Covington Kid Nick Sandmann Sues NBC/MSNBC for $275 Million

[MisterBeale]

Just saw an article on CNN condemning false news. They went to great length call claims of Pete Buttigieg's sexual assault allegations as far right fake news. But when a kid in a MAGA hat is alleged to be racist just for smiling? CNN didn't question any of that, though. What is good for the goose ,not so bueno for the gander.

"Alleged" by WHO?

And whoever it is, how would it be CNN's job to "question" opinions?

Nice passive voice there. "It is alleged". The cosmic "It".

By many, STILL.

The Media Still Sucks at Covering Racism - Covington Sandmann Media Reaction

Black Children Don’t Have Nick Sandmann’s Rights



. . . . It looks like he HAS a case, and he may win. It might largely probably turn on the political leaning of the jury and/or the judge.

How Covington’s Nick Sandmann Could Win His Defamation Claim Against Washington Post
How Covington's Nick Sandmann Could Win His Defamation Claim Against Washington Post

". . . Does Sandmann have any chance of winning? The short answer is “yes.” But it’s not a sure thing. He’s taking on a defendant with very deep pockets and absolutely no incentive to settle.

Sandmann has sent letters threatening legal action to more than 50 media organizations, celebrities, and politicians about their public statements condemning and attacking Sandmann. The Washington Post is the first media organization to be sued.

What’s Sandmann’s beef? He was accused of racist behavior toward Native American activist Nathan Phillips, based almost entirely on what his lawyers call a “deceptively edited” 59-second video clip. More complete videos of the incident show that the allegations were false.

Sandmann’s lawyers claim The Washington Post stories were “falsely accusing him of instigating the January 18 incident” and “conveyed that Nicholas engaged in acts of racism by ‘swarming’ Phillips, ‘blocking’ his exit away from the students, and otherwise engaging in racist misconduct.” The lawsuit says the newspaper “ignored basic journalistic standards” and engaged in “negligent, reckless, and malicious attacks” on Sandmann, leading a “mainstream and social media mob of bullies which attacked, vilified and threatened” him.

So what are the legal standards governing this type of defamation lawsuit? As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas explained in a recent opinion, the legal right to sue someone for damaging your reputation depends on whether you are a “public” or a “private” individual.

The Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan established two different standards for proving a defamation case. A “public” figure, such as a government official or celebrity, must prove that the false statement was made with “actual malice,” i.e., with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. A private individual has to prove only that the statement was false.

In a 1967 case, Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, the court expanded the definition of a “public” figure to include private individuals who “thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.”

Sandmann’s lawyers maintain, quite reasonably, that the 16-year-old is a private figure who has “lived his entire life outside of the public eye.” Further, he did not “engage the public’s attention to resolve any public issue that could impact the community at large” and “has not inserted himself into the forefront of any public issue.”

His lawyers say that his issuance of a statement and his appearance on NBC’s “Today” show were only to provide a “detailed and accurate factual description of his encounter with Phillips.” They were intended to refute the accusations made against him and were “reasonable, proportionate, and in direct response to the false accusation.” That did not turn him into a “public figure” under the legal standard governing defamation lawsuits according to his lawyers. . . ."

 

[MaryL]

When this boy wins, I hope he donates the funds to a worthy but slightly ironic cause. What would O. Henry say? The institute for the study of ignorance? The Gay Muslim Anti violence coalition?

 

[candycorn]

CNN is a tool. A tool for the groupthink hive mind that is liberalism. I once mused at work at a fellow member on the chain gang, WHY can't we have a news organization that just provides old unadulterated unvarnished FACTS without the spin? And WE can decide on the meaning? But , that went over like a lead balloon. Some people like being told what to think about current events, it's to them comforting somehow.

So you have no answer.

Neither does anyone else.

She’s waiting to be told what to think.

 

[Pogo]

Just saw an article on CNN condemning false news. They went to great length call claims of Pete Buttigieg's sexual assault allegations as far right fake news. But when a kid in a MAGA hat is alleged to be racist just for smiling? CNN didn't question any of that, though. What is good for the goose ,not so bueno for the gander.

"Alleged" by WHO?

And whoever it is, how would it be CNN's job to "question" opinions?

Nice passive voice there. "It is alleged". The cosmic "It".

By many, STILL.

The Media Still Sucks at Covering Racism - Covington Sandmann Media Reaction

Black Children Don’t Have Nick Sandmann’s Rights



. . . . It looks like he HAS a case, and he may win. It might largely probably turn on the political leaning of the jury and/or the judge.

How Covington’s Nick Sandmann Could Win His Defamation Claim Against Washington Post
How Covington's Nick Sandmann Could Win His Defamation Claim Against Washington Post

". . . Does Sandmann have any chance of winning? The short answer is “yes.” But it’s not a sure thing. He’s taking on a defendant with very deep pockets and absolutely no incentive to settle.

Sandmann has sent letters threatening legal action to more than 50 media organizations, celebrities, and politicians about their public statements condemning and attacking Sandmann. The Washington Post is the first media organization to be sued.

What’s Sandmann’s beef? He was accused of racist behavior toward Native American activist Nathan Phillips, based almost entirely on what his lawyers call a “deceptively edited” 59-second video clip. More complete videos of the incident show that the allegations were false.

Sandmann’s lawyers claim The Washington Post stories were “falsely accusing him of instigating the January 18 incident” and “conveyed that Nicholas engaged in acts of racism by ‘swarming’ Phillips, ‘blocking’ his exit away from the students, and otherwise engaging in racist misconduct.” The lawsuit says the newspaper “ignored basic journalistic standards” and engaged in “negligent, reckless, and malicious attacks” on Sandmann, leading a “mainstream and social media mob of bullies which attacked, vilified and threatened” him.

So what are the legal standards governing this type of defamation lawsuit? As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas explained in a recent opinion, the legal right to sue someone for damaging your reputation depends on whether you are a “public” or a “private” individual.

The Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan established two different standards for proving a defamation case. A “public” figure, such as a government official or celebrity, must prove that the false statement was made with “actual malice,” i.e., with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. A private individual has to prove only that the statement was false.

In a 1967 case, Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, the court expanded the definition of a “public” figure to include private individuals who “thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.”

Sandmann’s lawyers maintain, quite reasonably, that the 16-year-old is a private figure who has “lived his entire life outside of the public eye.” Further, he did not “engage the public’s attention to resolve any public issue that could impact the community at large” and “has not inserted himself into the forefront of any public issue.”

His lawyers say that his issuance of a statement and his appearance on NBC’s “Today” show were only to provide a “detailed and accurate factual description of his encounter with Phillips.” They were intended to refute the accusations made against him and were “reasonable, proportionate, and in direct response to the false accusation.” That did not turn him into a “public figure” under the legal standard governing defamation lawsuits according to his lawyers. . . ."

Yes I already know what the suit alleges. But it shows no evidence of that allegation.

And I doubt any news story anywhere used the phrase "engaging in racist misconduct". That would be a value judgment.

Take a look at the crucial legalistic weasel-word "conveyed". They're not saying the Post actually PRINTED that. They're saying that they (or someone) interpreted whatever they did print to MEAN that. If they had actually published that ---- they would say so. They stopped short. And that's telling.

We went over all this three months ago when it first came out.

 

[MaryL]

CNN is a tool. A tool for the groupthink hive mind that is liberalism. I once mused at work at a fellow member on the chain gang, WHY can't we have a news organization that just provides old unadulterated unvarnished FACTS without the spin? And WE can decide on the meaning? But , that went over like a lead balloon. Some people like being told what to think about current events, it's to them comforting somehow.

So you have no answer.

Neither does anyone else.

She’s waiting to be told what to think.

Wait, wait, wait shreeeech. Put the brakes on here. Your name isn't Ivan the terrible, AKA Russian Troll extraordinaire , perchance? Well, good effort, buko. Nice whatever that is you are doing...thing. Atta boy.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Maybe the asshat Phillips shouldn't have gotten in his face and maybe all the other Trump-hating asshats shouldn't have helped circulate the video.

People like YOU are responsible for this entire mess, not Sandmann. YOU helped make the video go viral and YOU helped spread the false accusation that they were saying "Build the wall". YOU helped spread the false accusation that he got in Phillips' way. YOU helped spread the false accusation that Sandmann blocked his path and YOU helped spread the false accusation that Sandmann is a racist.

Own it.

Just for the sake of argument let's stipulate that you're correct on this, that RealDave dropped everything he was doing to go make the video that day, etc. Just for argument. Let's say he "owns it".

That then means that RealDave, and not NBC, CNN, WaPo, whoever, is the defaming party here, hence the lawsuits are without merit.

