Did a law get passed that prohibits a newspaper from being shit?
Then I don't see the kid winning because he won't be able to document any damages. To what - the reputation he didn't have? Has his future income stream been damaged?
I don't see a 7 figure settlement coming out of this.
Not my area, but I believe there is usually some presumption of harm if a defamation case is proven. That said, absent proving a case for punitives, I can’t see even a successful defamation case amounting to very much.
I keep hearing from the Left that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your words. Anyways, unless the Post decides to make this a principled stand about free speech they'll likely settle. I'd bet even $500k is a lot to that kid and his family. No need to pay ten times that just to beat it in court and get a bunch of potential bad press.
Bezos has attorneys on staff that deal with this shit on a regular basis. How do you get fighting this would cost him/WP $5 million?
Sure, but opportunity cost is a real thing and so are the optics. Sometims it's better to take the L and move on. I'm not surprised if you don't understand that.
I’m betting the lawyers on staff don’t qualify for overtime. But if Bezos wants to spend millions on outside counsel, he’s not going to suffer.
So I guess you don't know what opportunity cost is. Not surprised.
Very familiar with it. Thus my comment about overtime. Do you know what it is?
I keep hearing from the Left that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your words. Anyways, unless the Post decides to make this a principled stand about free speech they'll likely settle. I'd bet even $500k is a lot to that kid and his family. No need to pay ten times that just to beat it in court and get a bunch of potential bad press.
Bezos has attorneys on staff that deal with this shit on a regular basis. How do you get fighting this would cost him/WP $5 million?
Sure, but opportunity cost is a real thing and so are the optics. Sometims it's better to take the L and move on. I'm not surprised if you don't understand that.
Yes both are considerations. And I'm sure Bezos attorneys are presenting all of that information. And I'm not sure he cares much about optics. Look at how he handled the cheating deal. He told them fuck it, post it all up. I'll deal with my wife.
And yes sometimes it's better to take the L and move on. I don't guess the Bezos likes to lose. Like Trump, sometimes both pay way more to get a W in their mind. I'm not surprised you don't get that concept.
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.
Maybe. I just read the complaint though. You would think the Post would be extensively quoted in a case of defamation seeking $200 million in punitive damages. But the Post isn’t quoted very much or at much length. Instead, the theory seems to be what the Post knew or should have known. The word “malice” is thrown around, but it seems closer to a negligent reporting claim.
On January 19, 20 and 21, the 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 as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
Why you always check O'Keefed's claims. Shocking, he lied.
You’re making my point, blob. That paragraph is just about the only substantive allegation and the quotations are so choppy that you have to fully accept the characterization of the quotations as perfectly true to construct any argument. There are no lengthy statements quoted in their original context. The complaint goes on for pages without much more than conclusory statements about the Post’s alleged motivation.
Does the fact that he's a minor have any impact? I assume not, but in the court of public opinion it could be a huge blow to the post. They might just settle to shut the kid up.
I’m not aware of any reason his being a minor makes any difference legally.
I took a journalism ethics class many moons ago so I barely remember much, but I do recall the protection of a Minor's identity/image is a pretty big deal.
Whether it's libel or negligence I don't know, but the kid is going to get paid.
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.
Maybe. I just read the complaint though. You would think the Post would be extensively quoted in a case of defamation seeking $200 million in punitive damages. But the Post isn’t quoted very much or at much length. Instead, the theory seems to be what the Post knew or should have known. The word “malice” is thrown around, but it seems closer to a negligent reporting claim.
On January 19, 20 and 21, the 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 as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
Why you always check O'Keefed's claims. Shocking, he lied.
You’re making my point, blob. That paragraph is just about the only substantive allegation and the quotations are so choppy that you have to fully accept the characterization of the quotations as perfectly true to construct any argument. There are no lengthy statements quoted in their original context. The complaint goes on for pages without much more than conclusory statements about the Post’s alleged motivation.
Does the fact that he's a minor have any impact? I assume not, but in the court of public opinion it could be a huge blow to the post. They might just settle to shut the kid up.
I’m not aware of any reason his being a minor makes any difference legally.
