porn, but the world just doesn't work that way. "Da debbil made me do it" is an old comedy line, and there's a reason it's comedy --- because it's absurd.

Your own face is under your own control -------- no one else's. That's a decision we all make a million times a day. This one doesn't happen to have worked out. Simple as that.

 

[Pogo]

Cite examples.

Everybody he’s ever slandered on twitter, in speeaches, etc. For example, slandering Hillary by spending years calling her a criminal and murderer

She's a public figure, dumbass. Sandman is not.

He became a public figure after the first tweeter post didn't he? Whoever posted that original tweet was also the one who posted the false narrative based on an incomplete video clip of the incident. If posting and/or publishing a false narrative based on a partial quote or partial video clip is liable or slander, then Faux News, GOP, the Anti-Choice Crowd, will all have a huge problem on their hands. Suing media outlets for reporting on that viral video posted on Tweeter? Or a comedian who referenced it in a monologue? If the lawyers who filed the suits had to pay the defense legal fees if they lose the case, I bet there would be many fewer suits like these.

No, he didn't.

Seems to be an important matter of opinion.

Sandmann is not considered a public figure, but he could be deemed a limited-purpose public figure who thrust himself into the controversy to influence the resolution of the issue. However, he could also be considered an involuntary public figure who was thrust into the spotlight against his will.

LoMonte agrees that the case hinges on this determination. “It’s always a perilous gamble to predict whether someone will or will not be deemed a public figure when they had no prior public profile, but if I had to bet, I would say that once your behavior at a public event like a protest becomes a matter of intense national public attention and scrutiny, you probably are a limited-purpose public figure for the purposes of covering that behavior,” he said.

Frank LoMonte Comments on Nicholas Sandmann Lawsuit Against The Washington Post – Brechner Center for Freedom of Information

Parsing whether the kid is a "public figure" is immaterial. A libel case must first show that libel exists, whether it's a public figure or not. Something that was printed. Without such evidence, nothing can proceed.

 

[Meathead]

Sandmann is not considered a public figure, but he could be deemed a limited-purpose public figure who thrust himself into the controversy to influence the resolution of the issue.

Sandmann "thurst himself"?! WTF? Even the 9th Circuit wouldn't come up with that.

 

[Papageorgio]

Snowflakery at its ugliest.

There can be no criticism of an Authoritarian. Free speech be thou a damned thing in Trumpland!

The kids life was almost ruined. Over nothing.

Why is the right raising their kids to be such fragile little sissy cupcakes?

Why not raise them to take responsibility for what they say and do.

Never mind. The parents don't do that so how can they teach it to their kids.

Thing is, the day will come when mommy and daddy won't be able to protect them an they'll have not choice but to face the consequences of their words and actions.

Take responsibility? Seems the press and Nathan need to do that, aren’t they already adults?

The kid stood nose-to-nose trolling with a smirk. No big deal, kids do that. Just MAN UP to it and quit hiding behind a prepared PR script. That's all there is to it.

We will see how it ends in court, if he makes $1 or $250,000,000, its not up to me, I'll let the system work it out, that is their job not mine.

 

[BlackFlag]

Nick Sandmann is a crisis actor

 

[hadit]

Take responsibility? Seems the press and Nathan need to do that, aren’t they already adults?

The kid stood nose-to-nose trolling with a smirk. No big deal, kids do that. Just MAN UP to it and quit hiding behind a prepared PR script. That's all there is to it.

The adult approached the minor. That's not the kid's fault. The adult got in the minor's face, beating a drum and chanting. That's also not the kid's fault. The minor did not speak to the adult. The minor did not attempt to physically remove the adult from his personal space. He smiled.

For all that, you insist he's somehow responsible for the incident. Dumb.

Once AGAIN I said nothing about who's "responsible for the incident". I did note who's not responsible when some wag tried the old sagging deflection of "b-but but the racist black guys over there" which had zero to do with the Smirk. That's a deflection intended to shift the spotlight off the Smirk -- and that's what I do, call fouls on bad logic.

