Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Nick Sandmann Lawsuit against WAPO for $250 Million and Clarence Thomas’ Solo Opinion
Two stories have intersected making for intriguing discussions about the First Amendment as well as the laws against defamation.
The first story is the defamation lawsuit of Nick Sandmann against the Washington Post for $250 million. WaPo’s coverage of the confrontation between Sandman and a Native American man exploded into a national story and was fed by the inflammatory and reckless coverage by WaPo and other media outlets. Sandmann’s lawyer, Lin Wood, said, “Nick Sandmann was perceived as an easy target. He is 16. Inexcusable on every level.”
I suspect that the attorney will also include information on the threats, intimidation, and harassment that Sandmann went through, which included his family leaving their home for security reasons, explaining how the extreme coverage endangered all those involved. 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.’
The timing of this story is fascinating, given the solo opinion that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued on February 19:
Thomas said the court made a mistake in 1964 when it set a high barrier for public officials to sue the press for defaming them with a false story. That was later expanded to include famous individuals and people who inject themselves into big news stories.
In essence, public officials must show the publishers knew the report was false or otherwise displayed a “reckless disregard” for the truth.
Thomas argued that the framers of the Constitution did not intend such protection when they adopted the 1st Amendment, which forbids ‘abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.’
Justice Thomas clearly didn’t have support on the record from his colleagues.
Still, we can wonder whether his statement will influence the conduct of the Sandmann case, given the freedoms that the press has abused in recent years, I appreciate Lin Wood’s understatement about the lawsuit:
All members of the mainstream and social media mob of bullies who recklessly and viciously attacked Nick would be well-served to read it carefully.
I hope Sandmann is successful.
It’s time to hold the reckless press accountable.
Published in Journalism
wow. that is like 40 Superbowl ads. I say give them the full Gawker treatment.
It will be interesting to see if the rest of the media follow this or try to ignore it. And if they report, how will they present it. They could be next!
I found this fascinating:
That’s quite a list!
They also gave people the opportunity to apologize. I don’t know if anyone did. I think WaPo and others are trying to say they were reporting the news. I don’t think so. I believe their actions can be described as “making the [fake] news.”
@drewinwisconsin, thanks for the list. Let’s hope that, at the least, they each have a lot of billable hours from their lawyers from their irresponsibility.
The big problem for the WaPo and others is that they pretty much admitted that they had the videos available that showed the whole story was faked.
Even after the real story came out, some of them doubled down, which is just asking for it.
This is probably their biggest problem, @cirby. They knew better and didn’t care if others were hurt with the lies.
If the WaPo had the complete video available at the time of their initial report, how will they explain the tact their reporting took?
I assume that is a rhetorical question, @bobthompson, although they will finally present a non sequitor and hope that sticks.
To me, this makes it easier to prove malice of forethought . . .
I think we all underestimate the modern needs of privacy and reputation protection from publishers, especially those who are for profit IMO.
We also underestimate the importance of Sandman being a minor. I don’t think any for profit news agency should be able to use his image and name until the newsworthiness of the story is doubly varified.
Do we not want to protect the young from being targets the rest of their life for something that isn’t even newsworthy, which this wasn’t in the first place even if it had been partly true.
The WaPoo case will never go to trial. It will be settled and quickly. Justice Thomas is right. The media needs to have incentive to be more careful in the coverage even of public figures. That is irrelevant to the Covington case since there were no public figures involved (except maybe the drummer who was a professional protester). But the media has been pushing the envelope and needs to trim their sails a little bit.
I agree with the post and Clarence Thomas completely.
Thank you.
You’re correct, @rodin. Sandmann wasn’t a public figure. But I was also trying to shine a light on the abuse of the First Amendment. By their “pushing the envelope” (might be a bit of an understatement), they’ve damaged their own agenda, IMHO.
You may be right. In normal circumstances, it would be a slam dunk solution to the whole mess.
But WaPo has Bezos’ billions behind it, and he may decide to strike a blow for Freedom of the Press, especially if the MSM starts howling, because a loss could effectively end “fake news”, and return editors to the day when stories had to be verified before publication . . .
