Covington kid (Nick Sandmann) files first lawsuit against the Washington Post for $250 million

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,914
3,150
410
The Gawker story and this are not even remotely similar. You are crazy if you think that they are. Gawker released a fucking porno tape of Hogan. That is not even in the same galaxy as what happened here. Not even close.


At WORST what happened here is that WaPo knowingly spread bad info regarding a volatile situation in order to get clicks and thats the worst case scenario. That is not the same thing as maliciously releasing a private sex tape of someone to the public.
Not saying they are the same situation, I am saying financially Hogan bankrupted Gawker. If Sandman wins this could potentially have the same financial impact on WAPO.

Its only similar in regards to the financial effect.
 
Dec 18, 2010
8,238
959
660
51
washington d.c.
No I am saying that if its proven they knew about the video and released the story anyway then by all means punish them.


Ignorance =/= Malice


That is where I differ from you all.
The video was available online since the initial incident. It was there for anyone to see. The beauty is they don’t have to prove malice, just negligence, which is obvious to any thinking person they were. But I understand where you would want an emotional angle, you certainly don’t have one of knowledge or reason.
 
Sep 26, 2014
1,910
1,115
330
Well considering WaPo is owned by the richest man on earth I highly doubt WaPo is gonna go bankrupt regardless of what the courts decide lol



No I am saying that if its proven they knew about the video and released the story anyway then by all means punish them.


Ignorance =/= Malice


That is where I differ from you all. Thats all I have left to say though. I am gonna wait for more information regarding the case and the arguments that each side is making before I say anything else. Its time to just wait and see.
pretty sure this will be the third time I have said in this thread, and at least once where I quoted you personally, but malice is not required in defamation cases involving private individuals. there only has to be proven negligence in an attempt make sure the claim was true.
 
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
pretty sure this will be the third time I have said in this thread, and at least once where I quoted you personally, but malice is not required in defamation cases involving private individuals. there only has to be proven negligence in an attempt make sure the claim was true.
I'm not saying that it is when it comes to a legal case. I am saying that the difference means something to me personally and how I view the situation. I have already said that I am not rooting against these people. I am only here to present my opinion and in my opinion unless it proven the Washington Post is proven to have done this on purpose I don't feel like they should be held liable. But thats just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Apr 18, 2018
8,016
13,029
555
USA
dunpachi.com
I'm not saying that it is when it comes to a legal case. I am saying that the difference means something to me personally and how I view the situation. I have already said that I am not rooting against these people. I am only here to present my opinion and in my opinion unless it proven the Washington Post is proven to have done this on purpose I don't feel like they should be held liable. But thats just my opinion.
In your opinion, should Trump be held accountable for the "harmful" things he says unless it is proven -- by this same standard of yours -- he said them on purpose?
 
Sep 7, 2012
2,363
400
475
The Gawker story and this are not even remotely similar. You are crazy if you think that they are. Gawker released a fucking porno tape of Hogan. That is not even in the same galaxy as what happened here. Not even close.


At WORST what happened here is that WaPo knowingly spread bad info regarding a volatile situation in order to get clicks and thats the worst case scenario. That is not the same thing as maliciously releasing a private sex tape of someone to the public.

They turned this kid into basically the most hated kid in America.
They crafted a false narrative around this kid in an effort to be the first to the news and to discredit President Trump.

This kid wasn’t a public figure so they don’t have NYT v Sullivan to fall back on.

WaPo is gonna fucking fry for this and they damn well deserve to.
 
Last edited:
Jan 31, 2018
189
430
215
If its proven the Post knew of the video and continued to put out what they did anyway then I 100% support them having to pay some kind of financial penalty.
They should’ve known about the video. They’re journalists. Research is part of their job.

No I am saying that if its proven they knew about the video and released the story anyway then by all means punish them.


Ignorance =/= Malice
Again, journalism should be an antithesis to ignorance.

And ignoring details to produce a story that’ll rile people up and get clicks regardless of who it hurts is the same as malice. Journalism is trash, and stories like this prove it.

