Covington student sues Washington Post for $250 million

greenblood said:

HHusky said:

greenblood said:

HillsboroDuck said:

dflea said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

dflea said:

Frivolous lawsuit.

For frivolous reporting. WaPo fucked up.

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.

This.

The 250 mil figure was derived because that was what Bezos purchased the Post for. This has settlement written all over it. I would be surprised if it's less than $4-5 million. Drop in the bucket for Bezos, but the kid will be living large.

At this point I’m less than convinced that it would survive a summary judgment motion and/or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. But if it does, discovery would be an enormous undertaking. (The complaint contains more speculation about facts than concrete assertions.). Bezos can afford it; can the other side?

For something of this nature and the potential reward, most lawyers have no problem in doing contingency deals. The kid's family will pay little to nothing unless he wins something.

HillsboroDuck said:

jecornel said:

That kid is a joke.

Going to be a rich joke IMO

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

There are numerous quotes in the complaint from the Post. You lied O'Keefed.

I didn’t say there were no partial quotations. Is there even one complete sentence quoted in the entire pleading?

Wow, you didn't read the entire complaint did you O'Keefed. Man I pity your clients.

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

HillsboroDuck said:

dflea said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

dflea said:

Frivolous lawsuit.

For frivolous reporting. WaPo fucked up.

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.