Whatever you want.

I said "people 'LIKE' you...".

I wasn't laying the blame for all this at RealDave's feet, I'm not so stupid as to believe that. But people like him - those who continue to see Sandmann as the asshole in all this, in spite of the evidence to the contrary - are the ones who helped the video go viral on social media and are guilty of spreading the false narrative that he instigated the incident, that he was being a dick and that he's a racist.

Whether or not RealDave actually shared the video and helped stoke the anti-Sandmann rhetoric (which is exactly what he's doing in this thread btw), he obviously agrees with all the Sandmann critics and is why I said what I said.

Doesn't matter who --- it's a hypothetical.

Point being, if you're saying that "people 'LIKE' whoever" are responsible for whatever defamation is perceived, then you're also saying that mass media is not.

I'm not investing any energy in the whole defamation argument but if I was, why can't the media be guilty of it at the same time?

They surely could. Hence my challenge to present any evidence of it. Seeing none....

That's not what you said and that's not what I said. I didn't say anything about defamation. I said they were guilty of propagating the story that Sandmann was a smirking insolent racist. In other words, the very people out there and on this forum and in this discussion that are bitching about this kid supposedly trying to gain fame are the ones that made him famous in the first place.

As for what you said, you said that if I'm saying that "people 'LIKE' whoever" are responsible for whatever defamation is perceived, then I'm also saying that mass media is not. I fail to see your reasoning here.

RealDave or "people LIKE him" are not under any obligation to report the news. They/we can interpret however we like. But what's alleged here is that the news "reported" something defamatory. I'm still "waiting" to find out what it is.

Without combing through all the videos and articles, I can't say if anything defamatory was reported. But I will say that, in contravention of sound journalistic ethics and the rush to get the story out there, they reported inaccuracies to the point that many had to retract their stories.

As far as the media goes, they were the ones that made an issue of the MAGA hat as I proved to you in my post from last night.

As a causation of something?

Don't dodge the issue. I didn't say anything about cause. You were the one saying the MAGA hat was not newsworthy and didn't understand the "obsession". I gave you seven examples of major news networks and outlets that mentioned the MAGA hat in their headlines and in their articles at the time. So contrary to what you thought, the hat was, in fact, newsworthy.

They made an issue of it precisely because people wearing the hat are reviled as the lowest form of racists and so knew that it would inflame emotions, which is exactly what happened. Instead of just reporting the story, they made the hat an essential element of the story.

See above.

See above.

After more information came to light about the truth of the confrontation, numerous news sites and other sites that reported or commented on the story had to backtrack and issue apologies and correct themselves and a bunch of celebrities that wrote tweets reviling and condemning Sandmann and the kids had to go back and delete them. Doesn't that tell you something?

About reported facts? No. The video exists: check. MAGA hats are there: check. Smirk: check.
The news is to report what, who, when and where. "Why" is for later analysis.

Why would they need to issue apologies or retract stories if everything they said was factual? They retracted their stories because some of the things they reported were NOT factual. Don't you get that?

I dunno, sure sounds to me like you're butthurt that the MAGA hats were prominent just because the head under one of them was being a dick. That's gonna happen.

I'm not the one that made an issue of the hat, they did. I proved that to you already. Haven't you been paying attention?

I'm not pissed that the hat was prominent, I'm pissed that people said he was racist because of the hat.

 

[Pogo]

Just for the sake of argument let's stipulate that you're correct on this, that RealDave dropped everything he was doing to go make the video that day, etc. Just for argument. Let's say he "owns it".

That then means that RealDave, and not NBC, CNN, WaPo, whoever, is the defaming party here, hence the lawsuits are without merit.

Whatever you want.

I said "people 'LIKE' you...".

I wasn't laying the blame for all this at RealDave's feet, I'm not so stupid as to believe that. But people like him - those who continue to see Sandmann as the asshole in all this, in spite of the evidence to the contrary - are the ones who helped the video go viral on social media and are guilty of spreading the false narrative that he instigated the incident, that he was being a dick and that he's a racist.

Whether or not RealDave actually shared the video and helped stoke the anti-Sandmann rhetoric (which is exactly what he's doing in this thread btw), he obviously agrees with all the Sandmann critics and is why I said what I said.

Doesn't matter who --- it's a hypothetical.

Point being, if you're saying that "people 'LIKE' whoever" are responsible for whatever defamation is perceived, then you're also saying that mass media is not.

I'm not investing any energy in the whole defamation argument but if I was, why can't the media be guilty of it at the same time?

They surely could. Hence my challenge to present any evidence of it. Seeing none....

That's not what you said and that's not what I said. I didn't say anything about defamation. I said they were guilty of propagating the story that Sandmann was a smirking insolent racist.

That's what defamation IS.

And it's what I've been asking for evidence of ---- since mid-January. Have yet to get any. WHO reported that Smirk-Boi --- his name wasn't even known at the time, nor should it be --- was a 'smirking insolent racist'? All we can tell from the video is the smirk.

In other words, the very people out there and on this forum and in this discussion that are bitching about this kid supposedly trying to gain fame are the ones that made him famous in the first place.

Also have yet to see anyone "bitching about this kid supposedly trying to gain fame". That's a new one. But off the topic.

[

RealDave or "people LIKE him" are not under any obligation to report the news. They/we can interpret however we like. But what's alleged here is that the news "reported" something defamatory. I'm still "waiting" to find out what it is.

Without combing through all the videos and articles, I can't say if anything defamatory was reported. But I will say that, in contravention of sound journalistic ethics and the rush to get the story out there, they reported inaccuracies to the point that many had to retract their stories.

Fine. Then show us examples. Because that's critical for showing defamation --- which is the topic here.

Is there something complex about the three-word sentence "show us examples"?

As far as the media goes, they were the ones that made an issue of the MAGA hat as I proved to you in my post from last night.

As a causation of something?

Don't dodge the issue. I didn't say anything about cause.

Causation is crucial. If a lawsuit is going to allege that X media company CAUSED the public perception that MAGA hats caused something, then the plaintiff will have to show evidence of where they did that.

You were the one saying the MAGA hat was not newsworthy and didn't understand the "obsession". I gave you seven examples of major news networks and outlets that mentioned the MAGA hat in their headlines and in their articles at the time. So contrary to what you thought, the hat was, in fact, newsworthy.

See above.

Is it untrue that those hats were worn?

They made an issue of it precisely because people wearing the hat are reviled as the lowest form of racists and so knew that it would inflame emotions, which is exactly what happened. Instead of just reporting the story, they made the hat an essential element of the story.

See above.

See above.

And who proclaimed that (the bold)? Again --- Show. Us. Evidence.

And who proclaimed the hat was an "essential element" anyway?

After more information came to light about the truth of the confrontation, numerous news sites and other sites that reported or commented on the story had to backtrack and issue apologies and correct themselves and a bunch of celebrities that wrote tweets reviling and condemning Sandmann and the kids had to go back and delete them. Doesn't that tell you something?

About reported facts? No. The video exists: check. MAGA hats are there: check. Smirk: check.
The news is to report what, who, when and where. "Why" is for later analysis.

Why would they need to issue apologies or retract stories if everything they said was factual? They retracted their stories because some of the things they reported were NOT factual. Don't you get that?

Then Show Us Examples. Retractions that reference what they were retracting will do just fine. If it isn't obvious by now I'm not taking your word that such 'retractions' exist. When I put out an open challenge and nobody can answer it, that kind of indicates we're dealing in mythology. Evidence would show that we're not.

I dunno, sure sounds to me like you're butthurt that the MAGA hats were prominent just because the head under one of them was being a dick. That's gonna happen.

I'm not the one that made an issue of the hat, they did. I proved that to you already. Haven't you been paying attention?

I'm not pissed that the hat was prominent, I'm pissed that people said he was racist because of the hat.

"People" huh?

I uh don't think the PR team is suing "People". I think they have named specific defendants.

 

[Rustic]

people like him - those who continue to see Sandmann as the asshole in all this

--- who decreed that there was only one asshole?

Seems to me the Black Hebrew Israelites were the instigating assholes, however many that was.

Smirk-Boi is also being an asshole with the facial trolling, though that's far less assholish, but it's still being a dick.

What I don't get about that is this ---
The same "MAGA" mongers who are trying to nail the press to the wall on this and excuse away Smirk-Boi's trolling...... then turn around and cream their jeans over Rump's trolling, declaring it's why they vote for him. Yet when Smirk-Boi trolls, oh noes that's not what he was doing at all, he's an angel and shit because trolling bad.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

Lol
The Toothless piece of shit Indian activist has no credibility...