Even if this event happened exactly as the news sites said it did, who cares? In that case, a kid was obnoxious to a native man with a drum. That story is of consequence to no one. That story is of significance to no one.

But even worse, even that nothing-story was a fabrication. A kid had lefties chanting online for his death, his name was dragged in the mud. All for clicks from people who want an excuse to hate MAGA-hats. People like you.

These """journalists""" need their feet held to the fire at every possible opportunity. That’s the only way this shit will get any better. Fuck this wishy-washy “well if they say they didn’t know, then everything’s okay” shit. They didn’t make a mistake. It never mattered to them whether or not there was a video, they never would’ve shown it anyways. They made a concious decision to publish a story without the facts to sow hate and get clicks. Anyone who refuses to take a principled stand against this kind of thing is a coward.
 
Last edited:
Sep 1, 2017
570
297
220
I’ll put how rich people think into perspective for some of you guys out there. They like making money on their investments. If an investment loses a ton of money, it either gets sold off or closed. $250 million dollars is a lot of money to lose in an investment that one expects to turn a little bit of profit in. The number one rule in the game is to cut your losses and invest in profitable enterprises. Bezos didn’t get rich by taking hundreds of millions of dollars in loses. That decreases ones’ net worth overall and loses you stock holders because they think that you are too risky to invest in. Confidence lost equals profit lost!
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Gif and Meme Champion
Jan 14, 2018
1,359
5,394
475
I am only here to present my opinion and in my opinion unless it proven the Washington Post is proven to have done this on purpose I don't feel like they should be held liable. But thats just my opinion.
Considering that this forum alone pretty much debunked the whole story on day 1, page 1 (here and here), I think that relative to this it's pretty safe to assume that the Covington lawyers have enough fodder to prove crass negligence on how the Washington Post covered this story.

171. The negligence and actual malice of the Post is demonstrated by its utter and knowing disregard for the truth available in the complete video of the January 18 incident which was available contemporaneously with the edited clip the Post chose because it appeared to support its biased narrative.
Let's also not forget that the Washington Post kept pushing their narrative long after January the twentieth. Are you really suggesting that a professional highly-reputed news outlet with a sizable staff of professional journalists could not figure out for days, what a couple of random posters on a video-game board managed to do almost instantly?

I think this is going to be a jury trial, yes? If so, the Washington Post really has not much of a leg to stand on.
 
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
Considering that this forum alone pretty much debunked the whole story on day 1, page 1 (here and here), I think that relative to this it's pretty safe to assume that the Covington lawyers have enough fodder to prove crass negligence on how the Washington Post covered this story.



Let's also not forget that the Washington Post kept pushing their narrative long after January the twentieth. Are you really suggesting that a professional highly-reputed news outlet with a sizable staff of professional journalists could not figure out for days, what a couple of random posters on a video-game board managed to do almost instantly?

I think this is going to be a jury trial, yes? If so, the Washington Post really has not much of a leg to stand on.
I guess we will find out.
 
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
Bump this thread, but looks like tomorrow or Tuesday CNN is going to get their papers.

Looks like the number is going to be even bigger than WAPO, so we might be going into 400 or 500 Million.

Can't wait for these trials to start gonna be entertaining.
Its highly unlikely this ever makes it to trial. More likely it gets settled out of court or a judge simply dismisses them.
 

wzy

Member
Dec 29, 2018
145
161
160
If they had never corrected themselves and never updated their story then they would have a solid shot, but thats not what happened. The fact that social media took their reports and the reports of other outlets and ran with them is not their fault. A newspaper or news outlet is not responsible for what its readers or viewers do with the information they put out. All they can do is report the news and reports as they get them and work from there. Anything beyond that is out of there hands as far as I am concerned.
You have this backwards. The Washington Post took social media reports and ran with them. The typical hedge about "we're just reporting what others are saying" doesn't really apply here, either, or at least any attorney would be able to argue cogently to that effect given the ammunition they have available in the Post's own reporting. Of course he won't get the publicized amount but he'll absolutely get a payday, which he has clearly earned.
 
