Media Companies, Celebrities and Others Sued for Hundreds of Millions

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Solver, Jan 27, 2019.

  1. Solver, Jan 27, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019

    Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #1
    More people added to libel and defamation lawsuits related to the Covington Catholic incident.

    “A dozen public figures have been named in a libel lawsuit that claims their comments on the Covington Catholic incident were defamatory.

    The suit was filed Friday on behalf of eight unnamed Covington Catholic High students present during the now-viral encounter with Native Americans on the National Mall, in which Nathan Phillips sang and played a drum as Nick Sandmann and his classmates stood around him. Some students chanted and performed a tomahawk chop, considered by some as mocking toward Native Americans.”

    https://www.courier-journal.com/sto...l-suit-vs-journalists-celebrities/1903021001/


    = = =

    This developing (and heavy merged) topic continues with NBC being sued for $275 Million.

    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...-high-student-nick-sandmann-sues-nbc-for-275m

    (Posts for this story start at #252)

    - - -

    “CNN is likely to be hit with a massive lawsuit worth more than $250 million over alleged “vicious” and “direct attacks” on Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann, his lawyer has told Fox News.”

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/cnn-to-b...rect-attacks-on-covington-high-student-lawyer

    (Posts for this story start at #165)

    ===

    A previous topic merged from January, 2019:

    “The family of 16-year-old Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann has hired a high-powered lawyer who specializes in going after media organizations for libel and slander.
    ...”

    Good for them. Hope their efforts are very fruitful.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/4263...family-makes-major-move-against-ryan-saavedra



    (Posts for this story start at #1)

    ===

    Another topic merged from February, 2019:

    Teen in Lincoln Memorial protest sues Washington Post for $250 million
    “The Post is a major American daily newspaper published in Washington, D.C. which is credited with inventing the term "McCarthyism" in an editorial cartoon published in 1950. Depicting buckets of tar, the cartoon made fun of then United States Senator Joseph McCarthy's "tarring" tactics of engaging in smear campaigns and character assassination against citizens whose political views made them targets of his accusations.
    In a span of three (3) days in January of this year commencing on January 19, the Post engaged in a modern-day form of McCarthyism by competing with CNN and NBC, among others, to claim leadership of a mainstream and social media mob of bullies which attacked, vilified, and threatened Nicholas Sandmann (“Nicholas”), an innocent secondary school child.
    The Post wrongfully targeted and bullied Nicholas because he was the white, Catholic student wearing a red “Make America Great Again” souvenir cap on a school field trip to the January 18 March for Life in Washington, D.C. when he was unexpectedly and suddenly confronted by Nathan Phillips (“Phillips”), a known Native American activist, who beat a drum and sang loudly within inches of his face (“the January 18 incident”).
    ...


    http://www.hemmerlaw.com/blog/for-truth-for-justice-for-nicholas/

    (Posts for this story start at #34)


    Current posts merged count = 3
     
  2. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
  3. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #3
    HATE lawsuits, they all suck BUT sadly this is the way America works :( anyways after all the death threats his family got even AFTER the videos came out I hope he wins
     
  4. Zenithal macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #4
    He's pretty good. Most of what he does is settling out of court for an undisclosed sum. Both parties benefit from not setting precedent.


    The reality is the damage is already done. I'm not taking sides in this debate, mostly because I don't give two *****.
     
  5. Zenithal macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #6
    What Gawker did wasn't illegal nor was it incorrect. Hogan's fight with them was greatly influenced and funded by Peter Thiel who was pissed off he was outed as a homosexual years earlier, even though it was one of the worst kept secrets in tech, even if you were a complete outsider.
     
  6. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #7
    Well, Theil weaponized the lawsuit to bankrupt the company, then bought it and its assets. Why he wasn’t barred from doing so when it came to light that his company was already putting together a purchase proposal during the trial is beyond me. It wasn’t never about that particular lawsuit, the lawsuit was a pretext.

    Expect this tactic to become standard for any smaller journalistic outlet that threatens the powerful.
     
  7. Zenithal macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #8
    Because there is no law against it. I actually had this debate back then with someone on another site. On moral grounds, I see nothing wrong with what Thiel did. At the time of his outing, while it was known in tech circles he was or rather is a homosexual, it wasn't talked about because when it comes to business, no one cares about that stuff. Though it may have opened him up to hostile action in the future. 2007 was a very different time, and I'd say even most liberals had an issue with gays or gay marriage then.

    From a pure monetary point of view, it was the dumbest thing he could do with his money. However, in doing so he showed a man once scorned can be deadly. And, two, it got rid of Gawker which was probably one of the best things to happen to humanity as a whole.

    The actual reality is he had nothing to worry about. Tim Cook is gay. He hasn't been kidnapped by some lesser country and murdered. The reality is once you're above middle class, in any country, you really can't be touched for those types of things. Sometimes even actual crimes.

    I see no reason to outlaw the ability to sue a company that deserves to be sued into nothingness.
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #9
    I had no problem with the lawsuit. I have a problem with him not being barred from auction for the assets because it’s a clear conflict of interest.
     