 

[Polishprince]

"People" huh?

I uh don't think the PR team is suing "People". I think they have named specific defendants.

The specific named defendants, CNN, Bezos, Washington Post, etc., communicated to the people, the consumers of their news- that Mr. Sandmann was a racist who needed to be destroyed. They didn't say so *explicitly* in so many words, but used dog whistles so the people would know what to do. Pointing out the innocent pro-life hats that the children were wearing- that was a dog whistle directly their stooges to destroy the children, destroy the "deplorables".

the fact that the Sandmann family got scores of liberal death threats in the wake of the program, shows the message was received.

 

[Pogo]

"People" huh?

I uh don't think the PR team is suing "People". I think they have named specific defendants.

The specific named defendants, CNN, Bezos, Washington Post, etc., communicated to the people, the consumers of their news- that Mr. Sandmann was a racist who needed to be destroyed. They didn't say so *explicitly* in so many words, but used dog whistles so the people would know what to do. Pointing out the innocent pro-life hats that the children were wearing- that was a dog whistle directly their stooges to destroy the children, destroy the "deplorables".

the fact that the Sandmann family got scores of liberal death threats in the wake of the program, shows the message was received.

Ah. "They didn't say so explicitly".

There's the rub. They have to.

Where do you get "Bezos" out of this? Second time I've seen his name mentioned.

 

[Polishprince]

"People" huh?

I uh don't think the PR team is suing "People". I think they have named specific defendants.

The specific named defendants, CNN, Bezos, Washington Post, etc., communicated to the people, the consumers of their news- that Mr. Sandmann was a racist who needed to be destroyed. They didn't say so *explicitly* in so many words, but used dog whistles so the people would know what to do. Pointing out the innocent pro-life hats that the children were wearing- that was a dog whistle directly their stooges to destroy the children, destroy the "deplorables".

the fact that the Sandmann family got scores of liberal death threats in the wake of the program, shows the message was received.

Ah. "They didn't say so explicitly".

There's the rub. They have to.

Where do you get "Bezos" out of this? Second time I've seen his name mentioned.

Bezos is the proprietor of the Washington Post which is being sued.

And no, they don't have to say it explicitly, if the dog whistles get the message out to their stooges. Enough gang bosses have been discrete in ordering hits, yet have still been convicted, because the stooges got the word.

 

[Pogo]

"People" huh?

I uh don't think the PR team is suing "People". I think they have named specific defendants.

The specific named defendants, CNN, Bezos, Washington Post, etc., communicated to the people, the consumers of their news- that Mr. Sandmann was a racist who needed to be destroyed. They didn't say so *explicitly* in so many words, but used dog whistles so the people would know what to do. Pointing out the innocent pro-life hats that the children were wearing- that was a dog whistle directly their stooges to destroy the children, destroy the "deplorables".

the fact that the Sandmann family got scores of liberal death threats in the wake of the program, shows the message was received.

Ah. "They didn't say so explicitly".

There's the rub. They have to.

Where do you get "Bezos" out of this? Second time I've seen his name mentioned.

Bezos is the proprietor of the Washington Post which is being sued.

And no, they don't have to say it explicitly, if the dog whistles get the message out to their stooges. Enough gang bosses have been discrete in ordering hits, yet have still been convicted, because the stooges got the word.

Bezos is the owner of the Washington Post. Why would they sue him personally? Do you think he actually sits there and writes stories?

And yes, they DO have to say it explicitly. In writing or in a broadcast. Otherwise you're Son of Sam claiming a dog told you to kill people. Did that dog get sued?

 

[Polishprince]

"People" huh?

I uh don't think the PR team is suing "People". I think they have named specific defendants.

The specific named defendants, CNN, Bezos, Washington Post, etc., communicated to the people, the consumers of their news- that Mr. Sandmann was a racist who needed to be destroyed. They didn't say so *explicitly* in so many words, but used dog whistles so the people would know what to do. Pointing out the innocent pro-life hats that the children were wearing- that was a dog whistle directly their stooges to destroy the children, destroy the "deplorables".

the fact that the Sandmann family got scores of liberal death threats in the wake of the program, shows the message was received.

Ah. "They didn't say so explicitly".

There's the rub. They have to.

Where do you get "Bezos" out of this? Second time I've seen his name mentioned.

Bezos is the proprietor of the Washington Post which is being sued.

And no, they don't have to say it explicitly, if the dog whistles get the message out to their stooges. Enough gang bosses have been discrete in ordering hits, yet have still been convicted, because the stooges got the word.

Bezos is the owner of the Washington Post. Why would they sue him personally? Do you think he actually sits there and writes stories?

And yes, they DO have to say it explicitly. In writing or in a broadcast. Otherwise you're Son of Sam claiming a dog told you to kill people. Did that dog get sued?

Its known as "piercing the corporate veil" which can be done to reach defendants with deep pockets. Under this circumstance I would agree. The fact that the Media knew how to use code, a dog whistle, to get their minions to act isn't the same as using telepathy. This will all come out with discovery.

 

[hadit]

So what have we learned from all this? There are still idiots who want to condemn a minor for doing nothing to instigate the confrontation, did nothing to physically remove or attack the adult who approached and got in his face, and who did nothing to deserve the public scorn he and his family endured.

We've learned (if some didn't already know) that some attorneys will grandstand for their own masturbatory fantasies despite having no basis to bring a suit, and that some number of gullibles will believe them when they do.

In other words there is a contingent that will abuse the legal system, and a contingent of the public that will help them do it.

We've also learned that some pretend to care only about the family seeking compensation for the abuse they suffered, but can't resist condemning the kid, AGAIN, although he did nothing wrong.

Nothing earth-shatteringly wrong, just a social faux pas. Just a teenager being a dick. He certainly didn't invent that. But don't stand there and pretend "I wasn't mocking that reporter" when you get busted, that's just dishonest.

The family suffered national abuse, so why not try to get some recompense for it?

Because you can't just run around suing people because you got busted or you're personally butthurt or whatever. You need, and here it is yet again, evidence that somebody defamed you. "Suffered national abuse" ---- from who?

It may help the next set of reporters slow down a bit to make sure of the facts before attacking another minor.

As above ---- where is this evidence of "attack"? That question's been on the table since January. Here it is May and still no takers.

They may get a settlement, which is probably the best outcome for all involved, or get to court and lose, but be able to demonstrate how much damage can be done by a media out to push a narrative no matter who gets hurt, or they may win big.

Not without evidence they won't.

Ask Sean Spicer how that works. Where's his suit that his attorney kept blustering about??

Don't know why it's so hard to grasp what "posturing" and "grandstanding" is. Ever heard of the "Checkers speech"?

The evidence gets presented in court, and it's not up to you to decide what is and what is not damning.

It's not up to me to present evidence that I don't claim exists. It's up to those who do make that claim. Isn't it.

That's why, three and a half months ago, I challenged anyone and everyone here to show any evidence of what even then they were describing as "libel". In those three and a half months I have seen literally ZERO evidence. And that's from a message board that will find out whether O'bama is wearing a flag pin or how many times he said "uh".

Now that doesn't mean that no such evidence exists. It just means that those with an interest in finding it, and have no qualms about grabbing at the tiniest shred, have failed to do so.

Now if your lawsuit is going to allege that whatever news organization "defamed" your client in the public mind, then people IN that public should know about it. And they'll be able to point to where they got that idea.

Yet, three and a half months (and counting) later ------ no one can. No article, no screenshot, no link, no video.... nothing. Fatter o' mact I just did it several times on this page, and still got ---- nothing.

That's going to make it pretty tough to demonstrate that this pervasive perception exists AND that it came from Entity X. Is it not?

Besides which, I read the legal complaints when these suits first came out (they were posted here too) and again, there's no evidence in there. There are allegations --- but no evidence OF those allegations.

So we still have "Zero".

Say hi to Sean Spicer in the court that never was.

It's neither my lawsuit nor my responsibility to present evidence. I wish the family good fortune.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I said "people 'LIKE' you...".

I wasn't laying the blame for all this at RealDave's feet, I'm not so stupid as to believe that. But people like him - those who continue to see Sandmann as the asshole in all this, in spite of the evidence to the contrary - are the ones who helped the video go viral on social media and are guilty of spreading the false narrative that he instigated the incident, that he was being a dick and that he's a racist.

Whether or not RealDave actually shared the video and helped stoke the anti-Sandmann rhetoric (which is exactly what he's doing in this thread btw), he obviously agrees with all the Sandmann critics and is why I said what I said.

Doesn't matter who --- it's a hypothetical.