I took a journalism ethics class many moons ago so I barely remember much, but I do recall the protection of a Minor's identity/image is a pretty big deal.
Whether it's libel or negligence I don't know, but the kid is going to get paid.
There may very well be journalistic ethics rules and codes. But I’m not aware of anything that makes his legal claim any stronger.
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.
Maybe. I just read the complaint though. You would think the Post would be extensively quoted in a case of defamation seeking $200 million in punitive damages. But the Post isn’t quoted very much or at much length. Instead, the theory seems to be what the Post knew or should have known. The word “malice” is thrown around, but it seems closer to a negligent reporting claim.
On January 19, 20 and 21, the 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 as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
Why you always check O'Keefed's claims. Shocking, he lied.
You’re making my point, blob. That paragraph is just about the only substantive allegation and the quotations are so choppy that you have to fully accept the characterization of the quotations as perfectly true to construct any argument. There are no lengthy statements quoted in their original context. The complaint goes on for pages without much more than conclusory statements about the Post’s alleged motivation.
Does the fact that he's a minor have any impact? I assume not, but in the court of public opinion it could be a huge blow to the post. They might just settle to shut the kid up.
I’m not aware of any reason his being a minor makes any difference legally.
I took a journalism ethics class many moons ago so I barely remember much, but I do recall the protection of a Minor's identity/image is a pretty big deal.
Whether it's libel or negligence I don't know, but the kid is going to get paid.
You took a journalism ethics class? That makes you a first amendment and libel law expert in trump world. Do you advise GayBob on his legal analyses as well?
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.
Maybe. I just read the complaint though. You would think the Post would be extensively quoted in a case of defamation seeking $200 million in punitive damages. But the Post isn’t quoted very much or at much length. Instead, the theory seems to be what the Post knew or should have known. The word “malice” is thrown around, but it seems closer to a negligent reporting claim.
On January 19, 20 and 21, the 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 as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
Why you always check O'Keefed's claims. Shocking, he lied.
You’re making my point, blob. That paragraph is just about the only substantive allegation and the quotations are so choppy that you have to fully accept the characterization of the quotations as perfectly true to construct any argument. There are no lengthy statements quoted in their original context. The complaint goes on for pages without much more than conclusory statements about the Post’s alleged motivation.
Does the fact that he's a minor have any impact? I assume not, but in the court of public opinion it could be a huge blow to the post. They might just settle to shut the kid up.
I’m not aware of any reason his being a minor makes any difference legally.
I took a journalism ethics class many moons ago so I barely remember much, but I do recall the protection of a Minor's identity/image is a pretty big deal.
Whether it's libel or negligence I don't know, but the kid is going to get paid.
There may very well be journalistic ethics rules and codes. But I’m not aware of anything that makes his legal claim any stronger.
I'm not the expert, but if someone put a gun to my head I'm betting he gets paid more than enough in a settlement.
He could probably say all kinds of shit being a minor, That all the backlash gave him anxiety and kept him from getting accepted into that six-fig dream school college, whatever.
Bezos will write a check, brush his teeth, and move the fuck on.
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.
Maybe. I just read the complaint though. You would think the Post would be extensively quoted in a case of defamation seeking $200 million in punitive damages. But the Post isn’t quoted very much or at much length. Instead, the theory seems to be what the Post knew or should have known. The word “malice” is thrown around, but it seems closer to a negligent reporting claim.
On January 19, 20 and 21, the 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 as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
Why you always check O'Keefed's claims. Shocking, he lied.
You’re making my point, blob. That paragraph is just about the only substantive allegation and the quotations are so choppy that you have to fully accept the characterization of the quotations as perfectly true to construct any argument. There are no lengthy statements quoted in their original context. The complaint goes on for pages without much more than conclusory statements about the Post’s alleged motivation.
Does the fact that he's a minor have any impact? I assume not, but in the court of public opinion it could be a huge blow to the post. They might just settle to shut the kid up.
I’m not aware of any reason his being a minor makes any difference legally.
I took a journalism ethics class many moons ago so I barely remember much, but I do recall the protection of a Minor's identity/image is a pretty big deal.
