Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
I really look forward to watching this attention & money seeking thug getting hoist on his own petard.
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.
It became "with malice aforethought" when they continued to distribute a narrative they knew - OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN - to be false.
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.
Sure.
So, what did they print or broadcast? And how come nobody can answer that, given two months to work on it?
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.
"It is reported by" is a true statement, as long as it was so reported. After that the subsequent content is the responsibility of whoever first reported it, the entity following the word "by".
This is frickin' third grade English.
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.
Wrong, that person or persons, presented a false narrative. The MEDIA ran with it instead of doing their own research. Then, when it was shown that the narrative was false, many in the media refused to recant and apologize. Thus, they are hoist on their own petard.
They will be settled out of court. The media companies won't risk this to a jury trial and establish case law precedent.
No they won’t be settled out of court. News outlets NEVER settle out of court. This is a civil case which you’re right, will never go to trial because the family will lose.
They have to prove that the slander was malicious and done with intent.
Each of these entities has the resources and the will to fight this on 1st Amendment grounds, and they’ll win.
All true, but at the same time I would appreciate it if you would say what they did was wrong, and damaging to our country.
Someone manufactured a story...actually worse, they took video that showed one thing, that they don't like, and carefully edited it to make the opposite appear true. And then the gleeful media bought that shit like chicken dinner on a Sunday and served right up without hesitation. And then they spent an entire day hashing it out 100 ways getting everyone to get their jib in. And then....oops. Damn...it's not true. But then what did they do? Did they retract the story and apologize and say we all screwed up?? Nope. They then continued to attack the kid for a "smirk" on his face.
Nevermind the crowd of black people yelling honky and whitey, and calling them "products of incest"...that's not important. Nevermind the star player in their story was a farce who lied about his military service and was the agressor...nope...he had a smirk on his face so he is still guilty.
That is what is wrong.
And that, I hop, you will condemn.
In what way were the children "harmed" in the story? This wouldn't even had BEEN a story that went on for weeks if the parents hadn't pushed, pushed, pushed it, and, let's be honest about what was said about these kids. Nothing really all that harmful. That they behaved badly, which they did, and that they shouldn't have done what they did, which Sandman admitted himself. He said he should have just walked away and he wished he had.
There goes the case right there.
Stop posting while drinking. The WaPo has already ADMITTED they lied.
AGAIN, same question sitting for the last two months.................................................................. Link?
No they won’t be settled out of court. News outlets NEVER settle out of court. This is a civil case which you’re right, will never go to trial because the family will lose.
They have to prove that the slander was malicious and done with intent.
Each of these entities has the resources and the will to fight this on 1st Amendment grounds, and they’ll win.
All true, but at the same time I would appreciate it if you would say what they did was wrong, and damaging to our country.
Someone manufactured a story...actually worse, they took video that showed one thing, that they don't like, and carefully edited it to make the opposite appear true. And then the gleeful media bought that shit like chicken dinner on a Sunday and served right up without hesitation. And then they spent an entire day hashing it out 100 ways getting everyone to get their jib in. And then....oops. Damn...it's not true. But then what did they do? Did they retract the story and apologize and say we all screwed up?? Nope. They then continued to attack the kid for a "smirk" on his face.
Nevermind the crowd of black people yelling honky and whitey, and calling them "products of incest"...that's not important. Nevermind the star player in their story was a farce who lied about his military service and was the agressor...nope...he had a smirk on his face so he is still guilty.
That is what is wrong.
And that, I hop, you will condemn.
In what way were the children "harmed" in the story? This wouldn't even had BEEN a story that went on for weeks if the parents hadn't pushed, pushed, pushed it, and, let's be honest about what was said about these kids. Nothing really all that harmful. That they behaved badly, which they did, and that they shouldn't have done what they did, which Sandman admitted himself. He said he should have just walked away and he wished he had.
There goes the case right there.
Stop posting while drinking. The WaPo has already ADMITTED they lied.
AGAIN, same question sitting for the last two months.................................................................. Link?
Your first grade education is glaringly obvious. The WaPo admitted they lied.
All true, but at the same time I would appreciate it if you would say what they did was wrong, and damaging to our country.
Someone manufactured a story...actually worse, they took video that showed one thing, that they don't like, and carefully edited it to make the opposite appear true. And then the gleeful media bought that shit like chicken dinner on a Sunday and served right up without hesitation. And then they spent an entire day hashing it out 100 ways getting everyone to get their jib in. And then....oops. Damn...it's not true. But then what did they do? Did they retract the story and apologize and say we all screwed up?? Nope. They then continued to attack the kid for a "smirk" on his face.
