Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, July 26, 2019

A $250 million lawsuit -- filed by the lawyers for the family of Nick Sandmann against The Washington Post -- has been dismissed by a federal judge. Judge William Bertelsman issued the ruling Friday.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

hahahahahah.

#1 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-07-26 06:12 PM | Reply

Sorry kid. You will actually have to find a job.

#2 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-07-26 06:13 PM | Reply

Haha!
Little MAGAidiot punk gets nothing.

I remember the alt-right (R)tards here telling us how this was going to be a slam dunk victory for the little Nazi.

Ain't that a binch! *

* binch is russian for female dog according to Sheeple and his many personalities.

#3 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-07-26 06:20 PM | Reply

I haven't seen the full ruling, but the Judge is 100% correct that opinion, in this case Phillips, is protected under the First Amendment. What Phillips "felt" is not fact, and his recitation of that to the Post and their repeating it is not defamatory.

If Phillips had said that Sandman hit him with a steel pipe and the Post repeated it then it would have been a question of fact as to whether that was true but for Phillips to say he felt "blocked" and didn't think he could "retreat", that is personal opinion.

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-26 07:56 PM | Reply

You can't sue if someone is insane at your facecrime. This is the real world. And if some newspaper makes you the villain by totally reversing the narrative and making up a fantasy story to back it, you can't sue unless actual damages occurs.

Everyone figured out in an instant it was fake news, so it didn't even hurt your reputation.

Still, I think the newspapers involved should have to pay. But the 1st is more important.

#5 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-07-26 08:48 PM | Reply


@#4 ... I haven't seen the full ruling, but the Judge is 100% correct that opinion, in this case Phillips, is protected under the First Amendment. What Phillips "felt" is not fact, and his recitation of that to the Post and their repeating it is not defamatory. ...

If your summary is correct, I think the Judge in this case made the proper distinction.

I think it is similar to Pres Trump not liking the NYTimes because the reporter quoted what Pres Trump said in an on-the-record interview they had with him. (with a recording of the interview that Pres Trump OK'd to back up the reporter)

The reporter properly reported what was sad to him.

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-07-26 10:31 PM | Reply

Deep State wins again.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-27 01:47 AM | Reply

Suing a media outlet for defamation is always going to be a tall order.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-28 11:13 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort