Covington Catholic’s Nick Sandmann sues the Washington Post for $250M

[Map_Linh]

 

Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Washington Post on Tuesday, accusing the newspaper of targeting him in “a modern-day form of McCarthyism.â€

 

Attorneys for 16-year-old Sandmann — who was filmed in a viral confrontation with a Native American man in Washington, DC — claim the newspaper led a “mob of bullies which attacked, vilified & threatened†an innocent minor.

 

“Washington Post recklessly ignored basic journalist standards because it was eager to advance its biased agenda against @realDonaldTrump by impugning individuals perceived to be his supporters,†attorney Lin Wood said in a statement.

 

“Nick Sandmann was perceived as an easy target. He is 16. Inexcusable on every level.â€

 

The Kentucky student was with his class in the nation’s capital to take part in an anti-abortion rally on Jan. 18 when he was confronted by 64-year-old Nathan Phillips.

 

The video set off a social media firestorm with some people insisting the incident was racially motivated and instigated by the high school students.

 

Many published stories about the incident, and many viral videos, had inaccurate or incomplete information.

 

The lawsuit claims that The Washington Post “ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, ‘accost[ing]’ Phillips by ‘suddenly swarm[ing]’ him in a ‘threaten[ing]’ and ‘physically intimidat[ing]’ manner.â€

 

While filing the lawsuit, Sandmann’s attorney warned that “All members of the mainstream & social media mob of bullies who recklessly & viciously attacked Nick would be well-served to read it carefully.â€

 

https://nypost.com/2019/02/19/covington-teen-nick-sandmann-sues-the-washington-post-for-250m/

[IKKY]

Got to be kidding me. 250M for what ?

[Mark Lee]

Good, i support this kid in his battle against fake news media.

[capital]

Good. Hope like Gawker, the payout shuts down WP.

[Your Juan and only]

this lawyer must've not warned them about discovery lmao, this is not gonna work on the family's favor, 250 million is how much Bezos bought WashPo for and they think they're just gonna settle. I highly doubt theyll settle.

 

I'm making popcorn to see how this goes

[Yggdrasil]

Does this mean the Parkland kids can sue all of right wing media for a million bajillion dollars? Lol. Those boys knew exactly how those hats would be perceived, and there was nothing innocent in that kid's smirk. No party was truly innocent that day, they were all confused.

[benseac]

Does this mean the Parkland kids can sue all of right wing media for a million bajillion dollars? Lol. Those boys knew exactly how those hats would be perceived, and there was nothing innocent in that kid's smirk. No party was truly innocent that day, they were all confused.

 

Exactly. A white kid smirked. That's one of the worst offenses in the world.

[Yggdrasil]

Exactly. A white kid smirked. That's one of the worst offenses in the world.

 

Dramatic much? It was the combination of the smirk and the hat. Like I already said, those boys knew what those hats stand for.

 

Click here to view the Tweet

 

So much for them never shouting "build the wall."   I understood dog whistles at 16. They don't deserve to be bullied online, but they knew what they were doing. Also...

 

 

 

[PeachyKeys!]

Got to be kidding me. 250M for what ?

Like... Boy if you don't sit down somewhere.

[benseac]

Dramatic much? It was the combination of the smirk and the hat. Like I already said, those boys knew what those hats stand for.

 

Click here to view the Tweet

 

So much for them never shouting "build the wall."   I understood dog whistles at 16. They don't deserve to be bullied online, but they knew what they were doing. Also...

 

 

 

 

I'm agreeing with you. A smirking white kid is awful. Because other kids at his school were being jackasses at different times, he should have his name drug through the mud, threatened, etc. 

[Yggdrasil]

I'm agreeing with you. A smirking white kid is awful. Because other kids at his school were being jackasses at different times, he should have his name drug through the mud, threatened, etc.

 

I didn't say that. But this notion that they were all innocent little victims is ridiculous, including the smirking kid. As I apparently have to say 3 times, they knew what they were doing and how it appeared.

[benseac]

I didn't say that. But this notion that they were all innocent little victims is ridiculous, including the smirking kid. As I apparently have to say 3 times, they knew what they were doing and how it appeared.