Nevermind the crowd of black people yelling honky and whitey, and calling them "products of incest"...that's not important. Nevermind the star player in their story was a farce who lied about his military service and was the agressor...nope...he had a smirk on his face so he is still guilty.
That is what is wrong.
And that, I hop, you will condemn.
In what way were the children "harmed" in the story? This wouldn't even had BEEN a story that went on for weeks if the parents hadn't pushed, pushed, pushed it, and, let's be honest about what was said about these kids. Nothing really all that harmful. That they behaved badly, which they did, and that they shouldn't have done what they did, which Sandman admitted himself. He said he should have just walked away and he wished he had.
There goes the case right there.
Stop posting while drinking. The WaPo has already ADMITTED they lied.
AGAIN, same question sitting for the last two months.................................................................. Link?
Your first grade education is glaringly obvious. The WaPo admitted they lied.
Yeah? Where?
See what I mean? Nothing. Zero. Bupkis. Null. The Void. Blank.... Empty.... Space.
In what way were the children "harmed" in the story? This wouldn't even had BEEN a story that went on for weeks if the parents hadn't pushed, pushed, pushed it, and, let's be honest about what was said about these kids. Nothing really all that harmful. That they behaved badly, which they did, and that they shouldn't have done what they did, which Sandman admitted himself. He said he should have just walked away and he wished he had.
There goes the case right there.
Stop posting while drinking. The WaPo has already ADMITTED they lied.
AGAIN, same question sitting for the last two months.................................................................. Link?
Your first grade education is glaringly obvious. The WaPo admitted they lied.
Yeah? Where?
See what I mean? Nothing. Zero. Bupkis. Null. The Void. Blank.... Empty.... Space.
Now crying because you're incapable of a simple search. Watching you cry because you got your ass handed to you again is fun. Again STOP DEFLECTING asshole. Show your proof on Sandman or STFU. YOU are nothing. YOU are the loser. I forget, you claim you wouldn't know AOC witout this board. Proving you neither watch newscasts or read any newspapers. You are dismissed.
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.
Wrong, that person or persons, presented a false narrative. The MEDIA ran with it instead of doing their own research. Then, when it was shown that the narrative was false, many in the media refused to recant and apologize. Thus, they are hoist on their own petard.
The person or persons who presented the false narrative did so with malicious intent and is/are libel, imo. Each Media, and each person I suppose, is responsible for exactly what they publish or say. Linking to a twitter post is not libel. Re-posting a previous post or what somebody else posts is not libel is it? Look at the lies Donnie re-posted or re-tweeted during the campaign. I don't believe there was malicious intent towards Nick in the reporting of tweet and the harsh, unjustified backlash he faced, but there could have been. I didn't read every reported story on it. I think the malicious intent was the motive of the person or persons behind the partial clip and false narrative. Who's the shitstain that published it? Investigate those fuckers and find out their motive.
You Nazi Tards are vile vulgar organisms…..
A kid with a smirk has made fools of all of you….
You suggest that the actions of this kid who did nothing
more than smirk at the racist Crowd and Chief Bully
somehow justifies violence against himself……
I say bring it on mother flucker……
You Nazi's need to be taught some manners…
I mentioned nothing about "violence" anywhere. I noted that there is no evidence anywhere of any 'libel' which is why this "suit" is a frivolous publicity stunt.
I put the challenge out there TWO MONTHS ago for anyone to cite any such evidence. Still Zero.
/suitYou Nazi Tards are vile vulgar organisms…..
A kid with a smirk has made fools of all of you….
You suggest that the actions of this kid who did nothing
more than smirk at the racist Crowd and Chief Bully
somehow justifies violence against himself……
I say bring it on mother flucker……
You Nazi's need to be taught some manners…
I mentioned nothing about "violence" anywhere. I noted that there is no evidence anywhere of any 'libel' which is why this "suit" is a frivolous publicity stunt.
I put the challenge out there TWO MONTHS ago for anyone to cite any such evidence. Still Zero.
/suit
You are full of shit…..
Here’s what you said in post # 34
Hey, he initiated a smirking contest, and that's inevitably going to
bring consequences. Gotta man up to that.
