NY Times getting sued for 250 million over Covington!

I agree with you -WTF

And on Justice Thomas opinion - - very unlikely the standard will be changed having been in effect for moe than 40 years.

I think he should sue that asshole activist Phillips who banged the drum in his face. Originally Posted by friendly fred

that indian is being sued too among others.

that indian is being sued too among others. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

What earnings loss is the kid suing for?

.

he could sue the indian for the drum and drum stick, or is it a tom-tom

and for an apology for lying about everything

Defamation, libel, and slander: we have all heard of these legal terms, but what do they actually mean?

Basics on Defamation Law.)
What is a Defamatory Statement?

A statement is defamatory if it tends to hold the plaintiff (the subject of the statement, who is bringing the lawsuit) up to scorn, hatred, ridicule, disgrace, or contempt, in the mind of any considerable and respectable segment of the community.
There are certain types of statements that are automatically considered defamatory in some states. These types of statements are often called defamatory "per se" Statements that are defamatory "per se" include statements that claim that the plaintiff:

• has committed a serious, notorious, or immoral crime
• has an infectious or terrible disease, or
• is incompetent in his job, trade, or profession.

Defamation is a False Statement of Fact, Not Opinion

The most important aspect of a potentially defamatory statement is that it purports to be a statement of fact. Opinions are not defamatory. People have an absolute right to express whatever opinions they like about other people. Let’s look at some examples of facts versus opinions.
“I think that Joe is a jerk,” is an opinion. It’s not a polite opinion, but it is an opinion nonetheless. But “Joe stole $1,000 from his employer” is a statement of fact. If that statement isn’t true, it is defamatory. That is a false statement that clearly can cause injury to Joe. It could get him fired.
But what about something in between these two types of statement? What if someone says, “I think that Joe stole $1,000 from his employer.” If you qualify a statement of fact by saying “I think,” does that always turn a statement of fact into an opinion? The short answer is no. “I think that Joe is a jerk” is a pretty vague statement of opinion. But “I think that Joe stole money from his employer” implies that Joe may very well have stolen some money. The very fact that you said it implies that you may think that he did and that you want others to know that he might have stolen some money.
The bottom line -- depending on who you say it to and how you say it, implying that someone did something bad by phrasing it as an opinion can be defamatory. It's probably best to avoid saying these kinds of "gray area" things if you think that there is the slightest chance that the statement could get around.








The Statement Must Have Been Made to a Third Party

In order for a statement to be defamatory, it must have been made to a third party. A person can’t be defamed by a statement that is said or written only to him or herself.
Private Figures vs. Public Figures – Negligence vs. Intent

Simply because someone makes a defamatory statement does not automatically mean that the person will be liable for defamation. The person making the statement had to have acted inappropriately in some way. The standard of conduct required to hold a person liable for defamation depends on who was defamed.
If the person defamed was a private person, in most states, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she:

• knew that the statement was false and defamatory, or
• acted with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement in making the statement, or
• acted negligently in failing to ascertain whether the statement was true or false before making it.

To act in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of a statement means that the person making the statement had serious doubts as to the truth of the statement, but they went ahead and made it anyway.
If the person defamed was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement.
You can see that, ultimately, the difference between defamation of a public figure versus defamation of a private person is that a private person who claims defamation only needs to prove that the defamer acted negligently, while a public figure who claims defamation has to prove that the defamer acted intentionally or recklessly.
A good example of the difference between defaming a public figure versus a private individual is writing about that person in a blog post. If you claim that some private person was convicted of assault and battery twenty years ago, that person is probably going to win a libel case against you. But if you write that your senator was convicted of assault and battery twenty years ago, even if the senator is innocent, he/she would have to prove that you intentionally or recklessly lied. As long as you have some sort of defense -- like you saw that information on a semi-reputable web site, for example -- you have a reasonable chance of defending yourself against a libel claim from a public figure.
Damages for Defamatory Statements

A plaintiff in a defamation case is entitled to receive damages for any actual injuries that he/she incurred as a result of the defamatory statement. This includes lost earnings and lost earning capacity suffered as a result of the statement, as well as pain and suffering, impairment to reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation, shame, and disgrace. Learn more about Damages in Personal Injury Cases.


