Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, /dev/null said:

he could always sell it to meadazon and rebrand it the Meadington Post

Naw, he'd have to name it the AARP Post and publish once a month in order to not interfere with his bocce schedule.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

 

CNN and WaPo would be wise to make these suits go away.

 

The money lost in a settlement is not nearly as significant as getting much of their libel protection overturned by the Supreme Court. I highly doubt they're going to successfully argue that Sandmann is a "public figure" at 16, because they made him one by blasting his face all over media to trash him. They run a significant risk of having the entire 'public figure' exception overhauled or done away with, if they litigate the matter.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, Koko78 said:

 

CNN and WaPo would be wise to make these suits go away.

 

The money lost in a settlement is not nearly as significant as getting much of their libel protection overturned by the Supreme Court. I highly doubt they're going to successfully argue that Sandmann is a "public figure" at 16, because they made him one by blasting his face all over media to trash him. They run a significant risk of having the entire 'public figure' exception overhauled or done away with, if they litigate the matter.


I've been reading in a few places that NYT vs Sullivan may not be in favor with the current Supremes. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. ? 

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


I've been reading in a few places that NYT vs Sullivan may not be in favor with the current Supremes. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. ? 

 

I think that if it goes to the Supreme Court, there is a significant chance that the decision is modified , with less of a chance that it would be overturned. I don't believe they would completely do away with the ruling, as public figures should have a heightened standard for libel. Proving actual malice is likely going to be replaced by something lesser, and I think they will clarify what constitutes a public figure/limited purpose public figure.

 

WaPo and CNN are sure to claim that Sandmann was a 'limited purpose public figure', for purposes of the libel suit. Media companies have had success in arguing that the mere fact that they published something about an individual made him a public figure, triggering the 'actual malice' standard of proof, which is damn near impossible to prove. I don't see the Supreme Court continuing to allow the media to claim that someone is famous because they made them famous by running a story that was false. Especially in the age of social media and every idiot with a twitter account pretending they're a journalist.

 

As for actual malice, as I said it is almost impossible to prove. To prevail at trial, you have to put evidence on that the defendants acted "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Unless you can come up with a memo/email/admission from the defendant where they say they knew a story is false and ran it anyhow, you're not really ever going to prove what they knew or didn't know.

 

I cannot say what they would modify the standard to be; perhaps something closer to the English model of defamation. I could see them going with some sort of bifurcated standard of proof, where the Plaintiff has to first show that the information was false, with the burden then shifting to the Defendant to show that they had reasonable cause to believe it may have been true.

 

Either way, I don't expect that it will be easy to win a libel suit, but I think they will make it far less impossible than it is now.

Edited by Koko78
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Posted
3 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

You leftists have lost your freaking minds. Are you not aware how stupid you all look when you do this stuff?

 

 

And, this is just crap you see in the news. Imagine what all is really happening. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

I happen to be in Schenectady and last night at dinner in a public restaurant, I saw a sixty something ragged looking old guy who was wearing a sweatshirt with a 

silkscreened image of a naked woman with Trump’s head sitting on Vlad’s lap. :wallbash:

 

People are insane. Insane. 

Posted
34 minutes ago, Nanker said:

I happen to be in Schenectady and last night at dinner in a public restaurant, I saw a sixty something ragged looking old guy who was wearing a sweatshirt with a 

silkscreened image of a naked woman with Trump’s head sitting on Vlad’s lap. :wallbash:

 

People are insane. Insane. 

 

But I guess it's ok to slap an old man wearing a red cap 

Posted
3 hours ago, Nanker said:

I happen to be in Schenectady and last night at dinner in a public restaurant, I saw a sixty something ragged looking old guy who was wearing a sweatshirt with a 

silkscreened image of a naked woman with Trump’s head sitting on Vlad’s lap. :wallbash:

 

People are insane. Insane. 

 

even with Facebook to display their quirks they still insist on going public with it

 

 

Posted
14 hours ago, Paulus said:

And, this is just crap you see in the news. Imagine what all is really happening. 

I wouldn't mind putting a small Trump logo on the back window of my truck. I don't dare though. Not in Cali. I see Bernie, Obama and Hillary bumper stickers all over and I don't feel compelled to damage their car or confront them. The left has no problem doing that though. I guess that's just the way it is when dealing with a low IQ people.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Dante said:

I wouldn't mind putting a small Trump logo on the back window of my truck. I don't dare though. Not in Cali. I see Bernie, Obama and Hillary bumper stickers all over and I don't feel compelled to damage their car or confront them. The left has no problem doing that though. I guess that's just the way it is when dealing with a low IQ people.

 

Your car would get keyed for sure and it’d be your fault too. At least that’s what the person who would let your car would think. 

Posted

Tibs changed the title to something that makes no sense (shocking). :angry: :doh:  And people wonder why so many have blocked him. 

And now the question is - to keep contributing to this thread about all the Covington Kids' lawsuits, or make a new thread?

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Tibs changed the title to something that makes no sense (shocking). :angry: :doh:  And people wonder why so many have blocked him. 

And now the question is - to keep contributing to this thread about all the Covington Kids' lawsuits, or make a new thread?

 

Everyone who is shocked that Gator did something dishonest should now put on your shocked face!

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

We should keep this thread alive! I promise to change the title again! 

Change it back real soon or I'll start a thread to replace this one.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Dante said:

I wouldn't mind putting a small Trump logo on the back window of my truck. I don't dare though. Not in Cali. I see Bernie, Obama and Hillary bumper stickers all over and I don't feel compelled to damage their car or confront them. The left has no problem doing that though. I guess that's just the way it is when dealing with a low IQ people.

 

I was always concerned that someone would do something to my house when I put up our American flag during Holidays when I live in the Bay Area.  Now that I'm back down on the other side of the Orange Curtain we have out flag out everyday.  Like most of our neighbors.  I also leave my windows open where as up there I slept with my pistol withing reach.

 

I agree with Tibs. We should keep this thread alive.  As a reminder of how much of a juvenile ass he is.  Oh wait.  We don't need a thread for that.  

Edited by Chef Jim
×
×
  • Create New...