Covington Student Sues WashPo for $250 Millliiioooonnn

Good. Hope he wins big. Teach every lib a lesson to keep their big mouths shut until ALL of the evidence comes out.

Ditto!

Eff them and their anti American agendas.

he will win, but it won't be for $250M and there will be a gag order so He will not be abe to disclose the amount

Gag order would only be tied to a settlement out of court, if agreed upon, I'd think. Personally, I would reject such an offer tied to non-disclosure, to make an example out of them.

I hope he wins big.

I assume most of the defendants will simply settle out of court.

The best part is that this is only the first law suit. That kid's lawyers have a list a mile long that will be sued.

If they settle each for 10%... That's a lot of MAGA hats!

He’s going to lose most likely. The case law on slander of a private figure in a matter of public interest is not in his favor.

I would expect that the Washington Post will not entertain any settlement offer in the case.

C3D said:

He’s going to lose most likely. The case law on slander of a private figure in a matter of public interest is not in his favor.

I would expect that the Washington Post will not entertain any settlement offer in the case.

Click to expand...

I have heard several arguments to the contrary.

Podmonkey said:

I have heard several arguments to the contrary.

Click to expand...

Assuming that the topic is one of public concern/interest (which it likely is, since it became a national news story) the liability standard requires that Sandmann show both negligence by the publication and actual injury (but see note bel0w). He is going to have trouble showing both of those elements.

The problem for showing negligence is that all of the initial reporting was based on the shorter video, and therefore it was not negligent for the Washington Post to run the story as it then-existed. The chronology outlined in the complaint, to the extent I can make sense of it, does not support an alternative view of the timing.

Further, Sandmann’s actual injury is hard to show unless he has documentable physical or reputational damage from the incident. Unless he is now under the care of a psychiatrist, having PTSD, he can’t show injury on that basis. And since he has no business that can be damaged by reputational injury, an attempt to show that Sandmann has suffered some general or social future harm will be defended on the basis that those future damages are too speculative to award.

[Note: The complaint also alleges that the Washington Post’s statements were defamatory per se, meaning that no showing of actual damages needs to be made because the statements are so bad damages are presumed. I have to confess not knowing whether that is true under Kentucky law, but under NYS and Federal case law that would not be the case.]

You can make your own judgments; the complaint can be found at this link: For truth, for justice, for Nicholas!

That’s nothing to Bezos considering he owns it...

this all boil on how the kids lawyer plays the case ..

wash post . oh we got a video from someones cellphone .. 30 seconds later there live with there BS ..
when there 50 more videos out there ..
did they have both .. the close up vid and the long view point on what actually happened and just went with the short one to push there hate BS ..
no investigative reporting to get the facts now a days ..

i hope the kid wins big .. and we can get true media reporting again knowing there ass and bank account is on the line ..

Dayten said:

That’s nothing to Bezos considering he owns it...

Click to expand...

from what i seen .. 250 mil is what shit head paid for the company LOL ..

Jmac00 said:

he will win, but it won't be for $250M and there will be a gag order so He will not be abe to disclose the amount

Click to expand...

well there goes the 1A

C3D said:

He’s going to lose most likely. The case law on slander of a private figure in a matter of public interest is not in his favor.

I would expect that the Washington Post will not entertain any settlement offer in the case.

Click to expand...

He can win on Defimation of Character, with slander you are correct, it's likely he won't win.

all his lawyer has to prove is that the WaPo made this kid unemployable.

Some of these motherfuckers were calling for these kids to be murdered! As far as I am concerned all the defendants in this case should be publicly hung!

Arjuna said:

https://nypost.com/2019/02/20/trump-to-covington-teen-suing-washington-post-go-get-them/

Click to expand...

Im going to go out on a linb here and guess this never makes it to trial. Washington Post ereally doesn't have a leg to stand on here. The Video tape tells the tail. Im going to guess the will offer a BS settlement, but no where near the $250M being sought. The rest on the list of suites will be watching the Post trial very closely. If the WaPo loses, so will the rest

C3D said:

He’s going to lose most likely. The case law on slander of a private figure in a matter of public interest is not in his favor.

I would expect that the Washington Post will not entertain any settlement offer in the case.

Click to expand...

The Washington post allegedly continued to back its narrative after certain facts came to life.

His attorney L.Lin Wood represented Richard Jewel against NBC news and won millions. They allegedly printed opinion pieces and it’s repoeters tweeted certain things. I don’t know the details but this is the lawyer to do this.

C3D said:

Assuming that the topic is one of public concern/interest (which it likely is, since it became a national news story) the liability standard requires that Sandmann show both negligence by the publication and actual injury (but see note bel0w). He is going to have trouble showing both of those elements.

The problem for showing negligence is that all of the initial reporting was based on the shorter video, and therefore it was not negligent for the Washington Post to run the story as it then-existed. The chronology outlined in the complaint, to the extent I can make sense of it, does not support an alternative view of the timing.

Further, Sandmann’s actual injury is hard to show unless he has documentable physical or reputational damage from the incident. Unless he is now under the care of a psychiatrist, having PTSD, he can’t show injury on that basis. And since he has no business that can be damaged by reputational injury, an attempt to show that Sandmann has suffered some general or social future harm will be defended on the basis that those future damages are too speculative to award.

[Note: The complaint also alleges that the Washington Post’s statements were defamatory per se, meaning that no showing of actual damages needs to be made because the statements are so bad damages are presumed. I have to confess not knowing whether that is true under Kentucky law, but under NYS and Federal case law that would not be the case.]

You can make your own judgments; the complaint can be found at this link: For truth, for justice, for Nicholas!

Click to expand...

I hate t0 be right on this one, but:

Judge dismisses Covington student's defamation suit against Washington Post

If his name were Smollette, blank check time.

Just-Us Department.