Point being, if you're saying that "people 'LIKE' whoever" are responsible for whatever defamation is perceived, then you're also saying that mass media is not.

I'm not investing any energy in the whole defamation argument but if I was, why can't the media be guilty of it at the same time?

They surely could. Hence my challenge to present any evidence of it. Seeing none....

That's not what you said and that's not what I said. I didn't say anything about defamation. I said they were guilty of propagating the story that Sandmann was a smirking insolent racist.

That's what defamation IS.

Maybe, maybe not. But that's not my point. My point is, once again, that the very people criticizing this kid for the lawsuit and accusing him of looking for fame and money are the ones who made him famous when they shared the video on social media and called him a racist punk.

And it's what I've been asking for evidence of ---- since mid-January. Have yet to get any. WHO reported that Smirk-Boi --- his name wasn't even known at the time, nor should it be --- was a 'smirking insolent racist'.

You yourself said he acted like a dick, which means you think he was being insolent. Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase "being a dick" in this context?

All we can tell from the video is the smirk.

Right. All you can tell from the video is the smirk (I say "smile") and from that alone you determined he was being a dick.

Don't act like you didn't do exactly as everyone else did and judged this kid based on a facial expression that very well may have been nothing more than a nervous reaction to the idiot getting in his face.

In other words, the very people out there and on this forum and in this discussion that are bitching about this kid supposedly trying to gain fame are the ones that made him famous in the first place.

Also have yet to see anyone "bitching about this kid supposedly trying to gain fame". That's a new one. But off the topic.

Penelope: "He would be unknown if he hadn't sued, but no the parents and the boy want to keep him in the spotlight."

[

RealDave or "people LIKE him" are not under any obligation to report the news. They/we can interpret however we like. But what's alleged here is that the news "reported" something defamatory. I'm still "waiting" to find out what it is.

Without combing through all the videos and articles, I can't say if anything defamatory was reported. But I will say that, in contravention of sound journalistic ethics and the rush to get the story out there, they reported inaccuracies to the point that many had to retract their stories.

Fine. Then show us examples. Because that's critical for showing defamation --- which is the topic here.

I've told you already I'm not talking about the lawsuit.

Is there something complex about the three-word sentence "show us examples"?

Is there something complex about reading examples I actually give you? I've given you links and examples to prove that the media made an issue of the hat and that celebrities and other people were calling for violence against the kid and calling him racist and you never acknowledged them. Have you read any of the quotes or clicked on any of the links I've given you?

As far as the media goes, they were the ones that made an issue of the MAGA hat as I proved to you in my post from last night.

As a causation of something?

Don't dodge the issue. I didn't say anything about cause.

Causation is crucial. If a lawsuit is going to allege that X media company CAUSED the public perception that MAGA hats caused something, then the plaintiff will have to show evidence of where they did that.

Again, not talking about the lawsuit.

You were the one saying the MAGA hat was not newsworthy and didn't understand the "obsession". I gave you seven examples of major news networks and outlets that mentioned the MAGA hat in their headlines and in their articles at the time. So contrary to what you thought, the hat was, in fact, newsworthy.

See above.

Is it untrue that those hats were worn?

The truth of whether or not the hats were worn has never been in question. You said the hat was not newsworthy and I proved to you that it was.

They made an issue of it precisely because people wearing the hat are reviled as the lowest form of racists and so knew that it would inflame emotions, which is exactly what happened. Instead of just reporting the story, they made the hat an essential element of the story.

See above.

See above.

And who proclaimed that (the bold)? Again --- Show. Us. Evidence.

Pfft.

And who proclaimed the hat was an "essential element" anyway?

Who proclaimed the kid was being a dick?

After more information came to light about the truth of the confrontation, numerous news sites and other sites that reported or commented on the story had to backtrack and issue apologies and correct themselves and a bunch of celebrities that wrote tweets reviling and condemning Sandmann and the kids had to go back and delete them. Doesn't that tell you something?

About reported facts? No. The video exists: check. MAGA hats are there: check. Smirk: check.
The news is to report what, who, when and where. "Why" is for later analysis.

Why would they need to issue apologies or retract stories if everything they said was factual? They retracted their stories because some of the things they reported were NOT factual. Don't you get that?

Then Show Us Examples. Retractions that reference what they were retracting will do just fine. If it isn't obvious by now I'm not taking your word that such 'retractions' exist. When I put out an open challenge and nobody can answer it, that kind of indicates we're dealing in mythology. Evidence would show that we're not.

This is the first time you've even asked for examples of retractions. You've been asking for evidence of defamation which is not quite the same thing.

In any case, I've given you examples and direct quotes and links throughout this discussion and I don't think you've bothered to look at a single one. In fact, you keep telling me my posts are too long and will only respond to a couple of comments. Some of these long posts contain a shitload of links and examples. So to hell with it. Google it yourself.

I dunno, sure sounds to me like you're butthurt that the MAGA hats were prominent just because the head under one of them was being a dick. That's gonna happen.

I'm not the one that made an issue of the hat, they did. I proved that to you already. Haven't you been paying attention?

I'm not pissed that the hat was prominent, I'm pissed that people said he was racist because of the hat.

"People" huh?

I uh don't think the PR team is suing "People". I think they have named specific defendants.

Another dodge. I proved to you that the media made an issue of the hat. I proved to you that people were wishing violence on Sandmann and the Covington kids. I proved to you that Phillips got in Sandmann's face. I proved to you that the Covington kids did not approach the BHIs as you claimed. I've proven a lot of things to you regarding this incident and you've yet to acknowledge a single one. Instead, you keep harping about fucking pronouns.

 

[Pogo]

Doesn't matter who --- it's a hypothetical.

Point being, if you're saying that "people 'LIKE' whoever" are responsible for whatever defamation is perceived, then you're also saying that mass media is not.

I'm not investing any energy in the whole defamation argument but if I was, why can't the media be guilty of it at the same time?

They surely could. Hence my challenge to present any evidence of it. Seeing none....

That's not what you said and that's not what I said. I didn't say anything about defamation. I said they were guilty of propagating the story that Sandmann was a smirking insolent racist.

That's what defamation IS.

Maybe, maybe not. But that's not my point. My point is, once again, that the very people criticizing this kid for the lawsuit and accusing him of looking for fame and money are the ones who made him famous when they shared the video on social media and called him a racist punk.

And it's what I've been asking for evidence of ---- since mid-January. Have yet to get any. WHO reported that Smirk-Boi --- his name wasn't even known at the time, nor should it be --- was a 'smirking insolent racist'.

You yourself said he acted like a dick, which means you think he was being insolent. Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase "being a dick" in this context?

All we can tell from the video is the smirk.

Right. All you can tell from the video is the smirk (I say "smile") and from that alone you determined he was being a dick.

Don't act like you didn't do exactly as everyone else did and judged this kid based on a facial expression that very well may have been nothing more than a nervous reaction to the idiot getting in his face.

In other words, the very people out there and on this forum and in this discussion that are bitching about this kid supposedly trying to gain fame are the ones that made him famous in the first place.

Also have yet to see anyone "bitching about this kid supposedly trying to gain fame". That's a new one. But off the topic.

Penelope: "He would be unknown if he hadn't sued, but no the parents and the boy want to keep him in the spotlight."

[

RealDave or "people LIKE him" are not under any obligation to report the news. They/we can interpret however we like. But what's alleged here is that the news "reported" something defamatory. I'm still "waiting" to find out what it is.

Without combing through all the videos and articles, I can't say if anything defamatory was reported. But I will say that, in contravention of sound journalistic ethics and the rush to get the story out there, they reported inaccuracies to the point that many had to retract their stories.

Fine. Then show us examples. Because that's critical for showing defamation --- which is the topic here.

I've told you already I'm not talking about the lawsuit.

Is there something complex about the three-word sentence "show us examples"?

Is there something complex about reading examples I actually give you? I've given you links and examples to prove that the media made an issue of the hat and that celebrities and other people were calling for violence against the kid and calling him racist and you never acknowledged them. Have you read any of the quotes or clicked on any of the links I've given you?

As far as the media goes, they were the ones that made an issue of the MAGA hat as I proved to you in my post from last night.

As a causation of something?

Don't dodge the issue. I didn't say anything about cause.

Causation is crucial. If a lawsuit is going to allege that X media company CAUSED the public perception that MAGA hats caused something, then the plaintiff will have to show evidence of where they did that.

Again, not talking about the lawsuit.

You were the one saying the MAGA hat was not newsworthy and didn't understand the "obsession". I gave you seven examples of major news networks and outlets that mentioned the MAGA hat in their headlines and in their articles at the time. So contrary to what you thought, the hat was, in fact, newsworthy.

