Catholic Kids get blamed for something they didnt do

Started by Surtur73 pages

Originally posted by dadudemon
Seems like he should sue for libel and slander, for sure. There's a mountain of evidence that the media caused him, his classmates, and his family legit harm. He will win. The amount, however, is up in the air.

It's finally happening: the character assassination and dishonest partisan "news" reporting is catching up to the corrupt leftist MM institutions. 🙂

I hope more things like this happen.

Here is a link with a good video about the chances of anything come of these things in court.

Also trigger warning to certain folk: Tim Pool video is about to be posted.

Originally posted by Surtur
It is getting insane isn't it? Instead of them going "we were wrong" and moving on they tried to seek out anything about the kids and the school. When their attempts failed they just decided to target Catholic Schools in general.

Also we have this video:

#CovingtonGate LAWSUITS INCOMING Major News In Trouble

YouTube video

It talks about how most of the shit the media claimed wouldn't really fall under any libel, but that one did stand out and it was USA Today who made a statement of fact that the kids chanted "build the wall". That could be libel.

Apparently some lawyers are offering to work pro bono for the kids.

Originally posted by Robtard
Going to be weird when this kid is back in the media for something like being pictured at an Alt-Right meet doing a Sieg Heil or driving his car into people while drunk.

It is going to be weird when he brings a suit against a giant media corporation and its teams of lawyers when he does not have the diocese fronting the cost for this lawsuit like he did with the Republican public relations firm.

So you missed the part where the lawyer stated he was doing it pro bono. it's like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is going to be weird when he brings a suit against a giant media corporation and its teams of lawyers when he does not have the diocese fronting the cost for this lawsuit like he did with the Republican public relations firm.
The Church paid for that? Thought it was his parents. Interesting.

His lawyer could be working free of charge expecting to get 33.3% of whatever out of court settlement he's banking on that they'll reach.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So you missed the part where the lawyer stated he was doing it pro bono. it's like you have no idea what you're talking about.

So you missed the part where the lawyer's fees do not represent the total cost of filing a lawsuit. It's like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Robtard
The Church paid for that? Thought it was his parents. Interesting.

His lawyer could be working free of charge expecting to get 33.3% of whatever out of court settlement he's banking on that they'll reach.

On what legal theory do they think they have a case? They have to demonstrate not that the media reported incomplete or incorrect information, but that they deliberately reported information that they knew was false in order to defame him. So far, they cannot even convince a plurality of Americans that the reporting is wrong, how are they going to convince a judge? All it is going to accomplish is ensuring that you cannot Google his name without this coming up, which is bad move for someone who has to go through college admissions or job interviews.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Seems like he should sue for libel and slander, for sure. There's a mountain of evidence that the media caused him, his classmates, and his family legit harm. He will win. The amount, however, is up in the air.

It's finally happening: the character assassination and dishonest partisan "news" reporting is catching up to the corrupt leftist MM institutions. 🙂

I hope more things like this happen.

True, there is also plenty of evidence that they reported false information, like all the times they claimed the kids mocked and harassed a Vietnam vet.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
On what legal theory do they think they have a case? They have to demonstrate not that the media reported incomplete or incorrect information, but that they deliberately reported information that they knew was false in order to defame him. So far, they cannot even convince a plurality of Americans that the reporting is wrong, how are they going to convince a judge? All it is going to accomplish is ensuring that you cannot Google his name without this coming up, which is bad move for someone who has to go through college admissions or job interviews.

Why I believe this is all about a quick attempt at a cash grab hoping the large media corporations throw some change their way to just make it go away while agreeing to a nondisclosure.

Will be interesting if they don't settle and fight back and it gets thrown out or he loses, then this young man not only made his name stick even more, but he got nothing ($$$) out of it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
On what legal theory do they think they have a case?

It's already been posted:

Libel and Slander

It is a defamation lawsuit.

Derigan Silver, a professor of media, First Amendment and Internet law at the University of Denver, tells NPR's Audie Cornish that victims of fake news stories have legal recourse under defamation law.

"Fake news sites are clearly a situation where they're engaging in a defamatory statement, a false statement about another that damages that person's reputation," Silver says. "In that situation, that is certainly actionable."

Because this is tort, not criminal (could be criminal, too), the plaintiff only needs to prove, within reason to a Jury if it goes to a Jury, that the news stations acted in bad faith with bad evidence, on purpose. Subpoena's could reveal very damning evidence that could land them criminal charges, as well.

https://www.npr.org/2016/12/07/504723649/what-legal-recourse-do-victims-of-fake-news-stories-have

It can be very easily proven that they acted in a very dishonest capacity and that dishonest capacity brought harm to the plaintiff, his family, his classmates, and friends.

To deny this is completely asinine and you know it.

I think at least a few of these places will decide to settle outside of court.

Awwww, Surt's copying me again. Flattering.

Originally posted by Robtard
Why I believe this is all about a quick attempt at a cash grab hoping the large media corporations throw some change their way to just make it go away while agreeing to a nondisclosure.

Will be interesting if they don't settle and fight back and it gets thrown out or he loses, then this young man not only made his name stick even more, but he got nothing ($$$) out of it.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington and the March for Life are defending him to protect their reputations. And conservative groups are exploiting him to advance their interests. But no one is looking out for what is best for him—a minor, with his entire life ahead of him. They do not care if this one mistake defines him for the rest of his life, if they can use this to advance their goals.