The Smirk Boy is responsible for the Smirk. That's it, end of story.

Yeah, he's responsible for the expression on his face. Big whoop-de-flippin-doo.

Exactly. That's all there is to it.

You're struggling with perhaps the least significant part of the story.

It's the ONLY part of the story and it's not a "struggle" at all. It couldn't be simpler. As you and I just agreed.

I posit that the adult is actually responsible for the expression.

I'm sure in the world of the Fascisti the idea of controlling other people's actions is like porn, but the world just doesn't work that way. "Da debbil made me do it" is an old comedy line, and there's a reason it's comedy --- because it's absurd.

Your own face is under your own control -------- no one else's. That's a decision we all make a million times a day. This one doesn't happen to have worked out. Simple as that.

Except the kid did nothing wrong, the adult did, and for doing nothing wrong, the kid was blasted by a media eager to report something negative about someone wearing a pro-Trump hat.

Since we're agreeing everyone is responsible for their own actions, the adult is clearly responsible for approaching the minor, invading his personal space, and in general making a public nuisance of himself, and is thus responsible for what happened. The minor would have been completely justified to have knocked the drum out of the adult's hands, removing it from his personal space. Now, I know you REALLY don't want to talk about the actions of the adult because you studiously ignore what he did so you can continue to claim the minor did something wrong, which he clearly did not. You might as well complain about a fart in a hurricane.

 

[Papageorgio]

Nick Sandmann is a crisis actor

Sandman is a Democrat?

 

[BlackFlag]

Nick Sandmann is a crisis actor

Sandman is a Democrat?

Don't edge in on my conspiracy

 

[BlindBoo]

Everybody he’s ever slandered on twitter, in speeaches, etc. For example, slandering Hillary by spending years calling her a criminal and murderer

She's a public figure, dumbass. Sandman is not.

He became a public figure after the first tweeter post didn't he? Whoever posted that original tweet was also the one who posted the false narrative based on an incomplete video clip of the incident. If posting and/or publishing a false narrative based on a partial quote or partial video clip is liable or slander, then Faux News, GOP, the Anti-Choice Crowd, will all have a huge problem on their hands. Suing media outlets for reporting on that viral video posted on Tweeter? Or a comedian who referenced it in a monologue? If the lawyers who filed the suits had to pay the defense legal fees if they lose the case, I bet there would be many fewer suits like these.

No, he didn't.

Seems to be an important matter of opinion.

Sandmann is not considered a public figure, but he could be deemed a limited-purpose public figure who thrust himself into the controversy to influence the resolution of the issue. However, he could also be considered an involuntary public figure who was thrust into the spotlight against his will.

LoMonte agrees that the case hinges on this determination. “It’s always a perilous gamble to predict whether someone will or will not be deemed a public figure when they had no prior public profile, but if I had to bet, I would say that once your behavior at a public event like a protest becomes a matter of intense national public attention and scrutiny, you probably are a limited-purpose public figure for the purposes of covering that behavior,” he said.

Frank LoMonte Comments on Nicholas Sandmann Lawsuit Against The Washington Post – Brechner Center for Freedom of Information

Parsing whether the kid is a "public figure" is immaterial. A libel case must first show that libel exists, whether it's a public figure or not. Something that was printed. Without such evidence, nothing can proceed.

I agree it must be based on what was printed exactly. If nothing is deemed libel then it should be thrown out pretty quick.

 

[grainbely]

Go get em, Nick! Especially that hooked nose Bill Maher.

After Suing CNN, Sandmann's Legal Team Now Targeting Bill Maher, Kathy Griffin, HBO, NBC and AP

He's just a greedy pos. You'd all hate that if it were reversed. Imo, award him a few mil and send him on his way. No reason for anything more when the average worker doesnt even make that in a lifetime and this kid as a maga doper is definitely falling into that category.

 

[westwall]

Cite examples.

Everybody he’s ever slandered on twitter, in speeaches, etc. For example, slandering Hillary by spending years calling her a criminal and murderer

She's a public figure, dumbass. Sandman is not.