We have touched on the standards for Libel/slander previously
The legal barrier is very high to win damages. Clarence Thomas just commented on that barrier being too high - but very unlikely the SC will either take up a case, or change the standards.

NYT can be sued - but unlikely to to be found against and any damages awarded. Originally Posted by oeb11

News outlets have become so accustomed to saying anything they wish because of the "you can't slander a prominate public figure". They do this with impunity.

Sandman is not a public figure. He is also a minor.

The Washington Post is in deep shit.

News outlets have become so accustomed to saying anything they wish because of the "you can't slander a prominate public figure". They do this with impunity.

Sandman is not a public figure. He is also a minor.

The Washington Post is in deep shit. Originally Posted by Jackie S

How so?

You do not think his lawyers are the ones in fact using the kid for political purpose?

I could make an argument this in fact enhanced the kids future.

I also find it ironic the forum known for jumping the gun and posting more bullshit as fact is so aggrieved by this!

What earnings loss is the kid suing for?

. Originally Posted by WTF

Future losses and mental anguish. He won’t win anything close to $250 million. But he’ll get something. BTW, isn’t the WAPO being sued instead of the NYT?

News outlets have become so accustomed to saying anything they wish because of the "you can't slander a prominate public figure". They do this with impunity.

Sandman is not a public figure. He is also a minor.

The Washington Post is in deep shit. Originally Posted by Jackie S

my concern would be the venue

jury nullification by liberals for political reasons is a potential

and if the trial is in Washington dc or northern virginia that's to WAPO's big advantage

Does this mean Ted Cruz is suing Donald over accusing his dad of killing JFK? That just shows you what a bunch of dumb fucks Trump voters are. Those morons probably think Mexico was paying for a stupid wall. Sandman mommy and daddy are fucking media whores. What a bunch of losers

Sandman mommy and daddy are fucking media whores. What a bunch of losers Originally Posted by themystic

Keep in mind: he is a minor. Any reference per him in this forum sounds like a violation.

Where's SC when you need him? I'm sure he's incensed a mod hasn't issued points over this.

Carry on....

A major problem with the MSM today is they can yell "racist" or "racism" without cause. They need to be sued into submission. This will get them away from the Media Matters/SPLC/ThinkProgress,etc newsfeed and back to real issues.

Keep in mind: he is a minor. Any reference per him in this forum sounds like a violation.

Where's SC when you need him? I'm sure he's incensed a mod hasn't issued points over this.

Carry on.... Originally Posted by Chateau Becot

You are the ones bringing up the minor, not me. Im bringing up "mommy and daddy" for a reason. He is all over this forum from your right wing buddies. They are being their normal snowflake selves. I never thought I would see the day when the republicans would be the new age snowflakes, but the whining bitch Trump has transformed the right. Sad what they have allowed America to become. Its shameful that our once powerful military has turned into a bunch of pussies.Trump and his followers dont care about America

Future losses and mental anguish. He won’t win anything close to $250 million. But he’ll get something. BTW, isn’t the WAPO being sued instead of the NYT? Originally Posted by bambino

How would one calculate his future losses?

Is he going to be a doctor or a skinhead?

And yes the OP got the wrong paper.

I doubt the kid gets shit....he is just being used as a political pawn. Maybe he'll sue his lawyer after he doesn't win shit.

my concern would be the venue

jury nullification by liberals for political reasons is a potential

and if the trial is in Washington dc or northern virginia that's to WAPO's big advantage Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

LexusLover is on record as saying the jury venue/selection has nothing to do with the verdict. . . at least that is wtf je said about the Zimmerman trial.

How would one calculate his future losses?

Is he going to be a doctor or a skinhead?

And yes the OP got the wrong paper.

I doubt the kid gets shit....he is just being used as a political pawn. Maybe he'll sue his lawyer after he doesn't win shit. Originally Posted by WTF

Jewel got $500,000. Since you’re the crackerjack attorney here, you figure out future loses. His attorney already has.