The Sandman Lawsuits

[flockofseagulls104]

None of our resident liberal activists are bringing up this subject, so I will.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/nick-sa ... s-behavior

This is the very definition of fake news, and I hope they win in the full amount. Maybe that will be what changes journalism back to being objective observers from the agenda peddlers they are now.

[silverscreenselect]

This is the very definition of fake news, and I hope they win in the full amount. Maybe that will be what changes journalism back to being objective observers from the agenda peddlers they are now.

What they are going to find out is how federal courts do not like people bringing this type of litigation, and when the libel suits get tossed out the fun begins when the defense attorneys go after the plaintiffs attorneys for bringing a frivolous suit.

The Federal Rule is Rule 11 and it prohibits bringing an action "for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation." The statements of plaintiffs' attorneys will doubtless come back to haunt them in this regard.

Here's an example of Rule 11 in action:

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/59 ... Memorandum+

[jarnon]

This is the very definition of fake news, and I hope they win in the full amount. Maybe that will be what changes journalism back to being objective observers from the agenda peddlers they are now.

What they are going to find out is how federal courts do not like people bringing this type of litigation, and when the libel suits get tossed out the fun begins when the defense attorneys go after the plaintiffs attorneys for bringing a frivolous suit.

The Federal Rule is Rule 11 and it prohibits bringing an action "for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation." The statements of plaintiffs' attorneys will doubtless come back to haunt them in this regard.

Here's an example of Rule 11 in action:

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/59 ... Memorandum+

The usual "absence of malice" defense won't work here because Sandmann isn't a public figure.

[silverscreenselect]

The usual "absence of malice" defense won't work here because Sandmann isn't a public figure.

It's more complicated than that. There's such a thing as a "limited purpose public figure." "A limited purpose public figure is one who voluntarily injects their views or is otherwise drawn into a particular controversy by their conduct; they are, therefore, treated as public figures when they sue for defamatory statements bearing on that controversy."

It can and certainly will be argued that Sandman was drawn into this controversy by his conduct.

[Bob78164]

The usual "absence of malice" defense won't work here because Sandmann isn't a public figure.

It's more complicated than that. There's such a thing as a "limited purpose public figure." "A limited purpose public figure is one who voluntarily injects their views or is otherwise drawn into a particular controversy by their conduct; they are, therefore, treated as public figures when they sue for defamatory statements bearing on that controversy."

It can and certainly will be argued that Sandman was drawn into this controversy by his conduct.

I'd be interested to see what false statements of fact they contend were made. Statements of opinion (such as assessing fault or responsibility) aren't actionable unless they clearly imply false statements of act.

I haven't seen the pleading but I seriously doubt it will be subject to Rule 11 sanctions, and they were probably smart enough not to sue in a jurisdiction that has anti-SLAPP protections. --Bob

[jarnon]

The usual "absence of malice" defense won't work here because Sandmann isn't a public figure.

It's more complicated than that. There's such a thing as a "limited purpose public figure." "A limited purpose public figure is one who voluntarily injects their views or is otherwise drawn into a particular controversy by their conduct; they are, therefore, treated as public figures when they sue for defamatory statements bearing on that controversy."

It can and certainly will be argued that Sandman was drawn into this controversy by his conduct.

Sometimes people are "drawn into a controversy" for innocent conduct like "shopping while black." I'm sure the lawyers have opposite opinions about whether Sandmann is a "limited purpose public figure."

[BackInTex]

[quote="silverscreenselect”]

It can and certainly will be argued that Sandman was drawn into this controversy by his conduct.[/quote]

Waiting for the bus? Only an idiot would argue that is conduct that drew him into the conflict.

I rest my case.

[silverscreenselect]

The usual "absence of malice" defense won't work here because Sandmann isn't a public figure.

It's more complicated than that. There's such a thing as a "limited purpose public figure." "A limited purpose public figure is one who voluntarily injects their views or is otherwise drawn into a particular controversy by their conduct; they are, therefore, treated as public figures when they sue for defamatory statements bearing on that controversy."