He became a public figure after the first tweeter post didn't he? Whoever posted that original tweet was also the one who posted the false narrative based on an incomplete video clip of the incident. If posting and/or publishing a false narrative based on a partial quote or partial video clip is liable or slander, then Faux News, GOP, the Anti-Choice Crowd, will all have a huge problem on their hands. Suing media outlets for reporting on that viral video posted on Tweeter? Or a comedian who referenced it in a monologue? If the lawyers who filed the suits had to pay the defense legal fees if they lose the case, I bet there would be many fewer suits like these.

No, he didn't.

Seems to be an important matter of opinion.

Sandmann is not considered a public figure, but he could be deemed a limited-purpose public figure who thrust himself into the controversy to influence the resolution of the issue. However, he could also be considered an involuntary public figure who was thrust into the spotlight against his will.

LoMonte agrees that the case hinges on this determination. “It’s always a perilous gamble to predict whether someone will or will not be deemed a public figure when they had no prior public profile, but if I had to bet, I would say that once your behavior at a public event like a protest becomes a matter of intense national public attention and scrutiny, you probably are a limited-purpose public figure for the purposes of covering that behavior,” he said.

Frank LoMonte Comments on Nicholas Sandmann Lawsuit Against The Washington Post – Brechner Center for Freedom of Information

Only he didn't thrust himself into the limelight. The MEDIA did. That is what is known as a FACT. You need to learn that facts trump your uninformed opinion.

 

[westwall]

Everybody he’s ever slandered on twitter, in speeaches, etc. For example, slandering Hillary by spending years calling her a criminal and murderer

She's a public figure, dumbass. Sandman is not.

He became a public figure after the first tweeter post didn't he? Whoever posted that original tweet was also the one who posted the false narrative based on an incomplete video clip of the incident. If posting and/or publishing a false narrative based on a partial quote or partial video clip is liable or slander, then Faux News, GOP, the Anti-Choice Crowd, will all have a huge problem on their hands. Suing media outlets for reporting on that viral video posted on Tweeter? Or a comedian who referenced it in a monologue? If the lawyers who filed the suits had to pay the defense legal fees if they lose the case, I bet there would be many fewer suits like these.

No, he didn't.

Seems to be an important matter of opinion.

Sandmann is not considered a public figure, but he could be deemed a limited-purpose public figure who thrust himself into the controversy to influence the resolution of the issue. However, he could also be considered an involuntary public figure who was thrust into the spotlight against his will.

LoMonte agrees that the case hinges on this determination. “It’s always a perilous gamble to predict whether someone will or will not be deemed a public figure when they had no prior public profile, but if I had to bet, I would say that once your behavior at a public event like a protest becomes a matter of intense national public attention and scrutiny, you probably are a limited-purpose public figure for the purposes of covering that behavior,” he said.

Frank LoMonte Comments on Nicholas Sandmann Lawsuit Against The Washington Post – Brechner Center for Freedom of Information

Parsing whether the kid is a "public figure" is immaterial. A libel case must first show that libel exists, whether it's a public figure or not. Something that was printed. Without such evidence, nothing can proceed.

So sad for you that the media printed everything they were saying. My gosh but you are a bumbling silly person sometimes.

 

[BlindBoo]

Everybody he’s ever slandered on twitter, in speeaches, etc. For example, slandering Hillary by spending years calling her a criminal and murderer

She's a public figure, dumbass. Sandman is not.

He became a public figure after the first tweeter post didn't he? Whoever posted that original tweet was also the one who posted the false narrative based on an incomplete video clip of the incident. If posting and/or publishing a false narrative based on a partial quote or partial video clip is liable or slander, then Faux News, GOP, the Anti-Choice Crowd, will all have a huge problem on their hands. Suing media outlets for reporting on that viral video posted on Tweeter? Or a comedian who referenced it in a monologue? If the lawyers who filed the suits had to pay the defense legal fees if they lose the case, I bet there would be many fewer suits like these.

No, he didn't.

Seems to be an important matter of opinion.

