Covington student's defamation case against Washington Post is dismissed

[SummerMadness]

Covington student's defamation case against Washington Post is dismissed

A federal judge on Friday dismissed a multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against The Washington Post over its coverage of an interaction between a Kentucky high school student and a Native American activist on the National Mall, which gained national attention after the video went viral.

Judge William O. Bertelsman dismissed the suit, stating that the Post's coverage was protected as free speech and rejecting Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann's argument that the newspaper implied inaccurately that Sandmann had behaved in a menacing or violent way. The Post had quoted the activist, a veteran named Nathan Phillips, who said Sandmann stood in his way to get to the Lincoln Memorial in the Jan 19 incident.

No surprise here, free speech wins.

 

[Ave Maria]

I just hate how the media wanted to portray it as Sandmann approaching the Native American man in a hostile manner when in reality, the Native American man approached him.

 

[Radagast]

I just hate how the media wanted to portray it as Sandmann approaching the Native American man in a hostile manner when in reality, the Native American man approached him.

Exactly, and it's sad that they got away with it.

 

[Ave Maria]

Exactly, and it's sad that they got away with it.

I completely agree. The Native American man was the aggressor, not Sandmann.

 

[Go Braves]

Covington student's defamation case against Washington Post is dismissed


No surprise here, free speech wins.

Not a surprise in the least. This is exactly what I said would happen in threads here this spring about the suit. Glad I was right. The suit surely did deserve to be dismissed.

 

[Nithavela]

Exactly, and it's sad that they got away with it.

Maybe the second ammendement people can do something about it.

 

[Radagast]

Maybe the second ammendement people can do something about it.

The right to free speech is not the right to defame. In my view, the WaPo coverage was clearly defamatory.

 

[Nithavela]

The right to free speech is not the right to defame. In my view, the WaPo coverage was clearly defamatory.

The court seems to disagree to your view.

Do you think that your view should superceed the courts opinion?

 

[Radagast]

The court seems to disagree to your view.

Do you think that your view should superceed the courts opinion?

Yes. The decision is being appealed; I believe that the appeal should succeed, and I hope that it does.

 

[Nithavela]

Yes. The decision is being appealed; I believe that the appeal should succeed, and I hope that it does.

And if the appeal also falls through, do you still think that your opinion should superceed the court?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

And if the appeal also falls through, do you still think that your opinion should superceed the court?

Yes, these judges are just making stuff up on the bench. We need to force them to rule in our favor or else replace them with judges that will.

After all, we are a nation built on laws.