I didn't write it as a haiku but yes those are my words.
What about it? Smirk-Boi wants to (read: was coached to) call it a "smile" after the video got out, instead of owning up to what he did.
Which was to stand quietly, doing nothing while an adult got in his face. Said adult should have known better.
Said adult apparently did know better. He didn't take the bait, did he.
I mentioned nothing about "violence" anywhere. I noted that there is no evidence anywhere of any 'libel' which is why this "suit" is a frivolous publicity stunt.
I put the challenge out there TWO MONTHS ago for anyone to cite any such evidence. Still Zero.
/suitI mentioned nothing about "violence" anywhere. I noted that there is no evidence anywhere of any 'libel' which is why this "suit" is a frivolous publicity stunt.
I put the challenge out there TWO MONTHS ago for anyone to cite any such evidence. Still Zero.
/suit
You are full of shit…..
Here’s what you said in post # 34
Hey, he initiated a smirking contest, and that's inevitably going to
bring consequences. Gotta man up to that.
I didn't write it as a haiku but yes those are my words.
What about it? Smirk-Boi wants to (read: was coached to) call it a "smile" after the video got out, instead of owning up to what he did.
Which was to stand quietly, doing nothing while an adult got in his face. Said adult should have known better.
Said adult apparently did know better. He didn't take the bait, did he.
The Indian “Chief Meth Head” walked up to the KID and started
beating a flucking drum in his face....
You Tards make me want to puke with your lies and distortions.
You are full of shit…..
Here’s what you said in post # 34
Hey, he initiated a smirking contest, and that's inevitably going to
bring consequences. Gotta man up to that.
I didn't write it as a haiku but yes those are my words.
What about it? Smirk-Boi wants to (read: was coached to) call it a "smile" after the video got out, instead of owning up to what he did.
Which was to stand quietly, doing nothing while an adult got in his face. Said adult should have known better.
Said adult apparently did know better. He didn't take the bait, did he.
The kid didn't react to the adult's provocation and did nothing to provoke the adult, yet he was smeared by a media eager to jump on a fake bandwagon.
And yet ------- nobody can show any evidence of that "smear". Been waiting two months.
Strange, isn't it?
But yes, the old man didn't react to the kid's provocation, which is a good thing. Could have gotten ugly, and then we would have had a real story instead of a fake one.
You are full of shit…..
Here’s what you said in post # 34
Hey, he initiated a smirking contest, and that's inevitably going to
bring consequences. Gotta man up to that.
I didn't write it as a haiku but yes those are my words.
What about it? Smirk-Boi wants to (read: was coached to) call it a "smile" after the video got out, instead of owning up to what he did.
Which was to stand quietly, doing nothing while an adult got in his face. Said adult should have known better.
Said adult apparently did know better. He didn't take the bait, did he.
The Indian “Chief Meth Head” walked up to the KID and started
beating a flucking drum in his face....
You Tards make me want to puke with your lies and distortions.
Still waiting for that evidence. Month three.
Keep at it, you may catch Sean Spicer.
Here is the whole video you fucking retard, Phillips approach those kids not the other way around.You are full of shit…..
Here’s what you said in post # 34
Hey, he initiated a smirking contest, and that's inevitably going to
bring consequences. Gotta man up to that.
I didn't write it as a haiku but yes those are my words.
What about it? Smirk-Boi wants to (read: was coached to) call it a "smile" after the video got out, instead of owning up to what he did.
Which was to stand quietly, doing nothing while an adult got in his face. Said adult should have known better.
Said adult apparently did know better. He didn't take the bait, did he.
The Indian “Chief Meth Head” walked up to the KID and started
beating a flucking drum in his face....
You Tards make me want to puke with your lies and distortions.
Still waiting for that evidence. Month three.
Keep at it, you may catch Sean Spicer.
Any arguments? At all? I know we are not taxing the rich enough and we are falling apart. Opportunity is screwed, people did not just get lazy, super dupers.The GOP brainwash is very strong I know LOL.....You live on an imaginary planet of phony scandals and character assassination and misinformation, super duper... Law enforcement and all respected journalists think you are nuts. It is Rupert Murdoch ridiculous demagogues and Dupes like you, you're a disgrace. After 35 years of your giveaway to the rich, we have the worst upward Mobility, inequality, and benefits in the modern world.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
You are a Super Duper Strange Dumb Ass Super Duper.....
You don't know Shit you Super Duper Tard......