A good public relations firm, that has the best interest of its client at heart, and not advancing a conservative or religious agenda, would tell him that this situation needs a hero, and it needs to be him. They would frame this situation as a group of young men, excited to be on a class trip, and energized from participating in a political march, did not have adequate adult supervision, and were not the best representatives of their school, their faith, or their convictions that day.

He was not trying to be disrespectful, but in the chaos of the confrontation with the Black Hebrew Israelites, he did not know what was happening when the Indigenous Peoples March approached, and stood there with an inappropriate affect, because he was nervous. And that he already reached out privately to the Indigenous Peoples March, March for Life, and Covington Catholic High School to formally apologize.

He would walk away from this looking like the biggest person in the room, without acknowledging he did the wrong thing, only that he did not do the right thing. His public image would no longer be the smug face of entitlement and privilege that everyone wants to punch, and would be of a responsible young man, who is accountable for his behavior.

You do not change perceptions by telling people their perceptions are wrong, you do it by submitting an alternative for them to consider. Instead of telling people, "You're wrong, let me tell you what really happened," you say, "This is what I did that would lead you to think that."

If they really wanted to swing for the fences, they would work with the school to have all of the boys who attended the field trip do community service work to benefit Native American and Pro-Life causes for not being good representatives of their school to the respective marches.

Or you can double-down on the "it is not me, it is everyone else" line, drag this out in public even longer, and ensure that your name becomes forever associated with this incident and your defense of it. Your choice.

You want the kids to do community service for the people that insulted and harassed them, are you on drugs?

Originally posted by Robtard
Awwww, Surt's copying me again. Flattering.

How? I said something similar earlier:

Originally posted by Surtur
Anyways, IMO the kids probably won't win many cases(if any), but perhaps some of the media outlets will settle out of court with them, they probably want this to go away.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's already been posted:

Libel and Slander

It is a defamation lawsuit.

Because this is tort, not criminal (could be criminal, too), the plaintiff only needs to prove, within reason to a Jury if it goes to a Jury, that the news stations acted in bad faith with bad evidence, on purpose. Subpoena's could reveal very damning evidence that could land them criminal charges, as well.

https://www.npr.org/2016/12/07/504723649/what-legal-recourse-do-victims-of-fake-news-stories-have

It can be very easily proven that they acted in a very dishonest capacity and that dishonest capacity brought harm to the plaintiff, his family, his classmates, and friends.

To deny this is completely asinine and you know it.

What is completely asinine is glossing over the distinction on purpose. To have a case, he has to demonstrate that they knew the information was wrong, and reported it anyway on purpose. Yeah, good luck with that.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You want the kids to do community service for the people that insulted and harassed them, are you on drugs?

I'm sure he wants Nathan Phillips to be forced to do community service as well. Right Adam?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington and the March for Life are defending him to protect their reputations. And conservative groups are exploiting him to advance their interests. But no one is looking out for what is best for him—a minor, with his entire life ahead of him. They do not care if this one mistake defines him for the rest of his life, if they can use this to advance their goals.

A good public relations firm, that has the best interest of its client at heart, and not advancing a conservative or religious agenda, would tell him that this situation needs a hero, and it needs to be him. They would frame this situation as a group of young men, excited to be on a class trip, and energized from participating in a political march, did not have adequate adult supervision, and were not the best representatives of their school, their faith, or their convictions that day.

He was not trying to be disrespectful, but in the chaos of the confrontation with the Black Hebrew Israelites, he did not know what was happening when the Indigenous Peoples March approached, and stood there with an inappropriate affect, because he was nervous. And that he already reached out privately to the Indigenous Peoples March, March for Life, and Covington Catholic High School to formally apologize.

He would walk away from this looking like the biggest person in the room, without acknowledging he did the wrong thing, only that he did not do the right thing. His public image would no longer be the smug face of entitlement and privilege that everyone wants to punch, and would be of a responsible young man, who is accountable for his behavior.

You do not change perceptions by telling people their perceptions are wrong, you do it by submitting an alternative for them to consider. Instead of telling people, "You're wrong, let me tell you what really happened," you say, "This is what I did that would lead you to think that."

If they really wanted to swing for the fences, they would work with the school to have all of the boys who attended the field trip do community service work to benefit Native American and Pro-Life causes for not being good representatives of their school to the respective marches.

Or you can double-down on the "it is not me, it is everyone else" line, drag this out in public even longer, and ensure that your name becomes forever associated with this incident and your defense of it. Your choice.

He's still 17, almost 18. So his parents are behind this and they're not thinking that far into the future. They're thinking "we gonna git paid now!" in the short-term.

Why is the teenager expected to be the biggest person in the room?

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm sure he wants Nathan Phillips to be forced to do community service as well. Right Adam?

I don't give a **** what Nathan Phillips does. I'm just saying what Nick Sandmann should do if he wants to reform his public image. If you are being accused of being racist toward Native Americans or disrespectful toward Veterans, then offering to serve those groups demonstrates 1.) contrition, and 2.) that you are not bigoted. But whatever, you do you do.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What is completely asinine is glossing over the distinction on purpose. To have a case, he has to demonstrate that they knew the information was wrong, and reported it anyway on purpose. Yeah, good luck with that.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel

Did a little research, correct me if I’m wrong but I think the standard of provable intent and provable knowledge of incorrect information and malice only applies to public individuals.

Private individuals need only prove that damage occured and I feel like he might have a case regarding “reckless disregard for truth”.

Again, not a lawyer (tho I did do paralegal work for a bit) so correct me if I am wrong.