See above.

Is it untrue that those hats were worn?

The truth of whether or not the hats were worn has never been in question. You said the hat was not newsworthy and I proved to you that it was.

They made an issue of it precisely because people wearing the hat are reviled as the lowest form of racists and so knew that it would inflame emotions, which is exactly what happened. Instead of just reporting the story, they made the hat an essential element of the story.

See above.

See above.

And who proclaimed that (the bold)? Again --- Show. Us. Evidence.

Pfft.

And who proclaimed the hat was an "essential element" anyway?

Who proclaimed the kid was being a dick?

After more information came to light about the truth of the confrontation, numerous news sites and other sites that reported or commented on the story had to backtrack and issue apologies and correct themselves and a bunch of celebrities that wrote tweets reviling and condemning Sandmann and the kids had to go back and delete them. Doesn't that tell you something?

About reported facts? No. The video exists: check. MAGA hats are there: check. Smirk: check.
The news is to report what, who, when and where. "Why" is for later analysis.

Why would they need to issue apologies or retract stories if everything they said was factual? They retracted their stories because some of the things they reported were NOT factual. Don't you get that?

Then Show Us Examples. Retractions that reference what they were retracting will do just fine. If it isn't obvious by now I'm not taking your word that such 'retractions' exist. When I put out an open challenge and nobody can answer it, that kind of indicates we're dealing in mythology. Evidence would show that we're not.

This is the first time you've even asked for examples of retractions. You've been asking for evidence of defamation which is not quite the same thing.

In any case, I've given you examples and direct quotes and links throughout this discussion and I don't think you've bothered to look at a single one. In fact, you keep telling me my posts are too long and will only respond to a couple of comments. Some of these long posts contain a shitload of links and examples. So to hell with it. Google it yourself.

I dunno, sure sounds to me like you're butthurt that the MAGA hats were prominent just because the head under one of them was being a dick. That's gonna happen.

I'm not the one that made an issue of the hat, they did. I proved that to you already. Haven't you been paying attention?

I'm not pissed that the hat was prominent, I'm pissed that people said he was racist because of the hat.

"People" huh?

I uh don't think the PR team is suing "People". I think they have named specific defendants.

Another dodge. I proved to you that the media made an issue of the hat. I proved to you that people were wishing violence on Sandmann and the Covington kids. I proved to you that Phillips got in Sandmann's face. I proved to you that the Covington kids did not approach the BHIs as you claimed. I've proven a lot of things to you regarding this incident and you've yet to acknowledge a single one. Instead, you keep harping about fucking pronouns.

A hell of a lot of verbiage just to avoid admitting you have no evidence. Which *IS* what this thread is about, tangent all you like about 'hats' and 'who got there first' and what 'people say', all of which are irrelevant.

The fact remains, the lawsuit is not against "People"; it is against very specific organizations, to wit NBC, to wit Washington Post, I'm sure others. That does not comprise "People in general", it does not comprise "the Tweeterverse", it does not comprise pop mythology, it does not comprise.some poster here or there; it does not comprise Jeff Bezos dick pics. It comprises those specific organizations and it requires specific documentation of what they printed and/or broadcast. Absent that, they have no case.

It is not, and never has been, my position that they did indeed print or broadcast defamatory material. I do not have the burden of proof to prove the negative; not only is there no such thing but I wouldn't assert the negative in the first place. I simply continue to note, as I have since mid-January, that given the open challenge for ANYBODY to find and show us any such evidence, NO ONE has been able to do it.

And that is not a promising start for a lawsuit alleging this or that entity libeled somebody in the public mind. If such evidence turns up this afternoon, it will have taken three and a half months to find. That doesn't make the case that it infiltrated the public mind three and a half months ago, now does it.

Lotta partisan wags on this site simply don't get that lawsuits, or threats of lawsuits, are (sadly) commonly filed as publicity/propaganda stunts. Indeed this one is fueled by a propaganda firm run by a Mitch McConnell adviser called "RunSwitch".

Sean Spicer did exactly the same thing last year. How'd that work out?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I'm not investing any energy in the whole defamation argument but if I was, why can't the media be guilty of it at the same time?

They surely could. Hence my challenge to present any evidence of it. Seeing none....

That's not what you said and that's not what I said. I didn't say anything about defamation. I said they were guilty of propagating the story that Sandmann was a smirking insolent racist.

That's what defamation IS.

Maybe, maybe not. But that's not my point. My point is, once again, that the very people criticizing this kid for the lawsuit and accusing him of looking for fame and money are the ones who made him famous when they shared the video on social media and called him a racist punk.

And it's what I've been asking for evidence of ---- since mid-January. Have yet to get any. WHO reported that Smirk-Boi --- his name wasn't even known at the time, nor should it be --- was a 'smirking insolent racist'.

You yourself said he acted like a dick, which means you think he was being insolent. Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase "being a dick" in this context?

All we can tell from the video is the smirk.

Right. All you can tell from the video is the smirk (I say "smile") and from that alone you determined he was being a dick.

Don't act like you didn't do exactly as everyone else did and judged this kid based on a facial expression that very well may have been nothing more than a nervous reaction to the idiot getting in his face.

In other words, the very people out there and on this forum and in this discussion that are bitching about this kid supposedly trying to gain fame are the ones that made him famous in the first place.

Also have yet to see anyone "bitching about this kid supposedly trying to gain fame". That's a new one. But off the topic.

Penelope: "He would be unknown if he hadn't sued, but no the parents and the boy want to keep him in the spotlight."

[

RealDave or "people LIKE him" are not under any obligation to report the news. They/we can interpret however we like. But what's alleged here is that the news "reported" something defamatory. I'm still "waiting" to find out what it is.

Without combing through all the videos and articles, I can't say if anything defamatory was reported. But I will say that, in contravention of sound journalistic ethics and the rush to get the story out there, they reported inaccuracies to the point that many had to retract their stories.

Fine. Then show us examples. Because that's critical for showing defamation --- which is the topic here.

I've told you already I'm not talking about the lawsuit.

Is there something complex about the three-word sentence "show us examples"?

Is there something complex about reading examples I actually give you? I've given you links and examples to prove that the media made an issue of the hat and that celebrities and other people were calling for violence against the kid and calling him racist and you never acknowledged them. Have you read any of the quotes or clicked on any of the links I've given you?

As far as the media goes, they were the ones that made an issue of the MAGA hat as I proved to you in my post from last night.

As a causation of something?

Don't dodge the issue. I didn't say anything about cause.

Causation is crucial. If a lawsuit is going to allege that X media company CAUSED the public perception that MAGA hats caused something, then the plaintiff will have to show evidence of where they did that.

Again, not talking about the lawsuit.

You were the one saying the MAGA hat was not newsworthy and didn't understand the "obsession". I gave you seven examples of major news networks and outlets that mentioned the MAGA hat in their headlines and in their articles at the time. So contrary to what you thought, the hat was, in fact, newsworthy.

See above.

Is it untrue that those hats were worn?

The truth of whether or not the hats were worn has never been in question. You said the hat was not newsworthy and I proved to you that it was.

They made an issue of it precisely because people wearing the hat are reviled as the lowest form of racists and so knew that it would inflame emotions, which is exactly what happened. Instead of just reporting the story, they made the hat an essential element of the story.

See above.

See above.

And who proclaimed that (the bold)? Again --- Show. Us. Evidence.

Pfft.

And who proclaimed the hat was an "essential element" anyway?

Who proclaimed the kid was being a dick?

After more information came to light about the truth of the confrontation, numerous news sites and other sites that reported or commented on the story had to backtrack and issue apologies and correct themselves and a bunch of celebrities that wrote tweets reviling and condemning Sandmann and the kids had to go back and delete them. Doesn't that tell you something?

About reported facts? No. The video exists: check. MAGA hats are there: check. Smirk: check.
The news is to report what, who, when and where. "Why" is for later analysis.

Why would they need to issue apologies or retract stories if everything they said was factual? They retracted their stories because some of the things they reported were NOT factual. Don't you get that?

Then Show Us Examples. Retractions that reference what they were retracting will do just fine. If it isn't obvious by now I'm not taking your word that such 'retractions' exist. When I put out an open challenge and nobody can answer it, that kind of indicates we're dealing in mythology. Evidence would show that we're not.

This is the first time you've even asked for examples of retractions. You've been asking for evidence of defamation which is not quite the same thing.

In any case, I've given you examples and direct quotes and links throughout this discussion and I don't think you've bothered to look at a single one. In fact, you keep telling me my posts are too long and will only respond to a couple of comments. Some of these long posts contain a shitload of links and examples. So to hell with it. Google it yourself.