It can and certainly will be argued that Sandman was drawn into this controversy by his conduct.

Sometimes people are "drawn into a controversy" for innocent conduct like "shopping while black." I'm sure the lawyers have opposite opinions about whether Sandmann is a "limited purpose public figure."

There was a case in DC two years ago involving Gordon Kahl's son. The Court said:

This Court applies a three-part test to determine whether a plaintiff is a public figure. First, the court must identify the relevant controversy and determine whether it is a public controversy. Second, the plaintiff must have played a significant role in that controversy. Third, the defamatory statement must be germane to the plaintiff’s participation in the controversy.

The key is that the defamatory statement must be germane to the plaintiff's participation in the controversy. In the case of a "shopping while black" situation, what the person did in the events leading up to the arrest would be germane. Looking at his life story to see if he had ever been arrested would not.

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appell ... 1494340297

[flockofseagulls104]

This is the very definition of fake news, and I hope they win in the full amount. Maybe that will be what changes journalism back to being objective observers from the agenda peddlers they are now.

What they are going to find out is how federal courts do not like people bringing this type of litigation, and when the libel suits get tossed out the fun begins when the defense attorneys go after the plaintiffs attorneys for bringing a frivolous suit.

The Federal Rule is Rule 11 and it prohibits bringing an action "for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation." The statements of plaintiffs' attorneys will doubtless come back to haunt them in this regard.

Here's an example of Rule 11 in action:

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/59 ... Memorandum+

Once again, you avoid the obvious point.

Was it NEWS to use this incident to impugn this kid? None of these "news" entities looked into any facts except the kid was wearing a maga hat. Even when the facts came out, still they persisted.

Tell me how in the hell you can confuse this with legitimate news reporting? Not just one of them did it, but ALL of them.

[silverscreenselect]

Was it NEWS to use this incident to impugn this kid?

The expression on the kid's face spoke for itself.

[Estonut]

Was it NEWS to use this incident to impugn this kid?

The expression on the kid's face spoke for itself.

You really think that was a smirk? It was a nervous smile. He didn't know how to react to the invasion of his personal space.

[silverscreenselect]

Was it NEWS to use this incident to impugn this kid?

The expression on the kid's face spoke for itself.

You really think that was a smirk? It was a nervous smile. He didn't know how to react to the invasion of his personal space.

So sayeth the PR firm they hired the next day and the right-wing press was more than eager to take up that suggestion.

What he didn't know how to do until coached was react to getting caught in the act.

[Beebs52]

Essentially, who gives a shit. Oh. Wait. Smollett. Never mind.

[Bob78164]

Essentially, who gives a shit. Oh. Wait. Smollett. Never mind.

Those of us who disapprove of efforts to bully the free press away from doing its job. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Essentially, who gives a shit. Oh. Wait. Smollett. Never mind.

Those of us who disapprove of efforts to bully the free press away from doing its job. --Bob

You are amusing.

[flockofseagulls104]

Was it NEWS to use this incident to impugn this kid?

The expression on the kid's face spoke for itself.

Oh that's right. You know what is in everyone's mind at all times. It's always news to destroy a 15-year-old kid's reputation for the rest of his life. He was wearing a maga hat. He deserved it. How dare he?

You are a disgusting person. For real.

[silverscreenselect]

Was it NEWS to use this incident to impugn this kid?

The expression on the kid's face spoke for itself.

Oh that's right. You know what is in everyone's mind at all times. It's always news to destroy a 15-year-old kid's reputation for the rest of his life. He was wearing a maga hat. He deserved it. How dare he?

You are a disgusting person. For real.

You really think that was a smirk? It was a nervous smile. He didn't know how to react to the invasion of his personal space.

So, you criticize me and not Esto for venturing to know what was in the kid's mind. To the extent that the kid's "reputation" was destroyed, his family and the right-wing press did that by turning him into their poster child and bringing in a PR firm the next day to represent him, in essence turning a one-day blip into a continuing story.

You are a hypocritical fool. For real.

[Appa23]

A few years ago, I was at a meeting where a commanding General for the Corps of Engineers was speaking. During his presentation, he offered some very sage advice: Never do math in public. Otherwise, you run a strong risk of looking foolish.

The advice is just as applicable to other areas, as well.

[kroxquo]

[quote="silverscreenselect”]

It can and certainly will be argued that Sandman was drawn into this controversy by his conduct.

Waiting for the bus? Only an idiot would argue that is conduct that drew him into the conflict.

I rest my case.[/quote][/quote]

I think that if he had simply waiting for his bus to pick him up, I would agree with you. However, there was a whole lot of space in that area where he could have waited and not right where the man was playing the drum. This to me clearly looks like passive aggression. I teach high school; trust me I know the look. This is the high school version of sitting in the back seat of the car holding your finger a couple of inches away from your little brother and repeatedly saying, "I'm not touching you." He was looking for a reaction.

[Estonut]

[quote="silverscreenselect”]

It can and certainly will be argued that Sandman was drawn into this controversy by his conduct.

Waiting for the bus? Only an idiot would argue that is conduct that drew him into the conflict.

I rest my case.

[/quote]I think that if he had simply waiting for his bus to pick him up, I would agree with you. However, there was a whole lot of space in that area where he could have waited and not right where the man was playing the drum. This to me clearly looks like passive aggression. I teach high school; trust me I know the look. This is the high school version of sitting in the back seat of the car holding your finger a couple of inches away from your little brother and repeatedly saying, "I'm not touching you." He was looking for a reaction.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]The drum player approached HIM and invaded his space. What if he had moved and the drum player had followed him? Then what?

[Estonut]

The expression on the kid's face spoke for itself.

You really think that was a smirk? It was a nervous smile. He didn't know how to react to the invasion of his personal space.

So sayeth the PR firm they hired the next day and the right-wing press was more than eager to take up that suggestion.

What he didn't know how to do until coached was react to getting caught in the act.

No, that was my observation when the longer video was made available. I kept reading about a "smirk," but did not see it.

What, exactly, do you think he was "caught in the act" of doing?

[silverscreenselect]

No, that was my observation when the longer video was made available. I kept reading about a "smirk," but did not see it.

That's how good PR firms work. They shape people's opinions without them being aware they're being influenced. Here's an article about the firm. They're good at their job.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/socie ... -sandmann/

[flockofseagulls104]

No, that was my observation when the longer video was made available. I kept reading about a "smirk," but did not see it.

That's how good PR firms work. They shape people's opinions without them being aware they're being influenced. Here's an article about the firm. They're good at their job.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/socie ... -sandmann/

And you don't think the 'NEWS' is doing the same thing to you? How naive you are.
When a hateful group of black israelites is shouting disgusting things at a bunch of high school kids, and a native american activist goes right up in the face of one particular 15 year old drumming and chanting, you still think the kid is to blame for something because YOU can read his mind from the expression on his face? How did you get this way? I think the news media, with their agenda, has influenced you without you being aware.

[silverscreenselect]

When a hateful group of black israelites is shouting disgusting things at a bunch of high school kids,.

Having been in situations in which nutcases, either individuals or groups are shouting disgusting things in public, I tend to leave or ignore. Those kids did neither. That's probably on their chaperones for failing to supervise, but still, this kid chose to get into a situation where bad things could happen.

[BackInTex]

When a hateful group of black israelites is shouting disgusting things at a bunch of high school kids,.

Having been in situations in which nutcases, either individuals or groups are shouting disgusting things in public, I tend to leave or ignore. Those kids did neither. That's probably on their chaperones for failing to supervise, but still, this kid chose to get into a situation where bad things could happen.

They ignored. Tell me how they didn't. They remained standing where they were waiting for their bus, as instructed. Then the valor stealing professional protester comes up and beats a drum in a student's face. The valor stealing professional protester claimed he was attempting to shield the child from the black protesters. But he faced the child, not the protesters. When you protect someone, you stand between the aggressor and the target with your BACK to the target and you FACE the aggressor. The valor stealing professional protester did not do this.

This is why the lawsuits are necessary....because you and others (Krox) still believe the negative narratives put out by the media.