There you go - Sandmann's Suit Against Washington Post Dismissed ...

[A_Thinker]

Nicholas Sandmann's Lawsuit Against the Washington Post Is Dismissed

 

[thecolorsblend]

The lawsuit was dismissed because a judge determined there were no facts reported in WaPo's story.

So maybe justice was served in a limited way here?

 

[A_Thinker]

The lawsuit was dismissed because a judge determined there were no facts reported in WaPo's story.

Not quite accurate ...

But in Judge William Bertelsen’s ruling, the judge concluded that “Sandmann’s allegation attempts to insert innuendo not found within … the publication,” and that his claims were “not supported by the plain language in the article, which states none of these things.”

 

[thecolorsblend]

Not quite accurate ...

More opinions, yay!

 

[hedrick]

Not quite accurate ...

But in Judge William Bertelsen’s ruling, the judge concluded that “Sandmann’s allegation attempts to insert innuendo not found within … the publication,” and that his claims were “not supported by the plain language in the article, which states none of these things.”

Legally it's hard to argue with this. However ethically, posting half the relevant information led people to draw these conclusions, even if the Post didn't. The Post did their best to correct that information. It's hard to see what else they could have done.

 

[A_Thinker]

The lawsuit was dismissed because a judge determined there were no facts reported in WaPo's story.

So maybe justice was served in a limited way here?

The decision can be found here ... https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.kyed.88372/gov.uscourts.kyed.88372.47.0.pdf

The Conclusion and statement rulings are found on pages 28 - 36

 

[thecolorsblend]

The decision can be found here ... https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.kyed.88372/gov.uscourts.kyed.88372.47.0.pdf

The Conclusion and statement rulings are found on pages 28 - 36

Yep, it was all opinions in that WaPo article. No facts.

 

[Cimorene]

Nicholas Sandmann's Lawsuit Against the Washington Post Is Dismissed

Good.

 

[A_Thinker]

Yep, it was all opinions in that WaPo article. No facts.

There were, actually, (7) Washington Post articles and (3) tweets ascribable to the Washington Post which the lawsuit claimed were defamatory to Nick Sandmann. The ruling judge ultimately did not agree with any portion of the complaint, based on a variety of reasonings.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The ruling judge ultimately did not agree with the complaint, based on a variety of reasonings.

One of which was that the WaPo "news" article was replete with opinions.

 

[A_Thinker]

One of which was that the WaPo "news" article was replete with opinions.

Of course, such a statement isn't in the actual ruling, ... but the judge did rule that the Washington Post could not be held liable for the opinions which were expressed by various persons which it interviewed as to the confrontation, within the text of it's articles.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Of course, such a statement isn't in the actual ruling, ... but the judge did rule that the Washington Post could not be held liable for the opinions which were expressed by various actors, within the text of it's articles.

Yes indeedy, opinions rather than facts are all over the place in that WaPo article. Sad!

 

[A_Thinker]

Yes indeedy, opinions rather than facts are all over the place in that WaPo article. Sad!

You interview people ... you get opinions ...

Sandmann's opinion
Phillips' opinion
The opinion of other event participants

How would one reconstruct the happenings of the event being reported ... without soliciting testimony (i.e. opinion) ?

 

[thecolorsblend]

You interview people ... you get opinions ...

Sandmann's opinion
Phillips' opinion
The opinion of other event participants

How would one reconstruct the happenings of the event being reported ... without soliciting testimony (i.e. opinion) ?

Well, I suppose the "news reporter" at WaPo could've watched the raw video of the entire pro-life march and then reported the verifiable and observable facts shown therein.

But instead, the WaPo article is filled to overflowing with opinions and the judge pointed that out himself. It's sad, you know?

 

[Willie T]

Scumbags! If I had not seen the videos myself, I would have believed the kid was a spiteful gang member, picking on an innocent old man. The articles went out of their way to try and portray that.

The videos show just the opposite. The old man instigated everything.

 

[A_Thinker]

Well, I suppose the "news reporter" at WaPo could've watched the raw video of the entire pro-life march and then reported the verifiable and observable facts shown therein.

But instead, the WaPo article is filled to overflowing with opinions and the judge pointed that out himself. It's sad, you know?

The entire video of the pro-life march and surrounding events weren't made available until the day after the event occurred. Also, until it appeared on Youtube, there was no expectation that such a video existed.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The entire video of the pro-life march and surrounding events weren't made available until the day after the event occurred. Also, until it appeared on Youtube, there was no expectation that such a video existed.

I agree, it would've been better to wait rather than publishing a stream of hyperbole and opinion, you're right.

 

[A_Thinker]

Scumbags! If I had not seen the videos myself, I would have believed the kid was a spiteful gang member, picking on an innocent old man.

The videos show just the opposite. The old man instigated everything.

Interestingly, ... the judge came to different conclusions ... but I guess that just comes with the territory ...

 

[A_Thinker]

I agree, it would've been better to wait rather than publishing a stream of hyperbole and opinion, you're right.

In my experience, news organizations are often loathe to wait for unknown recordings of events to turn up. Perhaps because the vast majority of events ... are not recorded.

 

[thecolorsblend]

In my experience, news organizations are often loathe to wait for unknown recordings of events to turn up. Perhaps because the vast majority of events ... are not recorded.

Y'know, I hadn't thought about that. But that's a really good point. Now that I think about it, it really is unreasonable to assume anybody would've been live-streaming a high profile, highly visible annual pro-life event held in the nation's capital.

So let's post articles filled with hyperbole, opinions and hyperbolic opinions!