 

The article isn't about all of the kids so I'm not sure why you feel the need to point out that many of them were jackasses. Did this kid do those other things or are his only crimes smirking and wearing that stupid hat? If his only offenses were his suspect choice in hattery and the heinous smirk, he probably has a chance at getting something (though nowhere near the $250M he's asking) due to ridiculous "reporting" done by the media. 

[Yggdrasil]

The article isn't about all of the kids so I'm not sure why you feel the need to point out that many of them were jackasses. Did this kid do those other things or are his only crimes smirking and wearing that stupid hat? If his only offenses were his suspect choice in hattery and the heinous smirk, he probably has a chance at getting something (though nowhere near the $250M he's asking) due to ridiculous "reporting" done by the media.

 

They were there to provoke and harass. They got called out. And you keep trying to downplay the smirk, when it was clear to millions of people what it meant. But keep on playing dumb.

[benseac]

They were there to provoke and harass. They got called out. And you keep trying to downplay the smirk, when it was clear to millions of people what it meant. But keep on playing dumb.

 

You're right I'm downplaying the smirk. Him smirking does not justify one bit the hate and vitriol heaped upon him. He smirked. BIG. FREAKING. DEAL. He didn't deserve to have the media crucify him, have the usual gang of idiots dox him, send him and his family death threats, etc.

[stillLeland22]

...I don't think his smirk was the problem. I think it's weird that people are now pretending the staredown as a whole was a positive interaction. On the part of both parties, that was a negative interaction. That type of moment very frequently leads to fistfights in my experience.

[benseac]

...I don't think his smirk was the problem. I think it's weird that people are now pretending the staredown as a whole was a positive interaction. On the part of both parties, that was a negative interaction. That type of moment very frequently leads to fistfights in my experience.

 

The problem is the media's complete and total overreaction and disregarding of investigative reporting before they reported it. They found them a white boy wearing a stupid MAGA hat who smirked at a Native American. That's all they needed and they ran with it. That carelessness led to him and his family being dragged through the mud, getting death threats, calls to make sure he can't get into any university, etc. That's what this suit is about. 

[Le.le]

A reminder about the kind of things that was said about the kid from big media people and without any consequence

[Le.le]

I didn't say that. But this notion that they were all innocent little victims is ridiculous, including the smirking kid. As I apparently have to say 3 times, they knew what they were doing and how it appeared.

Victims blaming here? Where is your energy for the black israelites? They started and said actually offensive things. But then when it was revealed you all lost your voice and went dead silent. But others kept sending death threats to the kid and doxxing him.. and not them.. hmmm...

[stillLeland22]

 Because other kids at his school were being jackasses at different times, he should have his name drug through the mud, threatened, etc. 

Eh...I would say that Tweet is fair game. It's indicative of the culture that is bred at Covington, the lack of adult supervision on this trip and-- more debatably -- perhaps the types of behavior they were there to engage in.

 

The problem is the media's complete and total overreaction and disregarding of investigative reporting before they reported it. They found them a white boy wearing a stupid MAGA hat who smirked at a Native American. That's all they needed and they ran with it. That carelessness led to him and his family being dragged through the mud, getting death threats, calls to make sure he can't get into any university, etc. That's what this suit is about. 

Yeah, I don't agree with that. They (WP) reported the information that was available to them when it was available to them and continued to do so as more information came about. What the public chooses to do with said information is ultimately the responsibility of those members of the public.

 

Either way, going on and on about "just a smirk" comes across as extremely disingenuous and seems like an attempt to sidestep what you know people took issue with. It's know secret that staredowns can be and usually are seen as signs of aggression. I'm sure that you knew that.

 

A reminder about the kind of things that was said about the kid from big media people and without any consequence

Jack was out of line for this and I hope that he has taken responsibility for it.

[benseac]

Eh...I would say that Tweet is fair game. It's indicative of the culture that is bred at Covington, the lack of adult supervision on this trip and-- more debatably -- perhaps the types of behavior they were there to engage in.

 

Yeah, I don't agree with that. They reported the information that was available to them when it was available to them and continued to do so as more information came about. What the public chooses to do with said information is ultimately the responsibility of those members of the public.

 

Either way, going on and on about "just a smirk" comes across as extremely disingenuous and seems like an attempt to sidestep what you know people took issue with. It's know secret that staredowns can be and usually are seen as signs of aggression. I'm sure that you knew that.

 

Jack was out of line for this and I hope that he has taken responsibility for it.

 

But it is just a smirk. It doesn't matter that he smirked. It doesn't matter that he wore that hat. It doesn't matter if people have an issue with either one. What matters is that the media didn't bother to do any investigation until way after the fact. When they heard about the evil smirk, how much investigation did they do before they ran the story? Did they try to get both sides? Did they try to get more than just a smidgen of video? Given how quickly and readily available the videos was, I'd say "no". They knew the kind of reaction they'd get from people. So, I'm not buying that they just reported what they had. They reported what they wanted to because it fit their agenda, And yes, Fox News does this same crap, too. 

[stillLeland22]

But it is just a smirk. It doesn't matter that he smirked. It doesn't matter that he wore that hat. It doesn't matter if people have an issue with either one. What matters is that the media didn't bother to do any investigation until way after the fact. When they heard about the evil smirk, how much investigation did they do before they ran the story? Did they try to get both sides? Did they try to get more than just a smidgen of video? Given how quickly and readily available the videos was, I'd say "no". They knew the kind of reaction they'd get from people. So, I'm not buying that they just reported what they had. They reported what they wanted to because it fit their agenda, And yes, Fox News does this same crap, too. 

To reiterate, staredowns are generally seen as signs of aggression and I am sure that you already knew that. Erase the smirk and it would still be a negative interaction. Take away your claims of media bias and that staredown would still be a negative interaction. To pretend that it's about smirking even after I've told you it isn't is further evidence that you did not enter this discussion in good faith. I didn't mention a hat, by the way.

 

"They (WP) reported the information that was available to them when it was available to them and continued to do so as more information came about." The other video wasn't "quickly and readily available" until someone came forward and uploaded it. Despite the odd perception of journalist, they have limits. They don't magically know the name and contact information of everyone at an event and wether or not they took video. I just know that they reported on that when it was uploaded as well.

[benseac]

To reiterate, staredowns are generally seen as signs of aggression and I am sure that you already knew that. Erase the smirk and it would still be a negative interaction. Take away your claims of media bias and that staredown would still be a negative interaction. To pretend that it's about smirking even after I've told you it isn't is further evidence that you did not enter this discussion in good faith. I didn't mention a hat, by the way.

 

"They (WP) reported the information that was available to them when it was available to them and continued to do so as more information came about." The other video wasn't "quickly and readily available" until someone came forward and uploaded it. Despite the odd perception of journalist, they have limits. They don't magically know the name and contact information of everyone at an event and wether or not they took video. I just know that they reported on that when it was uploaded as well.

 

It doesn't matter what kind of interaction the smirk was (and I'm not saying it was a positive one). It was just a freaking smirk.The suit has nothing to do with people calling his smirk a negative interaction. It's about the media's gross negligence. 

[stillLeland22]

It doesn't matter what kind of interaction the smirk was (and I'm not saying it was a positive one). It was just a freaking smirk.The suit has nothing to do with people calling his smirk a negative interaction. It's about the media's gross negligence. 

If it didn't matter you wouldn't feel the need to mischaracterize criticism of a staredown as being about "just a smirk" lol. The suit has everything to do with people's reactions to Nick's behavior including the staredown and the reporting on it.

 

I've already stated my disagreement on media """negligence""". I guess we'll have to wait for the results of the suit to see about that one.

[Pinkika]

good

[Yggdrasil]

Victims blaming here? Where is your energy for the black israelites? They started and said actually offensive things. But then when it was revealed you all lost your voice and went dead silent. But others kept sending death threats to the kid and doxxing him.. and not them.. hmmm...

 

Of course I blame the black Israelites. But this continued notion that the fact that they were provoked somehow justifies the MAGA boys' behavior is what's BS. We now know that the boys WERE in fact saying "build the wall," which is what led to the confrontation with the Native Americans and the boy in the lawsuit, who of course didn't deserve to be harassed and bullied online, but DID act like a little shit. Again, and I guess I'm just going to have to keep on saying this, those boys knew how what they said and wore would be perceived. This whole fiasco initially evoked such an ugly reaction because of precisely that. The boys didn't deserve what happened to them but to act like they were completely blameless little angels is completely dishonest. A bunch of children smirking and laughing at minorities while wearing hats that represent white supremacy and racism is allowed to piss some people off.