Sandmann is not considered a public figure, but he could be deemed a limited-purpose public figure who thrust himself into the controversy to influence the resolution of the issue. However, he could also be considered an involuntary public figure who was thrust into the spotlight against his will.

LoMonte agrees that the case hinges on this determination. “It’s always a perilous gamble to predict whether someone will or will not be deemed a public figure when they had no prior public profile, but if I had to bet, I would say that once your behavior at a public event like a protest becomes a matter of intense national public attention and scrutiny, you probably are a limited-purpose public figure for the purposes of covering that behavior,” he said.

Frank LoMonte Comments on Nicholas Sandmann Lawsuit Against The Washington Post – Brechner Center for Freedom of Information

Only he didn't thrust himself into the limelight. The MEDIA did. That is what is known as a FACT. You need to learn that facts trump your uninformed opinion.

Who ever posted the edited clip and presented the false narrative about that clip would be the one who thrust him into the limelight and imo the one most libel. Can a publication be held libel for reporting on a viral tweet, or reporting on what some dumb motherfuckers write on twitter? Now the dumbfucks who took to twitter to lamb blast the boy did and so based on the false story presented along with the edited clip, are nor more guilty than Congress was when it believed and reacted to the Bratphart published, highly edited videos from project Veritas.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

She's a public figure, dumbass. Sandman is not.

He became a public figure after the first tweeter post didn't he? Whoever posted that original tweet was also the one who posted the false narrative based on an incomplete video clip of the incident. If posting and/or publishing a false narrative based on a partial quote or partial video clip is liable or slander, then Faux News, GOP, the Anti-Choice Crowd, will all have a huge problem on their hands. Suing media outlets for reporting on that viral video posted on Tweeter? Or a comedian who referenced it in a monologue? If the lawyers who filed the suits had to pay the defense legal fees if they lose the case, I bet there would be many fewer suits like these.

No, he didn't.

Seems to be an important matter of opinion.

Sandmann is not considered a public figure, but he could be deemed a limited-purpose public figure who thrust himself into the controversy to influence the resolution of the issue. However, he could also be considered an involuntary public figure who was thrust into the spotlight against his will.

LoMonte agrees that the case hinges on this determination. “It’s always a perilous gamble to predict whether someone will or will not be deemed a public figure when they had no prior public profile, but if I had to bet, I would say that once your behavior at a public event like a protest becomes a matter of intense national public attention and scrutiny, you probably are a limited-purpose public figure for the purposes of covering that behavior,” he said.

Frank LoMonte Comments on Nicholas Sandmann Lawsuit Against The Washington Post – Brechner Center for Freedom of Information

Only he didn't thrust himself into the limelight. The MEDIA did. That is what is known as a FACT. You need to learn that facts trump your uninformed opinion.

Who ever posted the edited clip and presented the false narrative about that clip would be the one who thrust him into the limelight and imo the one most libel. Can a publication be held libel for reporting on a viral tweet, or reporting on what some dumb motherfuckers write on twitter? Now the dumbfucks who took to twitter to lamb blast the boy did and so based on the false story presented along with the edited clip, are nor more guilty than Congress was when it believed and reacted to the Bratphart published, highly edited videos from project Veritas.

No one forced them to print or broadcast anything. They did so by free choice and are consequently responsible for the consequences of their actions.

If they fail to verify the accuracy of their reporting, they are responsible for the consequences. The only defense would be "it is reported by..." for an initial release. After that, they become responsible for the accuracy of subsequent content.

 

[Papageorgio]

She's a public figure, dumbass. Sandman is not.

He became a public figure after the first tweeter post didn't he? Whoever posted that original tweet was also the one who posted the false narrative based on an incomplete video clip of the incident. If posting and/or publishing a false narrative based on a partial quote or partial video clip is liable or slander, then Faux News, GOP, the Anti-Choice Crowd, will all have a huge problem on their hands. Suing media outlets for reporting on that viral video posted on Tweeter? Or a comedian who referenced it in a monologue? If the lawyers who filed the suits had to pay the defense legal fees if they lose the case, I bet there would be many fewer suits like these.