I dunno, sure sounds to me like you're butthurt that the MAGA hats were prominent just because the head under one of them was being a dick. That's gonna happen.

I'm not the one that made an issue of the hat, they did. I proved that to you already. Haven't you been paying attention?

I'm not pissed that the hat was prominent, I'm pissed that people said he was racist because of the hat.

"People" huh?

I uh don't think the PR team is suing "People". I think they have named specific defendants.

Another dodge. I proved to you that the media made an issue of the hat. I proved to you that people were wishing violence on Sandmann and the Covington kids. I proved to you that Phillips got in Sandmann's face. I proved to you that the Covington kids did not approach the BHIs as you claimed. I've proven a lot of things to you regarding this incident and you've yet to acknowledge a single one. Instead, you keep harping about fucking pronouns.

A hell of a lot of verbiage just to avoid admitting you have no evidence. Which *IS* what this thread is about, tangent all you like about 'hats' and 'who got there first' and what 'people say', all of which are irrelevant.

Ask the people who have actually said they have evidence. I never said there was evidence as far as the lawsuit goes and I've been telling you from the beginning that I'm not talking about the lawsuit. I've also already told you that I don't know if the media and the news outlets said or published anything legally defamatory.

If you know all of this already then why do you act like I never told you and insist on accusing me of avoiding the issue?

The fact remains, the lawsuit is not against "People"; it is against very specific organizations, to wit NBC, to wit Washington Post, I'm sure others. That does not comprise "People in general", it does not comprise "the Tweeterverse", it does not comprise pop mythology, it does not comprise.some poster here or there; it does not comprise Jeff Bezos dick pics. It comprises those specific organizations and it requires specific documentation of what they printed and/or broadcast. Absent that, they have no case.

The fact remains that I never said a fucking thing about the lawsuit.

It is not, and never has been, my position that they did indeed print or broadcast defamatory material. I do not have the burden of proof to prove the negative; not only is there no such thing but I wouldn't assert the negative in the first place. I simply continue to note, as I have since mid-January, that given the open challenge for ANYBODY to find and show us any such evidence, NO ONE has been able to do it.

I never said anything to you about burden of proof or that you said they did print or broadcast defamatory material. Why are you telling me this?

And that is not a promising start for a lawsuit alleging this or that entity libeled somebody in the public mind. If such evidence turns up this afternoon, it will have taken three and a half months to find. That doesn't make the case that it infiltrated the public mind three and a half months ago, now does it.

Lotta partisan wags on this site simply don't get that lawsuits, or threats of lawsuits, are (sadly) commonly filed as publicity/propaganda stunts. Indeed this one is fueled by a propaganda firm run by a Mitch McConnell adviser called "RunSwitch".

Sean Spicer did exactly the same thing last year. How'd that work out?

I don't give a shit. Preach it to the people talking about the lawsuit.

 

[Pogo]

They surely could. Hence my challenge to present any evidence of it. Seeing none....

That's not what you said and that's not what I said. I didn't say anything about defamation. I said they were guilty of propagating the story that Sandmann was a smirking insolent racist.

That's what defamation IS.

Maybe, maybe not. But that's not my point. My point is, once again, that the very people criticizing this kid for the lawsuit and accusing him of looking for fame and money are the ones who made him famous when they shared the video on social media and called him a racist punk.

And it's what I've been asking for evidence of ---- since mid-January. Have yet to get any. WHO reported that Smirk-Boi --- his name wasn't even known at the time, nor should it be --- was a 'smirking insolent racist'.

You yourself said he acted like a dick, which means you think he was being insolent. Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase "being a dick" in this context?

All we can tell from the video is the smirk.

Right. All you can tell from the video is the smirk (I say "smile") and from that alone you determined he was being a dick.

Don't act like you didn't do exactly as everyone else did and judged this kid based on a facial expression that very well may have been nothing more than a nervous reaction to the idiot getting in his face.

In other words, the very people out there and on this forum and in this discussion that are bitching about this kid supposedly trying to gain fame are the ones that made him famous in the first place.

Also have yet to see anyone "bitching about this kid supposedly trying to gain fame". That's a new one. But off the topic.

Penelope: "He would be unknown if he hadn't sued, but no the parents and the boy want to keep him in the spotlight."

[

RealDave or "people LIKE him" are not under any obligation to report the news. They/we can interpret however we like. But what's alleged here is that the news "reported" something defamatory. I'm still "waiting" to find out what it is.

Without combing through all the videos and articles, I can't say if anything defamatory was reported. But I will say that, in contravention of sound journalistic ethics and the rush to get the story out there, they reported inaccuracies to the point that many had to retract their stories.

Fine. Then show us examples. Because that's critical for showing defamation --- which is the topic here.

I've told you already I'm not talking about the lawsuit.

Is there something complex about the three-word sentence "show us examples"?

Is there something complex about reading examples I actually give you? I've given you links and examples to prove that the media made an issue of the hat and that celebrities and other people were calling for violence against the kid and calling him racist and you never acknowledged them. Have you read any of the quotes or clicked on any of the links I've given you?

As far as the media goes, they were the ones that made an issue of the MAGA hat as I proved to you in my post from last night.

As a causation of something?

Don't dodge the issue. I didn't say anything about cause.

Causation is crucial. If a lawsuit is going to allege that X media company CAUSED the public perception that MAGA hats caused something, then the plaintiff will have to show evidence of where they did that.

Again, not talking about the lawsuit.

You were the one saying the MAGA hat was not newsworthy and didn't understand the "obsession". I gave you seven examples of major news networks and outlets that mentioned the MAGA hat in their headlines and in their articles at the time. So contrary to what you thought, the hat was, in fact, newsworthy.

See above.

Is it untrue that those hats were worn?

The truth of whether or not the hats were worn has never been in question. You said the hat was not newsworthy and I proved to you that it was.

They made an issue of it precisely because people wearing the hat are reviled as the lowest form of racists and so knew that it would inflame emotions, which is exactly what happened. Instead of just reporting the story, they made the hat an essential element of the story.

See above.

See above.

And who proclaimed that (the bold)? Again --- Show. Us. Evidence.

Pfft.

And who proclaimed the hat was an "essential element" anyway?

Who proclaimed the kid was being a dick?

After more information came to light about the truth of the confrontation, numerous news sites and other sites that reported or commented on the story had to backtrack and issue apologies and correct themselves and a bunch of celebrities that wrote tweets reviling and condemning Sandmann and the kids had to go back and delete them. Doesn't that tell you something?

About reported facts? No. The video exists: check. MAGA hats are there: check. Smirk: check.
The news is to report what, who, when and where. "Why" is for later analysis.

Why would they need to issue apologies or retract stories if everything they said was factual? They retracted their stories because some of the things they reported were NOT factual. Don't you get that?

Then Show Us Examples. Retractions that reference what they were retracting will do just fine. If it isn't obvious by now I'm not taking your word that such 'retractions' exist. When I put out an open challenge and nobody can answer it, that kind of indicates we're dealing in mythology. Evidence would show that we're not.

This is the first time you've even asked for examples of retractions. You've been asking for evidence of defamation which is not quite the same thing.

In any case, I've given you examples and direct quotes and links throughout this discussion and I don't think you've bothered to look at a single one. In fact, you keep telling me my posts are too long and will only respond to a couple of comments. Some of these long posts contain a shitload of links and examples. So to hell with it. Google it yourself.

I dunno, sure sounds to me like you're butthurt that the MAGA hats were prominent just because the head under one of them was being a dick. That's gonna happen.

I'm not the one that made an issue of the hat, they did. I proved that to you already. Haven't you been paying attention?

I'm not pissed that the hat was prominent, I'm pissed that people said he was racist because of the hat.

"People" huh?

I uh don't think the PR team is suing "People". I think they have named specific defendants.

Another dodge. I proved to you that the media made an issue of the hat. I proved to you that people were wishing violence on Sandmann and the Covington kids. I proved to you that Phillips got in Sandmann's face. I proved to you that the Covington kids did not approach the BHIs as you claimed. I've proven a lot of things to you regarding this incident and you've yet to acknowledge a single one. Instead, you keep harping about fucking pronouns.

A hell of a lot of verbiage just to avoid admitting you have no evidence. Which *IS* what this thread is about, tangent all you like about 'hats' and 'who got there first' and what 'people say', all of which are irrelevant.

Ask the people who have actually said they have evidence. I never said there was evidence as far as the lawsuit goes and I've been telling you from the beginning that I'm not talking about the lawsuit. I've also already told you that I don't know if the media and the news outlets said or published anything legally defamatory.