Whether it's libel or negligence I don't know, but the kid is going to get paid.
You took a journalism ethics class? That makes you a first amendment and libel law expert in trump world. Do you advise GayBob on his legal analyses as well?
Hey fag I made it clear I don't know what I'm talking about, just surprised anyone would bet he won't get paid.
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.
Maybe. I just read the complaint though. You would think the Post would be extensively quoted in a case of defamation seeking $200 million in punitive damages. But the Post isn’t quoted very much or at much length. Instead, the theory seems to be what the Post knew or should have known. The word “malice” is thrown around, but it seems closer to a negligent reporting claim.
On January 19, 20 and 21, the 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 as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
Why you always check O'Keefed's claims. Shocking, he lied.
You’re making my point, blob. That paragraph is just about the only substantive allegation and the quotations are so choppy that you have to fully accept the characterization of the quotations as perfectly true to construct any argument. There are no lengthy statements quoted in their original context. The complaint goes on for pages without much more than conclusory statements about the Post’s alleged motivation.
Does the fact that he's a minor have any impact? I assume not, but in the court of public opinion it could be a huge blow to the post. They might just settle to shut the kid up.
I’m not aware of any reason his being a minor makes any difference legally.
I took a journalism ethics class many moons ago so I barely remember much, but I do recall the protection of a Minor's identity/image is a pretty big deal.
Whether it's libel or negligence I don't know, but the kid is going to get paid.
There may very well be journalistic ethics rules and codes. But I’m not aware of anything that makes his legal claim any stronger.
I'm not the expert, but if someone put a gun to my head I'm betting he gets paid more than enough in a settlement.
He could probably say all kinds of shit being a minor, That all the backlash gave him anxiety and kept him from getting accepted into that six-fig dream school college, whatever.
Bezos will write a check, brush his teeth, and move the fuck on.
He may FACTUALLY point to being a kid as part of his harm—he already does. But if there is no liability LEGALLY, his being a minor doesn’t change that.
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.
Maybe. I just read the complaint though. You would think the Post would be extensively quoted in a case of defamation seeking $200 million in punitive damages. But the Post isn’t quoted very much or at much length. Instead, the theory seems to be what the Post knew or should have known. The word “malice” is thrown around, but it seems closer to a negligent reporting claim.
On January 19, 20 and 21, the 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 as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
Why you always check O'Keefed's claims. Shocking, he lied.
You’re making my point, blob. That paragraph is just about the only substantive allegation and the quotations are so choppy that you have to fully accept the characterization of the quotations as perfectly true to construct any argument. There are no lengthy statements quoted in their original context. The complaint goes on for pages without much more than conclusory statements about the Post’s alleged motivation.
Does the fact that he's a minor have any impact? I assume not, but in the court of public opinion it could be a huge blow to the post. They might just settle to shut the kid up.
I’m not aware of any reason his being a minor makes any difference legally.
I took a journalism ethics class many moons ago so I barely remember much, but I do recall the protection of a Minor's identity/image is a pretty big deal.
Whether it's libel or negligence I don't know, but the kid is going to get paid.
You took a journalism ethics class? That makes you a first amendment and libel law expert in trump world. Do you advise GayBob on his legal analyses as well?
Hey CD who advised you that Banks can foreclose on people who are current on their mortgages?
I keep hearing from the Left that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your words. Anyways, unless the Post decides to make this a principled stand about free speech they'll likely settle. I'd bet even $500k is a lot to that kid and his family. No need to pay ten times that just to beat it in court and get a bunch of potential bad press.
Bezos has attorneys on staff that deal with this shit on a regular basis. How do you get fighting this would cost him/WP $5 million?
Sure, but opportunity cost is a real thing and so are the optics. Sometims it's better to take the L and move on. I'm not surprised if you don't understand that.
I’m betting the lawyers on staff don’t qualify for overtime. But if Bezos wants to spend millions on outside counsel, he’s not going to suffer.
So I guess you don't know what opportunity cost is. Not surprised.
Very familiar with it. Thus my comment about overtime. Do you know what it is?