Dec 3, 2013
18,650
12,482
565
Its highly unlikely this ever makes it to trial. More likely it gets settled out of court or a judge simply dismisses them.
You want to bet your account this doesn't get dismissed?

Especially knowing the lawyer and his past cases. I'm just curious with how firm you are with your convictions.
 
Last edited:

pimentel1

Gold Member
Jul 22, 2018
874
443
340
You have this backwards. The Washington Post took social media reports and ran with them. The typical hedge about "we're just reporting what others are saying" doesn't really apply here, either, or at least any attorney would be able to argue cogently to that effect given the ammunition they have available in the Post's own reporting. Of course he won't get the publicized amount but he'll absolutely get a payday, which he has clearly earned.
I have personally witnessed a reporter and disgruntled ex Met Life worker trying to slander Met Life with false news reports, recorded it, and it was used as key evidence of slander. Met Life was in the clear, the reporter and disgruntled worker sued into oblivion. The reporter fired. If a judge is going to protect a corporation from slander, you had better believe they’re going to protect a private citizen waiting for a bus.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
You want to bet your account this doesn't get dismissed?

Especially knowing the lawyer and his past cases. I'm just curious with how firm you are with your convictions.
I never said I was sure I was right. I am just saying in my opinion I think its likely. We see cases like this all the time where someone tries to sue a big company or entity for an absurd amount of money and it usually ends with the case being dismissed or them settling out of court. I could be wrong though I admit. This could be one of the few that go the distance.


Like I said before though I wish the kid luck. These things rarely go as planned.
 
Last edited:
Aug 30, 2014
6,720
1,780
385
Trained journalists working for professional news agencies should not be publishing Twitter hate mob diarrhea as fact, especially when live feed video was available the entire time that vindicated the kids. It took literally minutes to discover the official narrative was wrong [they didn't surround him] and another hour or two to know everything else was incorrect as well, and that the kids were the victims.

Instead, they joined the pile on that led to an entire school needing to be shut down, death threats, celebrity pile ons, and life altering lies that will forever follow Nick Sandmann and any other Covington graduate.

Meanwhile, you had people here and twitter and places like reddit saying they didnt need to see the full video.... because hey, that smirk amirite?

And who spread truth? A journalist from one of these mainstream sources that dug deeper? No. Tim fucking pool led the charge in vindicating these kids, alongside other indy journalists. And it wasn't days later. It was almost immediate that the truth came out from indy sources.

Meanwhile, the mainstream sources continued to spread the lies of a stolen valor liar, interviewing him through his bullshit tears just like they did Smollet. Did a journalist uncover the truth? No... it took a vet working on his own time to dismantle Phillip's vietnam lies. And is he thanked for it? No, he gets deplatformed by YouTube instead.

Sandmann could have gotten murdered over this. His reputation could have suffered irreparable harm, and in some ways did since some outlets and tweets still have the wrong story and many still think he is guilty.

So, yes, ignorance this case does equal malice, as soon as professional journalists dogpiled a group of kids, putting their lives at risk, over obvious falsehoods indy media was screaming about at the top of their lungs. And people would still be calling for mob justice if not for people like Tim pool forcing the mainstream to change [their racist, politically motivated] narrative.

CNN, wapo, the Twitter mobs, and the rest can get wrecked. I'm sure they'll settle for 10s of millions, but I'd rather see them forced to close shop so we can have more lying journalists learn to fucking code.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2013
18,650
12,482
565
Maybe an avatar bet of some sort??
I admit, I was being a little extreme with my comment. But I'm tired of seeing an ideological hallow response, especially when it takes two minutes to see this lawyer does not fuck around, does not take on cases he sees as bullshit, and has definitely gone through another highly prolific National case in the past.

The media propagandists done fucked up, as @autoduelist layed out above.