If you know all of this already then why do you act like I never told you and insist on accusing me of avoiding the issue?

The fact remains, the lawsuit is not against "People"; it is against very specific organizations, to wit NBC, to wit Washington Post, I'm sure others. That does not comprise "People in general", it does not comprise "the Tweeterverse", it does not comprise pop mythology, it does not comprise.some poster here or there; it does not comprise Jeff Bezos dick pics. It comprises those specific organizations and it requires specific documentation of what they printed and/or broadcast. Absent that, they have no case.

The fact remains that I never said a fucking thing about the lawsuit.

It is not, and never has been, my position that they did indeed print or broadcast defamatory material. I do not have the burden of proof to prove the negative; not only is there no such thing but I wouldn't assert the negative in the first place. I simply continue to note, as I have since mid-January, that given the open challenge for ANYBODY to find and show us any such evidence, NO ONE has been able to do it.

I never said anything to you about burden of proof or that you said they did print or broadcast defamatory material. Why are you telling me this?

And that is not a promising start for a lawsuit alleging this or that entity libeled somebody in the public mind. If such evidence turns up this afternoon, it will have taken three and a half months to find. That doesn't make the case that it infiltrated the public mind three and a half months ago, now does it.

Lotta partisan wags on this site simply don't get that lawsuits, or threats of lawsuits, are (sadly) commonly filed as publicity/propaganda stunts. Indeed this one is fueled by a propaganda firm run by a Mitch McConnell adviser called "RunSwitch".

Sean Spicer did exactly the same thing last year. How'd that work out?

I don't give a shit. Preach it to the people talking about the lawsuit.

Once AGAIN --- the lawsuit, and therefore the evidence available to it, is the topic of this thread. I understand that you want to make it about "hats" and "what this or that group thinks" and "who was standing where when" but these are tangents.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That's not what you said and that's not what I said. I didn't say anything about defamation. I said they were guilty of propagating the story that Sandmann was a smirking insolent racist.

That's what defamation IS.

Maybe, maybe not. But that's not my point. My point is, once again, that the very people criticizing this kid for the lawsuit and accusing him of looking for fame and money are the ones who made him famous when they shared the video on social media and called him a racist punk.

And it's what I've been asking for evidence of ---- since mid-January. Have yet to get any. WHO reported that Smirk-Boi --- his name wasn't even known at the time, nor should it be --- was a 'smirking insolent racist'.

You yourself said he acted like a dick, which means you think he was being insolent. Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase "being a dick" in this context?

All we can tell from the video is the smirk.

Right. All you can tell from the video is the smirk (I say "smile") and from that alone you determined he was being a dick.

Don't act like you didn't do exactly as everyone else did and judged this kid based on a facial expression that very well may have been nothing more than a nervous reaction to the idiot getting in his face.

In other words, the very people out there and on this forum and in this discussion that are bitching about this kid supposedly trying to gain fame are the ones that made him famous in the first place.

Also have yet to see anyone "bitching about this kid supposedly trying to gain fame". That's a new one. But off the topic.

Penelope: "He would be unknown if he hadn't sued, but no the parents and the boy want to keep him in the spotlight."

[

RealDave or "people LIKE him" are not under any obligation to report the news. They/we can interpret however we like. But what's alleged here is that the news "reported" something defamatory. I'm still "waiting" to find out what it is.

Without combing through all the videos and articles, I can't say if anything defamatory was reported. But I will say that, in contravention of sound journalistic ethics and the rush to get the story out there, they reported inaccuracies to the point that many had to retract their stories.

Fine. Then show us examples. Because that's critical for showing defamation --- which is the topic here.

I've told you already I'm not talking about the lawsuit.

Is there something complex about the three-word sentence "show us examples"?

Is there something complex about reading examples I actually give you? I've given you links and examples to prove that the media made an issue of the hat and that celebrities and other people were calling for violence against the kid and calling him racist and you never acknowledged them. Have you read any of the quotes or clicked on any of the links I've given you?

As far as the media goes, they were the ones that made an issue of the MAGA hat as I proved to you in my post from last night.

As a causation of something?

Don't dodge the issue. I didn't say anything about cause.

Causation is crucial. If a lawsuit is going to allege that X media company CAUSED the public perception that MAGA hats caused something, then the plaintiff will have to show evidence of where they did that.

Again, not talking about the lawsuit.

You were the one saying the MAGA hat was not newsworthy and didn't understand the "obsession". I gave you seven examples of major news networks and outlets that mentioned the MAGA hat in their headlines and in their articles at the time. So contrary to what you thought, the hat was, in fact, newsworthy.

See above.

Is it untrue that those hats were worn?

The truth of whether or not the hats were worn has never been in question. You said the hat was not newsworthy and I proved to you that it was.

They made an issue of it precisely because people wearing the hat are reviled as the lowest form of racists and so knew that it would inflame emotions, which is exactly what happened. Instead of just reporting the story, they made the hat an essential element of the story.

See above.

See above.

And who proclaimed that (the bold)? Again --- Show. Us. Evidence.

Pfft.

And who proclaimed the hat was an "essential element" anyway?

Who proclaimed the kid was being a dick?

After more information came to light about the truth of the confrontation, numerous news sites and other sites that reported or commented on the story had to backtrack and issue apologies and correct themselves and a bunch of celebrities that wrote tweets reviling and condemning Sandmann and the kids had to go back and delete them. Doesn't that tell you something?

About reported facts? No. The video exists: check. MAGA hats are there: check. Smirk: check.
The news is to report what, who, when and where. "Why" is for later analysis.

Why would they need to issue apologies or retract stories if everything they said was factual? They retracted their stories because some of the things they reported were NOT factual. Don't you get that?

Then Show Us Examples. Retractions that reference what they were retracting will do just fine. If it isn't obvious by now I'm not taking your word that such 'retractions' exist. When I put out an open challenge and nobody can answer it, that kind of indicates we're dealing in mythology. Evidence would show that we're not.

This is the first time you've even asked for examples of retractions. You've been asking for evidence of defamation which is not quite the same thing.

In any case, I've given you examples and direct quotes and links throughout this discussion and I don't think you've bothered to look at a single one. In fact, you keep telling me my posts are too long and will only respond to a couple of comments. Some of these long posts contain a shitload of links and examples. So to hell with it. Google it yourself.

I dunno, sure sounds to me like you're butthurt that the MAGA hats were prominent just because the head under one of them was being a dick. That's gonna happen.

I'm not the one that made an issue of the hat, they did. I proved that to you already. Haven't you been paying attention?

I'm not pissed that the hat was prominent, I'm pissed that people said he was racist because of the hat.

"People" huh?

I uh don't think the PR team is suing "People". I think they have named specific defendants.

Another dodge. I proved to you that the media made an issue of the hat. I proved to you that people were wishing violence on Sandmann and the Covington kids. I proved to you that Phillips got in Sandmann's face. I proved to you that the Covington kids did not approach the BHIs as you claimed. I've proven a lot of things to you regarding this incident and you've yet to acknowledge a single one. Instead, you keep harping about fucking pronouns.

A hell of a lot of verbiage just to avoid admitting you have no evidence. Which *IS* what this thread is about, tangent all you like about 'hats' and 'who got there first' and what 'people say', all of which are irrelevant.

Ask the people who have actually said they have evidence. I never said there was evidence as far as the lawsuit goes and I've been telling you from the beginning that I'm not talking about the lawsuit. I've also already told you that I don't know if the media and the news outlets said or published anything legally defamatory.

If you know all of this already then why do you act like I never told you and insist on accusing me of avoiding the issue?

The fact remains, the lawsuit is not against "People"; it is against very specific organizations, to wit NBC, to wit Washington Post, I'm sure others. That does not comprise "People in general", it does not comprise "the Tweeterverse", it does not comprise pop mythology, it does not comprise.some poster here or there; it does not comprise Jeff Bezos dick pics. It comprises those specific organizations and it requires specific documentation of what they printed and/or broadcast. Absent that, they have no case.

The fact remains that I never said a fucking thing about the lawsuit.

It is not, and never has been, my position that they did indeed print or broadcast defamatory material. I do not have the burden of proof to prove the negative; not only is there no such thing but I wouldn't assert the negative in the first place. I simply continue to note, as I have since mid-January, that given the open challenge for ANYBODY to find and show us any such evidence, NO ONE has been able to do it.

I never said anything to you about burden of proof or that you said they did print or broadcast defamatory material. Why are you telling me this?