Overtime wouldn't have anything to do with opportunity cost. Try again.
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.
Disagree. This “lawsuit” will eventually get dismissed.
No clue if he will win, but he's a minor and not a public figure so he's got a better chance than most anybody else would in this type of case. Doubt it will get dismissed.
It won’t see a court room. There will be a settlement with a non disclosure. The leftist here will see that as a loss for the “white trash” kid. “They paid him to go away”. Enough though they see the NFL Kapeernick settlement as proof of collusion, and admission of guilt and a big victory for the oppressed black millionaire.
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.
Maybe. I just read the complaint though. You would think the Post would be extensively quoted in a case of defamation seeking $200 million in punitive damages. But the Post isn’t quoted very much or at much length. Instead, the theory seems to be what the Post knew or should have known. The word “malice” is thrown around, but it seems closer to a negligent reporting claim.
On January 19, 20 and 21, the 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 as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
Why you always check O'Keefed's claims. Shocking, he lied.
You’re making my point, blob. That paragraph is just about the only substantive allegation and the quotations are so choppy that you have to fully accept the characterization of the quotations as perfectly true to construct any argument. There are no lengthy statements quoted in their original context. The complaint goes on for pages without much more than conclusory statements about the Post’s alleged motivation.
Does the fact that he's a minor have any impact? I assume not, but in the court of public opinion it could be a huge blow to the post. They might just settle to shut the kid up.
I’m not aware of any reason his being a minor makes any difference legally.
I took a journalism ethics class many moons ago so I barely remember much, but I do recall the protection of a Minor's identity/image is a pretty big deal.
Whether it's libel or negligence I don't know, but the kid is going to get paid.
You took a journalism ethics class? That makes you a first amendment and libel law expert in trump world. Do you advise GayBob on his legal analyses as well?
Hey CD who advised you that Banks can foreclose on people who are current on their mortgages?
Hey GayBob, if your home is worth less than your mortgage you are in default. Regulators don’t look kindly on bank balance sheets with non-performing loans. Do you know what a “jumbo” mortgage is? Didn’t think so.
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.
Maybe. I just read the complaint though. You would think the Post would be extensively quoted in a case of defamation seeking $200 million in punitive damages. But the Post isn’t quoted very much or at much length. Instead, the theory seems to be what the Post knew or should have known. The word “malice” is thrown around, but it seems closer to a negligent reporting claim.
On January 19, 20 and 21, the 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 as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
Why you always check O'Keefed's claims. Shocking, he lied.
You’re making my point, blob. That paragraph is just about the only substantive allegation and the quotations are so choppy that you have to fully accept the characterization of the quotations as perfectly true to construct any argument. There are no lengthy statements quoted in their original context. The complaint goes on for pages without much more than conclusory statements about the Post’s alleged motivation.
Does the fact that he's a minor have any impact? I assume not, but in the court of public opinion it could be a huge blow to the post. They might just settle to shut the kid up.
I’m not aware of any reason his being a minor makes any difference legally.
I took a journalism ethics class many moons ago so I barely remember much, but I do recall the protection of a Minor's identity/image is a pretty big deal.
Whether it's libel or negligence I don't know, but the kid is going to get paid.
You took a journalism ethics class? That makes you a first amendment and libel law expert in trump world. Do you advise GayBob on his legal analyses as well?
I keep hearing from the Left that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your words. Anyways, unless the Post decides to make this a principled stand about free speech they'll likely settle. I'd bet even $500k is a lot to that kid and his family. No need to pay ten times that just to beat it in court and get a bunch of potential bad press.
Bezos has attorneys on staff that deal with this shit on a regular basis. How do you get fighting this would cost him/WP $5 million?
Sure, but opportunity cost is a real thing and so are the optics. Sometims it's better to take the L and move on. I'm not surprised if you don't understand that.
I’m betting the lawyers on staff don’t qualify for overtime. But if Bezos wants to spend millions on outside counsel, he’s not going to suffer.
So I guess you don't know what opportunity cost is. Not surprised.
Very familiar with it. Thus my comment about overtime. Do you know what it is?
Overtime wouldn't have anything to do with opportunity cost. Try again.