No, he didn't.

Seems to be an important matter of opinion.

Sandmann is not considered a public figure, but he could be deemed a limited-purpose public figure who thrust himself into the controversy to influence the resolution of the issue. However, he could also be considered an involuntary public figure who was thrust into the spotlight against his will.

LoMonte agrees that the case hinges on this determination. “It’s always a perilous gamble to predict whether someone will or will not be deemed a public figure when they had no prior public profile, but if I had to bet, I would say that once your behavior at a public event like a protest becomes a matter of intense national public attention and scrutiny, you probably are a limited-purpose public figure for the purposes of covering that behavior,” he said.

Frank LoMonte Comments on Nicholas Sandmann Lawsuit Against The Washington Post – Brechner Center for Freedom of Information

Parsing whether the kid is a "public figure" is immaterial. A libel case must first show that libel exists, whether it's a public figure or not. Something that was printed. Without such evidence, nothing can proceed.

I agree it must be based on what was printed exactly. If nothing is deemed libel then it should be thrown out pretty quick.

That's my thought, it is or it isn't and I am not an expert, however it seems everyone else is.

 

[Papageorgio]

Go get em, Nick! Especially that hooked nose Bill Maher.

After Suing CNN, Sandmann's Legal Team Now Targeting Bill Maher, Kathy Griffin, HBO, NBC and AP

He's just a greedy pos. You'd all hate that if it were reversed. Imo, award him a few mil and send him on his way. No reason for anything more when the average worker doesnt even make that in a lifetime and this kid as a maga doper is definitely falling into that category.

Is that because if it were reversed you'd be ecstatic?

 

[BlindBoo]

He became a public figure after the first tweeter post didn't he? Whoever posted that original tweet was also the one who posted the false narrative based on an incomplete video clip of the incident. If posting and/or publishing a false narrative based on a partial quote or partial video clip is liable or slander, then Faux News, GOP, the Anti-Choice Crowd, will all have a huge problem on their hands. Suing media outlets for reporting on that viral video posted on Tweeter? Or a comedian who referenced it in a monologue? If the lawyers who filed the suits had to pay the defense legal fees if they lose the case, I bet there would be many fewer suits like these.

No, he didn't.

Seems to be an important matter of opinion.

Sandmann is not considered a public figure, but he could be deemed a limited-purpose public figure who thrust himself into the controversy to influence the resolution of the issue. However, he could also be considered an involuntary public figure who was thrust into the spotlight against his will.

LoMonte agrees that the case hinges on this determination. “It’s always a perilous gamble to predict whether someone will or will not be deemed a public figure when they had no prior public profile, but if I had to bet, I would say that once your behavior at a public event like a protest becomes a matter of intense national public attention and scrutiny, you probably are a limited-purpose public figure for the purposes of covering that behavior,” he said.

Frank LoMonte Comments on Nicholas Sandmann Lawsuit Against The Washington Post – Brechner Center for Freedom of Information

Only he didn't thrust himself into the limelight. The MEDIA did. That is what is known as a FACT. You need to learn that facts trump your uninformed opinion.

Who ever posted the edited clip and presented the false narrative about that clip would be the one who thrust him into the limelight and imo the one most libel. Can a publication be held libel for reporting on a viral tweet, or reporting on what some dumb motherfuckers write on twitter? Now the dumbfucks who took to twitter to lamb blast the boy did and so based on the false story presented along with the edited clip, are nor more guilty than Congress was when it believed and reacted to the Bratphart published, highly edited videos from project Veritas.

No one forced them to print or broadcast anything. They did so by free choice and are consequently responsible for the consequences of their actions.

If they fail to verify the accuracy of their reporting, they are responsible for the consequences. The only defense would be "it is reported by..." for an initial release. After that, they become responsible for the accuracy of subsequent content.

So they had to check on twitter to see if there was a post and story that had gone viral before they report about the post and the story and what people were posting? Or are you saying they have an obligation to check the facts behind a post on twitter that was being hotly commented on by a bunch of savage social media moroonies?