About Last Year's Covington Kids Hate Session

[Spock]

I realize that we have the attention of gnats here and we immediately go with the initial main stream media's take without any pause for reflection and then move on to the next bouncing ball (SQUIRREl!!!!!!!!!!!)

https://www.theamericanconservative.com ... ear-later/

Now that Nicholas Sandmann has won a major suit against CNN, any reflections or readjustment?

I specifically remember SSS bravely leading the charge against the 15 year old. After the passage of time and as facts have clarified, any second thoughts?

[mrkelley23]

Not pertinent to your actual question, but I have a question of my own: if someone files a lawsuit against someone else, be it person or corporation, and the sue-ee settles, does that mean the original suer won the lawsuit?

[silverscreenselect]

Not pertinent to your actual question, but I have a question of my own: if someone files a lawsuit against someone else, be it person or corporation, and the sue-ee settles, does that mean the original suer won the lawsuit?

Nobody has "won" the lawsuit since there was no judgment or verdict in the case. Typically, in a situation like this, all parties dismiss all their claims and counterclaims and potential claims (for attorneys fees, frivolous litigation, and similar claims) with prejudice, meaning that no one can bring them up again. The amount of the settlement is sealed, although I've seen a $25 million number floated around on right wing sites.

Taking a case like this all the way to trial, including possible appeals, would be very expensive for CNN. I have my doubts about a $25 million settlement, but corporate defendants will settle cases if liability is uncertain. Since Sandman has lawsuits pending against other organizations, his attorneys may also have taken a fairly lowball number just to have some precedent to leverage against the other news organizations being sued. As a point of interest, Lin Wood, the Atlanta attorney who represented Richard Jewell in his various defamation cases, is one of Sandman's attorneys. Wood is not the attorney portrayed by Sam Rockwell in the Richard Jewell movie. Wood joined Jewell's legal team later.

[Ritterskoop]

I would like to see that Jewell movie, but the AJC has written so many pieces protesting its inaccuracy, I feel I have to stand with them against the mischaracterization of journalists. They did report that he was under investigation, because he was. Plus the bit about the female reporter sleeping with the FBI guy to get quotes is just gross. They don't have to Hollywood-ize everything.

[mrkelley23]

Not pertinent to your actual question, but I have a question of my own: if someone files a lawsuit against someone else, be it person or corporation, and the sue-ee settles, does that mean the original suer won the lawsuit?

Nobody has "won" the lawsuit since there was no judgment or verdict in the case. Typically, in a situation like this, all parties dismiss all their claims and counterclaims and potential claims (for attorneys fees, frivolous litigation, and similar claims) with prejudice, meaning that no one can bring them up again. The amount of the settlement is sealed, although I've seen a $25 million number floated around on right wing sites.

Taking a case like this all the way to trial, including possible appeals, would be very expensive for CNN. I have my doubts about a $25 million settlement, but corporate defendants will settle cases if liability is uncertain. Since Sandman has lawsuits pending against other organizations, his attorneys may also have taken a fairly lowball number just to have some precedent to leverage against the other news organizations being sued. As a point of interest, Lin Wood, the Atlanta attorney who represented Richard Jewell in his various defamation cases, is one of Sandman's attorneys. Wood is not the attorney portrayed by Sam Rockwell in the Richard Jewell movie. Wood joined Jewell's legal team later.

Not to take anything away from your expertise, but I'm actually more interested in Spock's response to my question.

[silverscreenselect]

I would like to see that Jewell movie, but the AJC has written so many pieces protesting its inaccuracy, I feel I have to stand with them against the mischaracterization of journalists. They did report that he was under investigation, because he was. Plus the bit about the female reporter sleeping with the FBI guy to get quotes is just gross. They don't have to Hollywood-ize everything.

Skoop:

If you missed it, check out my response to "With a Name Like Boris" thread about a new miniseries that will be out next month about the case. It appears to focus more on the entire case from the Olympic bombings to the capture of Rudolph.

[SportsFan68]

I would like to see that Jewell movie, but the AJC has written so many pieces protesting its inaccuracy, I feel I have to stand with them against the mischaracterization of journalists. They did report that he was under investigation, because he was. Plus the bit about the female reporter sleeping with the FBI guy to get quotes is just gross. They don't have to Hollywood-ize everything.

I agree, but . . .

I saw Bohemian Rhapsody on an airplane and loved it. Then when I got home I checked it for accuracy with Reel vs. Real or some such, and I found that a couple of sequences I liked best were phony, most notably for me the part about how their Live Aid appearance was last minute. It wasn't, the planning for Queen to appear had started months previously. But it makes for a great story, and Rami Malek's performance makes it all worthwhile. There are YouTube videos with the two performances side by side, and it's easy to see how Malek won the Oscar. He blew the room (all 100,000 of them) away! So I'll accept that Hollywoodization in the interest of a great story.

Having said that, I will stand with Skoop on this. I won't watch that particular bit of sleaze and the other mischaracterizations. It's harmful.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

While I was waiting to watch Jewell I was shown the trailer for Bombshell.