I think that the people who were willing to apologize did so before the threat of the lawsuit. National Review came out strong against these kids. They removed the post, put up at least two posts apologizing and made apologies on podcasts. SE Cupp put up a tweet apologizing, but it seemed weirdly like she was apologizing more to her twitter followers for being wrong than to the kids. These guys aren’t part of the lawsuit because they took action before it was even threatened.
Only if Sandmann agrees to settle. If he holds his ground it will go to trial. Granted that is a HUGE gamble on his part, but it will be interesting to see what he decides.
A lawyer will always advise their client to settle. Not because it’s the morally correct thing to do, but because malpractice laws push the decision in the direction of least risk.
I agree wholeheartedly, but the conservative in me realizes this is a very difficult balance to achieve. The current situation allows the Press to abuse their power. We need to be careful that solution doesn’t swing the pendulum so far the other way that the public can abuse any newfound power.
Of course if the press did their job impartially – or, more easily, reverted to their pre-WWI role of openly admitting their biases – there wouldn’t be the current level of abuse.
Freedom of the press (and speech) was supposed to give people the freedom to speak what they believed to be true without fear of the powerful offended coming after them.
Problem is, we have no concept of what it means for something to be true, anymore. Opinions are now facts. Facts are to be massaged and interpreted.
Some morals that need to come to bear in our public speech life are refusal to bear false witness and where assumptions are called for, assume positively (benefit of the doubt). Sure, they could have sneered in a threatening manner, but that is an interpretation of facts and relies on many negative assumptions.
Excellent points, @cm!
Hopefully, they’ll add the Southern Poverty Law Center to that list.
And many others as yet unnamed, but equally deserving.
The press and media in general never publishes the names of minors suspected of being involved in criminal activities. When a minor is arrested with one or more adults, the names of the adults are published, but never that of a minor. When the Washington Post published not just the name but photographs of Nick Sandman they stepped over a very clear line. Their intent seems more than obvious. The references to the school and all the rest was a blatant attempt to paint an image of privilege, political arrogance, and racism. They had the proof in hand that none of this was true, but their need to feed the narrative blinded them to the obvious truths. They, in effect, saw only what they wanted to see. Nick and his family and the school were all defamed purposely. The amount sought in the suit seems, on the surface, to be excessive, but I believe that it should all be awarded. A clear message needs to be sent to the entire MSM that they do not live in a reinforced bunker from which they can distribute any nonsense and filth about their political opponents, and there is no question that that is how they see all of us on the right. I also hope that everyone of those gasbag celebrities who thought that they had the right to defame a 16 year old child should also be forced to pay compensation for their tweets and statements, particularly those who suggested that violence should be visited upon Nick and his schoolmates. Actions and words have consequences. These people need to learn that lesson firmly.
Yeah. NR has been too fast to remark on a lot of events. I still love them, but their “Never Trump” issue was a disaster . . .
I’m sure you were thinking anti-Christian as well. Well-said, @eugenekriegsmann!
This was so well put @eugenekriegsmann that I wanted to reprint in bold just in case someone reading Susan’s OP happens to skip over your reply.
Holy Toledo! Even his own school?
Drew, thank you for that list; it just made my heart sing with joy– reading that list of malefactors and destroyers of lives and fortunes was the best news I’ve gotten all day, and I’ve already had a great day! I have long said, especially after making the mistake of actually watching one of these cringe worthy interviews like the one pretty, perky, cutie little Katie Couric did of Sarah Palin, regardless of what one thought about Palin, that it would be a worthy public service for one of these scandalmongers to actually come out with some serious, shall we say, less-than-positive information about their private lives. Great news! Made my day! Put in a substantial stock of popcorn; it’s going to be a delightful show!
The school immediately denounced their own students and started hinting that they might be expelled.
I agree with you. The press has taken the First Amendment and turned it on it’s head without acknowledging that responsibility also comes with that freedom. False accusations are a crime also as we are now witnessing with Smollett’s debacle with the police. Does the press have rights superior to those of the individual? Have the various Supreme Court decisions over the years given them the license to damage a man’s life with no proof other than presupposition? As I watched the Sunday morning shows, it suddenly dawned on me that most of the panelists were simply other journalists repeating the same group think, and few ventured forth with dissenting views based on personal knowledge from real sources they named.
Well, GWW, if they offer dissenting opinions, they won’t be invited back!