Nick Sandmann loses his defamation case against CBS, ABC, NYT, etc.

I will go one further. Watching the whole thing, and measuring Sandman as a teenage boy, he acted above and beyond. Yes, he smirked, but that was nothing given the scenario.

 

I think as a 16 year old I would have just stepped aside and let the group continue in a straight line rather than make them snake around me.

I also still hold doors open for people and yell at clouds.

 

The left will ban smirks when they can. No doubt they are a harmful and a dangerous weapon used by the MAGA. This thread is proof that the left is wigged out over smirks.

Yay Amerika

 

Dude, it was a joke. Everyone who has ever lived has smirked. His was particularly “smirky”.

As for the incident itself, it is abundantly clear that how one viewed it depended upon one’s politics. I was honest enough (for once) to admit that. So should you (for once).

 

Mine was a joke also.

I’m smirking now.

 

Although some of the righties have referred to Sandmann as the "highest paid employee of CNN" there really should be little doubt now that CNN settled with Sandmann for a token sum to avoid the cost of litigation which I had pointed out in multiple posts over the last couple of years. I think it should have been obvious when Lin Wood threatened to take CNN to court for violating its confidentiality agreement with Sandmann following an interview with an attorney experienced in defamation cases who suggested that the settlement was essentially a nuisance fee.

 

Read. Never thought he was defamed. In fact he became famed.

 

Meanwhile we have this bs.

Sesame Place controversy: Black family files $25M racial discrimination lawsuit after viral character snub

 

Why not start a separate thread on the subject?

 

Interesting here how posters expressed their own views without actually reading the testimony.

 

Didn’t the judge also say that the media reported Phillips version of the story? Objective reporting would have presented both sides of the story. The commentary from the media, which falls under opinion, was decidedly against Sandman. Apparently opinions cannot be libelous, but they can be one-sided and inaccurate.

And yes, I did read the ruling.

 

We all know that the corrupt media are not held responsible for sharing false information. They have the money and power to win. They trashed a kid.

 

Perhaps poster's chagrin towards corrupt media should be pivoted towards the right-wing sources that falsely assured him the kid was defamed. LOL

 

Forget this case. Do you believe in your heart of hearts that the majority of news outlets treated Sandman fairly?

 

And there was still evidence to support the original reporting as the cited testimony shows.

 

More like the kid and his immensely greedy attorney unsuccessfully tried to monetize an error by the media for which they apologized and corrected shortly after the original inaccurate report.