They keep pushing and pushing the envelope until someone finally puts their asses in check, again. Settled out of court, maybe, and you'll see the media tone it down after as well, since that is still an L. Dismissed, I highly doubt it, especially with the Supreme Court circuits they can file a push in. This is only the beginning.

For so long a certain party line was resting on their laurels and I feel the tides are coming.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
Maybe an avatar bet of some sort??
Nah. I will make big bets like that when its something I care alot about, but this isn't that. I could care less if the kid ends up getting paid or not. It won't bother me either way. I am just making an educated guess based off of previous incidents where big entities get sued for imaginary amounts of money by smaller groups or individuals and then look at how often it actually goes the distance. Which is to say it very rarely works out in favor of the smaller group from my experience and even more rare than that is when the court actually gives the smaller groups what they are asking for. 200+ million dollars is fucking ludicrous though.


Like I said earlier in the thread though we will just have to wait and see how it plays out.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2013
18,650
12,482
565
It's not about the money, it's pushing ideological and biased propaganda reporting, threatening the lives of underage children. It's to expose their bullshit at face value for the world to judicially see.

From the same media that always says, "think of the children" when they want to push other agendas like gun control, etc.. Irony at its finest on a sweet glass of shiraz or merlot, maybe.

I'm down with an Avatar, don't get it twisted.
 
Last edited:
Jan 20, 2018
1,251
696
320
Pittsburgh
Nah. I will make big bets like that when its something I care alot about, but this isn't that. I could care less if the kid ends up getting paid or not. It won't bother me either way. I am just making an educated guess based off of previous incidents where big entities get sued for imaginary amounts of money by smaller groups or individuals and then look at how often it actually goes the distance. Which is to say it very rarely works out in favor of the smaller group from my experience and even more rare than that is when the court actually gives the smaller groups what they are asking for. 200+ million dollars is fucking ludicrous though.


Like I said earlier in the thread though we will just have to wait and see how it plays out.
You tried to bet me over this exact same issue before the lawsuits were filed.
 
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
You tried to bet me over this exact same issue before the lawsuits were filed.
Yeah I know and it was a dumb thing to do. My ban helped me realize that if I am gonna get in trouble on here or take any kind of stand on here its gonna be over something that actually matters to me. This doesn't. The same goes for stuff like avatar bets.


Though I would make an exception for someone I get along with better on a more innocent topic just for fun though.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2013
18,650
12,482
565
Yeah I know and it was a dumb thing to do. My ban helped me realize that if I am gonna get in trouble on here or take any kind of stand on here its gonna be over something that actually matters to me. This doesn't. The same goes for stuff like avatar bets.


Though I would make an exception for someone I get along with better on a more innocent topic just for fun though.
Just to let you know, my comment in here were just for fun because I knew you would get it on that level with a little bit of... take a moment and step back and realize that ideologies on both sides are acting a fool right now.

And it doesn't matter what you subscribe to, we as citizens and human beings deserve impartial truth.

Or nah?
 
Last edited:
Mar 3, 2014
2,009
597
360
I'm not saying that it is when it comes to a legal case. I am saying that the difference means something to me personally and how I view the situation. I have already said that I am not rooting against these people. I am only here to present my opinion and in my opinion unless it proven the Washington Post is proven to have done this on purpose I don't feel like they should be held liable. But thats just my opinion.
So you're fine with newspapers printing stories with zero research.
 
Aug 30, 2014
6,720
1,780
385
Then its a good thing they most likely won't have to pay it. This is not the same situation as what happened with Gawker. Not even close.
Hogan was invasion of privacy.

This is what, defamation that endangered the lives of dozens of innocent kids.

Its very interesting to see how differently you treat a mob going after Sandman than you did when one supposedly went after Smollet.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,914
3,150
410
Its highly unlikely this ever makes it to trial. More likely it gets settled out of court or a judge simply dismisses them.
Listening to the lawyer I don't think they want to settle. Only 50 million of it is damages, the other 200 is punative. They want to teach the media a lesson in fake news.

So IMO if its up to Sandmans legal team this will go to trial.