You better explain where you see the application of opportunity cost then. I don’t see Bezos’s lawyers doing anything but working more hours for the same pay. They’ll still have all their other work to do besides.
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.
Disagree. This “lawsuit” will eventually get dismissed.
No clue if he will win, but he's a minor and not a public figure so he's got a better chance than most anybody else would in this type of case. Doubt it will get dismissed.
It won’t see a court room. There will be a settlement with a non disclosure. The leftist here will see that as a loss for the “white trash” kid. “They paid him to go away”. Enough though they see the NFL Kapeernick settlement as proof of collusion, and admission of guilt and a big victory for the oppressed black millionaire.
I suspect it will see a motion to dismiss shortly. That’s in a courtroom. It may survive the motion, but it’ll require a helluva lot more detail and admissible evidence.
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.
Disagree. This “lawsuit” will eventually get dismissed.
No clue if he will win, but he's a minor and not a public figure so he's got a better chance than most anybody else would in this type of case. Doubt it will get dismissed.
It won’t see a court room. There will be a settlement with a non disclosure. The leftist here will see that as a loss for the “white trash” kid. “They paid him to go away”. Enough though they see the NFL Kapeernick settlement as proof of collusion, and admission of guilt and a big victory for the oppressed black millionaire.
I suspect it will see a motion to dismiss shortly. That’s in a courtroom. It may survive the motion, but it’ll require a helluva lot more detail and admissible evidence.
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.
Disagree. This “lawsuit” will eventually get dismissed.
No clue if he will win, but he's a minor and not a public figure so he's got a better chance than most anybody else would in this type of case. Doubt it will get dismissed.
It won’t see a court room. There will be a settlement with a non disclosure. The leftist here will see that as a loss for the “white trash” kid. “They paid him to go away”. Enough though they see the NFL Kapeernick settlement as proof of collusion, and admission of guilt and a big victory for the oppressed black millionaire.
I suspect it will see a motion to dismiss shortly. That’s in a courtroom. It may survive the motion, but it’ll require a helluva lot more detail and admissible evidence.
If not dismissed, expect a settlement soon after.
Maybe. It really depends on whether it merely survives by the skin of its teeth or more resoundingly.
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.
Maybe. I just read the complaint though. You would think the Post would be extensively quoted in a case of defamation seeking $200 million in punitive damages. But the Post isn’t quoted very much or at much length. Instead, the theory seems to be what the Post knew or should have known. The word “malice” is thrown around, but it seems closer to a negligent reporting claim.
On January 19, 20 and 21, the 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 as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
Why you always check O'Keefed's claims. Shocking, he lied.
You’re making my point, blob. That paragraph is just about the only substantive allegation and the quotations are so choppy that you have to fully accept the characterization of the quotations as perfectly true to construct any argument. There are no lengthy statements quoted in their original context. The complaint goes on for pages without much more than conclusory statements about the Post’s alleged motivation.
Does the fact that he's a minor have any impact? I assume not, but in the court of public opinion it could be a huge blow to the post. They might just settle to shut the kid up.
I’m not aware of any reason his being a minor makes any difference legally.
I took a journalism ethics class many moons ago so I barely remember much, but I do recall the protection of a Minor's identity/image is a pretty big deal.
Whether it's libel or negligence I don't know, but the kid is going to get paid.
You took a journalism ethics class? That makes you a first amendment and libel law expert in trump world. Do you advise GayBob on his legal analyses as well?
Where do you get your expertise?
An educational background and professional career that recognizes citing “journalism ethics class” as a source is retarded and deserving of mockery.
Comments
And yes sometimes it's better to take the L and move on. I don't guess the Bezos likes to lose. Like Trump, sometimes both pay way more to get a W in their mind. I'm not surprised you don't get that concept.
Whether it's libel or negligence I don't know, but the kid is going to get paid.
He could probably say all kinds of shit being a minor, That all the backlash gave him anxiety and kept him from getting accepted into that six-fig dream school college, whatever.
Bezos will write a check, brush his teeth, and move the fuck on.
How many Ls must you take in this lifetime?