Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Covington student sues Washington Post for $250 million
Comments
-
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.dflea said: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. -
Very familiar with it. Thus my comment about overtime. Do you know what it is?UW_Doog_Bot said:
So I guess you don't know what opportunity cost is. Not surprised.HHusky said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.2001400ex said:
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?UW_Doog_Bot said: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.
-
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.2001400ex said:
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?UW_Doog_Bot said: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.
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. -
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.HHusky said:
I’m not aware of any reason his being a minor makes any difference legally.greenblood said:
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.HHusky said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.”HHusky said:
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.HillsboroDuck said:
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.dflea said:
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.GrundleStiltzkin said:
For frivolous reporting. WaPo fucked up.dflea said:Frivolous lawsuit.
Why you always check O'Keefed's claims. Shocking, he lied.
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.Doogles said:
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.HHusky said:
I’m not aware of any reason his being a minor makes any difference legally.greenblood said:
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.HHusky said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.”HHusky said:
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.HillsboroDuck said:
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.dflea said:
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.GrundleStiltzkin said:
For frivolous reporting. WaPo fucked up.dflea said:Frivolous lawsuit.
Why you always check O'Keefed's claims. Shocking, he lied.
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?Doogles said:
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.HHusky said:
I’m not aware of any reason his being a minor makes any difference legally.greenblood said:
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.HHusky said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.”HHusky said:
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.HillsboroDuck said:
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.dflea said:
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.GrundleStiltzkin said:
For frivolous reporting. WaPo fucked up.dflea said:Frivolous lawsuit.
Why you always check O'Keefed's claims. Shocking, he lied.
Whether it's libel or negligence I don't know, but the kid is going to get paid. -
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.HHusky said:
There may very well be journalistic ethics rules and codes. But I’m not aware of anything that makes his legal claim any stronger.Doogles said:
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.HHusky said:
I’m not aware of any reason his being a minor makes any difference legally.greenblood said:
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.HHusky said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.”HHusky said:
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.HillsboroDuck said:
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.dflea said:
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.GrundleStiltzkin said:
For frivolous reporting. WaPo fucked up.dflea said:Frivolous lawsuit.
Why you always check O'Keefed's claims. Shocking, he lied.
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. -
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
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?Doogles said:
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.HHusky said:
I’m not aware of any reason his being a minor makes any difference legally.greenblood said:
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.HHusky said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.”HHusky said:
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.HillsboroDuck said:
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.dflea said:
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.GrundleStiltzkin said:
For frivolous reporting. WaPo fucked up.dflea said:Frivolous lawsuit.
Why you always check O'Keefed's claims. Shocking, he lied.
Whether it's libel or negligence I don't know, but the kid is going to get paid.
How many Ls must you take in this lifetime? -
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.Doogles said:
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.HHusky said:
There may very well be journalistic ethics rules and codes. But I’m not aware of anything that makes his legal claim any stronger.Doogles said:
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.HHusky said:
I’m not aware of any reason his being a minor makes any difference legally.greenblood said:
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.HHusky said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.”HHusky said:
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.HillsboroDuck said:
He ain't getting a quarter billion but I bet he gets a nice seven figure settlement.dflea said:
Sure. But damages are going to be difficult to document in a case like this.GrundleStiltzkin said:
For frivolous reporting. WaPo fucked up.dflea said:Frivolous lawsuit.
Why you always check O'Keefed's claims. Shocking, he lied.
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. -
“But how is Emerrett a bad president” comes to mind here.HoustonHusky said:
You literally have to be one of the dumbest people in America. It is amazing at times.2001400ex said:
Let's try this again. Post the article where the WaPo lied on their reporting.GrundleStiltzkin said:
For frivolous reporting. WaPo fucked up.dflea said:Frivolous lawsuit.
