Judge Rules that Jeff Bezos' Washington Post Has the Right to Defame Anyone It Has Decreed to be an Enemy

By Grand Rapids Anonymous
Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 1:00:00 P.M. EDT

I’ll repost a previous comment:

Citing free speech, judge dismisses Covington Catholic student’s lawsuit against The Washington Post
11:07 a.m.

GRA: Remember when this lawsuit was filed? Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham all had guests on that predicted a “slam dunk ruling” against the WAPO.

“They're going to pay through the nose,” said one famous lawyer.

Well it won't be money, will it—must be nose hairs.

I’m slightly confused. Free speech, when exercised by a conglomerate—even if slanderous—is protected, but MY free speech is NOT protected—if I use that company’s blog site. In fact, conglomerate media companies like Twitter or a WAPO comment section (and the others) can BAN individuals like me, for not conforming to THEIR idea of “free speech.” Incredible—no checks and balances for the media.

(THE WEEK.com)

The Washington Post can breathe a bit more easily.

A federal judge in Kentucky on Friday dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed against the Post by Nicholas Sandmann, a student at Covington Catholic High School in Park Hills, Kentucky. Sandmann and his family sought $250 million in damages over the newspaper’s reporting about Sandmann’s confrontation with a Native American activist on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., in January during an anti-abortion rally in the capital. The report, Politico writes, caused Sandmann, who is white and appeared to be wearing a Make America Great Again hat at the time, to be “castigated” for “apparently intimidating a person of color.”

The lawsuit alleged that the Post smeared Sandmann as part of its “war” against President Trump. The paper did later acknowledge it made several errors in its coverage of the incident.

The judge, William O. Bertelsman, ruled that the Post’s reporting was projected as free speech and that the paper did not factually report Sandmann had behaved in a violent or menacing way, relying instead on a recounting from Nathan Phillips, the activist, who said the teenager blocked his path. The ruling elaborated that although the reporting may have been inaccurate it was not defamatory.

[N.S.: That’s an old reporter’s trick: When you hate someone but don’t want to get in trouble for libel, just quote someone else who hates him. Bingo! All the libels are free!]

Bertelsman added that, "while unfortunate," the treatment Sandmann faced on social media was not relevant to the lawsuit. Read more at Politico and The Washington Examiner. Tim O'Donnell
--GRA

Anonymous said...
Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 11:41:00 A.M. EDT

Judge needs to be impeached and removed from office. I am not holding my breath.


Anonymous said...
Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 1:04:00 P.M. EDT

It should be noted that good old Nate the day AFTER the Lincoln Memorial incident went to the Catholic Cathedral in DC while services were in progress, tried to barge inside while beating his drum and praying [to the great spirit of course and not JESUS]. The man is an incorrigible trouble maker and has made a business of being an incorrigible trouble maker.


N.S.: Several years ago, I opined that if someone had shot a few rogue federal judges (e.g., J. Skelly Wright and Frank Johnson) and/or Supreme Court justices (e.g., William Brennan), he could have saved the country. Of course, my judgment was 20/20—or 60/60—hindsight.

Back in 1937, when the Supreme Court was actually honoring the Constitution, FDR threatened to engage in “court-packing,” by adding seats, which he would have filled with socialists and/or socialists. Instead of calling his bluff, the sitting justices surrendered, and became a leftwing court.

All that sanctimonious rogues in black understand is violence.

Does this ruling make Jeff Bezos the nation’s most powerful man?