  9. Zenithal macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #10
    I think the rarity of the situation warrants not pursuing judgement against him in this case. Even the rarity of such a proxy case warrants no law being written against them.
     
  10. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #11
    They're not a direct A to B comparisons of lawsuits, but the Gawker lawsuit set a good precedence on people's ability to fight back against deliberate and unjustifiable maliciousness from media organizations.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker

    Invasion of privacy, infringement of personality rights, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Gawker lost.

    Thiel's justification for backing the lawsuit:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/...llionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html

    Even Jimmy Kimmel had words with Gawker back in the day...


    --- Post Merged, Jan 27, 2019 ---
    Further information into the Covington case:

    https://medium.com/@verifiedbullies...ivist-doxxes-wrong-covington-boy-f28a15a512ce

    That article breaks a lot of the timeline down and is worth a read, just to get a glimpse of what these boys were being put through. In the middle of the initial insanity, this person went above and beyond in the frenzy:

    One (of many) problem with that scenario: Michael Hodge wasn't even there. He was back home at his brother's wedding. Didn't matter. He was doxxed and he and his family also had to deal with this insatiable mob.

    A LOT of these messages coming from Twitter showcase that blue verification badge, which brings the topic to something else I brought up on the other thread. I wonder if Twitter could potentially be found liable in this, as well, due to how they manage their content.

     
  11. Zenithal macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #12
    Hogan sued the woman he had sex with and her husband, who knew of the tape and had encouraged fornication between the two. Apparently this is a thing some people do as weird and vile as that sounds. They reached a settlement. He then added Gawker to the case and sued them; this is where Thiel came along. Gawker lost, the assets of the editor were turned over to Hogan in place of the $115M award, and some time later gave him a $31M settlement which crushed the "paper." There's a new Gawker coming.

    As far as Thiel goes, he was just a pissed off man. As I said, 2007 was a different time for homosexuals. And while it would be a non-issue now, it may have been a serious issue then. This is Gawker, their owner Denton was quoted stating they'd draw the line at a sex-tape involving a four year old. Whether the comment was meant to be serious or a poor joke that should never have been uttered, it spoke volumes for management and how Gawker went about their business.

    Coincidentally, Jezebel, a blog aimed at women has had its own rash of indecency involving witch hunts. It was owned by Gawker Media and is now owned by Univision.


    Honestly, at the end of the day I side with Thiel and his actions in the proxy lawsuit. I may not like the man, but you have to admire a person who's willing to have a scorched earth policy to ruin a company that may have almost destroyed his life.
     
  12. Carnegie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #13
    I'd wonder what specific statements or actions would be the bases of a supposed defamation suit. So many people and entities make statements about these kinds of situations, so it wouldn't surprise me if some made statements that are legitimately actionable. But the vast majority of what was said likely isn't. Calling someone racist, e.g., likely wouldn't be actionable. And if we aren't talking about per-se defamation, proving damages would seem pretty difficult in most cases (i.e. against most alleged defamers).
     
  13. Solver thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #14
    What do the local say about all this


    It won’t be only Nicholas Sandmann‘s family that will be suing.
     
  14. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #15
    As long as they report the actual facts, they will be fine.
     
  15. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #16
    The irony of using InfoWars is almost too much. Careful or you'll create a post so dense with irony you'll create a singularity that will gobble up the Earth.
     
  16. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #17
    In an era where anything that strays from the approved narratives is demonetized by our new “fact” gatekeepers at NATO/The Atlantic Council (Facebook is using them and the remnants of the Weekly Standard to determine “truth”)? Doubt it.
     
  17. Solver thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #18
    Lawyer talks about this from a legal standpoint,
     
  18. Carnegie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #19
    It looks like he's an advocate (or hopes to be an advocate) in this particular situation, so he's intentionally simplifying the legal situation. He's leaving out some important aspects of the consideration. I say he's intentionally simplifying the legal situation because I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he actually understands the legal aspects which he didn't go into. It's not nearly as easy a case to make as he's suggesting.

    Again, some potential defendants may have made actionable libelous statements. But I doubt that most - even among those critical of the students - did. And then there's the issue of proving damages caused by particular defendants.

    There's a matter of public concern issue which affects the negligence versus actual malice consideration. There's a specific versus presumed damages issue. There's a choice-of-law issue which might affect the specific versus presumed damages consideration. There's a provable fact versus opinion issue.
     
  19. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #20
    as long as the earth is flat it is not in danger of being gobbled up.......
     
  20. Solver thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #21
    Attacking the messenger, not the message I see.
     
  21. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Location:
    Velvet Green
    #22
    Might as well use stormfront as a cite.
     
  22. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #23
    So when you're in Chicago can you confirm this by taking a picture of Grand Rapids Michigan. :D
     
  23. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #24
    Good for him, I hope the news organizations fork over a good chunk of change. Then go after the *******s on twitter.
     
  24. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #25
    I don’t know if I read it on here or another forum a few years back, but the current state of things reminds me of a poster made news headline “Obama Caught in Waiting For Facts to Come in Scandal.” Obama isn’t the point. It’s that he didn’t reflexively jump to a conclusion based on gut feeling to appease the masses. It seems nobody can do that anymore.
     

Share This Page

293 January 27, 2019