And that is not a promising start for a lawsuit alleging this or that entity libeled somebody in the public mind. If such evidence turns up this afternoon, it will have taken three and a half months to find. That doesn't make the case that it infiltrated the public mind three and a half months ago, now does it.

Lotta partisan wags on this site simply don't get that lawsuits, or threats of lawsuits, are (sadly) commonly filed as publicity/propaganda stunts. Indeed this one is fueled by a propaganda firm run by a Mitch McConnell adviser called "RunSwitch".

Sean Spicer did exactly the same thing last year. How'd that work out?

I don't give a shit. Preach it to the people talking about the lawsuit.

Once AGAIN --- the lawsuit, and therefore the evidence available to it, is the topic of this thread. I understand that you want to make it about "hats" and "what this or that group thinks" and "who was standing where when" but these are tangents.

Tangents or not, I'm still not avoiding the issue as you claim.

Besides, my initial response to you was about a comment YOU made that was NOT about the lawsuit. Specifically, your remark that the Covington boys approached the BHIs. If anyone went off on a tangent, it was you. I was merely responding to your tangent.

May I say that it is disingenuous of you to say I'm avoiding the issue of the lawsuit when you know I never said a thing about it. May I also say that for someone who has strong opinions about Sandmann and the incident overall, you know remarkably little about it.

 

[Pogo]

That's what defamation IS.

Maybe, maybe not. But that's not my point. My point is, once again, that the very people criticizing this kid for the lawsuit and accusing him of looking for fame and money are the ones who made him famous when they shared the video on social media and called him a racist punk.

And it's what I've been asking for evidence of ---- since mid-January. Have yet to get any. WHO reported that Smirk-Boi --- his name wasn't even known at the time, nor should it be --- was a 'smirking insolent racist'.

You yourself said he acted like a dick, which means you think he was being insolent. Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase "being a dick" in this context?

All we can tell from the video is the smirk.

Right. All you can tell from the video is the smirk (I say "smile") and from that alone you determined he was being a dick.

Don't act like you didn't do exactly as everyone else did and judged this kid based on a facial expression that very well may have been nothing more than a nervous reaction to the idiot getting in his face.

In other words, the very people out there and on this forum and in this discussion that are bitching about this kid supposedly trying to gain fame are the ones that made him famous in the first place.

Also have yet to see anyone "bitching about this kid supposedly trying to gain fame". That's a new one. But off the topic.

Penelope: "He would be unknown if he hadn't sued, but no the parents and the boy want to keep him in the spotlight."

[
Without combing through all the videos and articles, I can't say if anything defamatory was reported. But I will say that, in contravention of sound journalistic ethics and the rush to get the story out there, they reported inaccuracies to the point that many had to retract their stories.

Fine. Then show us examples. Because that's critical for showing defamation --- which is the topic here.

I've told you already I'm not talking about the lawsuit.

Is there something complex about the three-word sentence "show us examples"?

Is there something complex about reading examples I actually give you? I've given you links and examples to prove that the media made an issue of the hat and that celebrities and other people were calling for violence against the kid and calling him racist and you never acknowledged them. Have you read any of the quotes or clicked on any of the links I've given you?

Don't dodge the issue. I didn't say anything about cause.

Causation is crucial. If a lawsuit is going to allege that X media company CAUSED the public perception that MAGA hats caused something, then the plaintiff will have to show evidence of where they did that.

Again, not talking about the lawsuit.

You were the one saying the MAGA hat was not newsworthy and didn't understand the "obsession". I gave you seven examples of major news networks and outlets that mentioned the MAGA hat in their headlines and in their articles at the time. So contrary to what you thought, the hat was, in fact, newsworthy.

See above.

Is it untrue that those hats were worn?

The truth of whether or not the hats were worn has never been in question. You said the hat was not newsworthy and I proved to you that it was.

See above.

And who proclaimed that (the bold)? Again --- Show. Us. Evidence.

Pfft.

And who proclaimed the hat was an "essential element" anyway?

Who proclaimed the kid was being a dick?

Why would they need to issue apologies or retract stories if everything they said was factual? They retracted their stories because some of the things they reported were NOT factual. Don't you get that?

Then Show Us Examples. Retractions that reference what they were retracting will do just fine. If it isn't obvious by now I'm not taking your word that such 'retractions' exist. When I put out an open challenge and nobody can answer it, that kind of indicates we're dealing in mythology. Evidence would show that we're not.

This is the first time you've even asked for examples of retractions. You've been asking for evidence of defamation which is not quite the same thing.

In any case, I've given you examples and direct quotes and links throughout this discussion and I don't think you've bothered to look at a single one. In fact, you keep telling me my posts are too long and will only respond to a couple of comments. Some of these long posts contain a shitload of links and examples. So to hell with it. Google it yourself.

I'm not the one that made an issue of the hat, they did. I proved that to you already. Haven't you been paying attention?

I'm not pissed that the hat was prominent, I'm pissed that people said he was racist because of the hat.

"People" huh?

I uh don't think the PR team is suing "People". I think they have named specific defendants.

Another dodge. I proved to you that the media made an issue of the hat. I proved to you that people were wishing violence on Sandmann and the Covington kids. I proved to you that Phillips got in Sandmann's face. I proved to you that the Covington kids did not approach the BHIs as you claimed. I've proven a lot of things to you regarding this incident and you've yet to acknowledge a single one. Instead, you keep harping about fucking pronouns.

A hell of a lot of verbiage just to avoid admitting you have no evidence. Which *IS* what this thread is about, tangent all you like about 'hats' and 'who got there first' and what 'people say', all of which are irrelevant.

Ask the people who have actually said they have evidence. I never said there was evidence as far as the lawsuit goes and I've been telling you from the beginning that I'm not talking about the lawsuit. I've also already told you that I don't know if the media and the news outlets said or published anything legally defamatory.

If you know all of this already then why do you act like I never told you and insist on accusing me of avoiding the issue?

The fact remains, the lawsuit is not against "People"; it is against very specific organizations, to wit NBC, to wit Washington Post, I'm sure others. That does not comprise "People in general", it does not comprise "the Tweeterverse", it does not comprise pop mythology, it does not comprise.some poster here or there; it does not comprise Jeff Bezos dick pics. It comprises those specific organizations and it requires specific documentation of what they printed and/or broadcast. Absent that, they have no case.

The fact remains that I never said a fucking thing about the lawsuit.

It is not, and never has been, my position that they did indeed print or broadcast defamatory material. I do not have the burden of proof to prove the negative; not only is there no such thing but I wouldn't assert the negative in the first place. I simply continue to note, as I have since mid-January, that given the open challenge for ANYBODY to find and show us any such evidence, NO ONE has been able to do it.

I never said anything to you about burden of proof or that you said they did print or broadcast defamatory material. Why are you telling me this?

And that is not a promising start for a lawsuit alleging this or that entity libeled somebody in the public mind. If such evidence turns up this afternoon, it will have taken three and a half months to find. That doesn't make the case that it infiltrated the public mind three and a half months ago, now does it.

Lotta partisan wags on this site simply don't get that lawsuits, or threats of lawsuits, are (sadly) commonly filed as publicity/propaganda stunts. Indeed this one is fueled by a propaganda firm run by a Mitch McConnell adviser called "RunSwitch".

Sean Spicer did exactly the same thing last year. How'd that work out?

I don't give a shit. Preach it to the people talking about the lawsuit.

Once AGAIN --- the lawsuit, and therefore the evidence available to it, is the topic of this thread. I understand that you want to make it about "hats" and "what this or that group thinks" and "who was standing where when" but these are tangents.

Tangents or not, I'm still not avoiding the issue as you claim.

Besides, my initial response to you was about a comment YOU made that was NOT about the lawsuit. Specifically, your remark that the Covington boys approached the BHIs. If anyone went off on a tangent, it was you. I was merely responding to your tangent.

May I say that it is disingenuous of you to say I'm avoiding the issue of the lawsuit when you know I never said a thing about it. May I also say that for someone who has strong opinions about Sandmann and the incident overall, you know remarkably little about it.

I highlighted no such thing. I did note that progressive hunter 's video, and the WaPo page I quoted, both observed the Covingtons approaching the BHIs (and in fact took that further to question the judgment of the chaperones who approved the confrontation via the "tribal chant". I'm sure you remember that phrase since I believe it was you who questioned me as to its origin.

Those are all tangents to the point of whether the lawsuit has merit, and responses to other tangents brought up by others. None of them demonstrate that the lawsuit has or does not have merit, unless you're about to assert something like that WaPo claimed the Covingtons moved toward them while you in your barcalounger in Idaho somehow "know" they didn't.