Sandmann Loses
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 17:29 last edited by
Sandmann Loses Defamation Lawsuits Against CBS, ABC, NYT, and Others
After years of politically charged litigation, former Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann has lost a round of high-profile defamation lawsuits against five mainstream media companies at the summary judgment stage. That’s according to court dockets and an opinion and order signed by a federal judge in the Eastern District of Kentucky on Tuesday.
Sandmann’s cases against ABC News, Rolling Stone magazine, CBS News, newspaper and television station owner Gannett, and The New York Times are now officially listed as “terminated” on the court record.
Sandmann sued the five organizations in question — and a few others, including CNN and NBC — on March 2, 2020. The lawsuits alleged that various articles and broadcasts defamed Sandmann by characterizing his actions toward Nathan Phillips, a Native American activist, on Jan. 18, 2019 in Washington, D.C., as nefarious.
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 18:15 last edited by
Appeal options? I appreciate why defamation has such a high bar especially when it comes to the media, but what happened to that young man was abhorrent.
-
Appeal options? I appreciate why defamation has such a high bar especially when it comes to the media, but what happened to that young man was abhorrent.
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 18:18 last edited by@LuFins-Dad they plan to appeal. Of course the bar is much higher for a public figure to prove defamation, but was Sandmann really a public figure? Was what was said about him demonstrably false?
Also, you really can't appeal because you didn't like the verdict. You have to prove a judicial error of some kind.
Maybe there's a case....
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 18:22 last edited by
Summary Judgement - The process is called summary judgment and it allows a judge to end a case early, before a party ever has the chance to present arguments, witnesses, or evidence. The case will be over and you never will have a jury or the chance to argue in front of the jury.
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 18:33 last edited by
He’s clearly not a public figure for the purposes of defamation. He’s only famous because of the alleged defamation.
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 18:34 last edited by
I thought he already settled.
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 18:34 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:
I thought he already settled.
He settled with CNN and another outlet. Not with the others.
-
@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:
I thought he already settled.
He settled with CNN and another outlet. Not with the others.
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 18:36 last edited by@George-K said in Sandmann Loses:
@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:
I thought he already settled.
He settled with CNN and another outlet. Not with the others.
I wonder if he had better cases against them or if they just chose not to gamble.
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 18:55 last edited by
He wasn't a public figure
They weren't journalists
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 19:08 last edited by
I wonder how much of the earlier settlements he spent on these suits?
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 19:13 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:
I wonder how much of the earlier settlements he spent on these suits?
Good question. Related, do you think that those were on contingency?
Remember he fired Lin Wood?
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 19:15 last edited by
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 19:16 last edited by
I don’t know. It’s common in personal injury but I don’t know where else.
Now I’m waiting for the Advisory Opinions podcast about it. And maybe Ken White’s new podcast.
-
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 19:17 last edited by@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.
-
@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 19:17 last edited by@Horace said in Sandmann Loses:
@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.
If so, then the Judge has found he has no standing.
-
@Horace said in Sandmann Loses:
@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.
If so, then the Judge has found he has no standing.
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 19:58 last edited by Aqua Letifer@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
@Horace said in Sandmann Loses:
@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.
If so, then the Judge has found he has no standing.
This is bad.
I don't see this as about Sandmann at all. If I break into your house and steal your vinyl, then you call the police, and I get prosecuted. If I gin up a mob with lies, get you fired from your job, make you unemployable, and make your home unsafe, that's far worse. Yet nothing happens to me.
Legally, we need to do something about doxxing and cancel culture. Apply what we currently have, write new ones, something. Because right now, destroying lives is completely legal. And the more you've accomplished, the bigger a target you make.
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 20:03 last edited by
Not much is as revealing of character than the degree to which one takes pleasure in the destruction of whomever they consider 'others'. People can be relied on to self-select in this manner, as long as their peer group doesn't shame them for it.
-
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 20:16 last edited by
It's helpful when one can prove damages. He's made millions - more than he might have expected to make in a lifetime with normal earnings.
-
It's helpful when one can prove damages. He's made millions - more than he might have expected to make in a lifetime with normal earnings.
wrote on 28 Jul 2022, 20:20 last edited by -
