They say their coverage was "not only accurate; it was ultimately favorable to him."
"In short, the articles at issue may not have been flattering of the Covington Catholic students, but they do not give rise to a defamation claim by Sandmann," continues the dismissal motion. "Indeed, the Post’s overall coverage — including the articles that the Complaint fails to mention — was not only accurate; it was ultimately favorable to him."
To be expected. They will pay; in the end a Kentucky jury will see to that.
“”In short, the articles at issue may not have been flattering of the Covington Catholic students, but they do not give rise to a defamation claim by Sandmann,” continues the dismissal motion. “Indeed, the Post’s overall coverage — including the articles that the Complaint fails to mention — was not only accurate; it was ultimately favorable to him.” “
The Post can say that the reporter reported inaccurately. They will issue a retraction and suspend the reporter for a month with pay.
There you have it! Sandmann is GUILTY of racist behavior and inciting a riot.
Black is white, up is down . . .
Obviously printing knowingly false and defamatory information about a Teenage Boy who ends up receiving Death Threats while harming his future prospects is okie dokie.
I did not know that.
Filing to dismiss is merely procedural in any defense of a lawsuit. The only purpose this article serves is to bolster the nitwit dems and make nervous the conservatives that have never been in a lawsuit or know how they work.
Why?
DC judge...DC jury.
But that's not to say he won't get *anything*.
The lawyers of the Washington Post made a feeble attempt to say there was nothing wrong in saying the Nicholas Sandmann blocked Nathan Phillips even though there the video of that incident went viral. Standing still is not the same as blocking someone.
Notice that the Pest’s article quotes Philips as making the accusation against Sandmann. The fact that Philups SAID those things is just that: a fact. The paper can’t be held liable for quoting a charge made by someone else.
In other words, while Sandmann may have a case for slander against Philips, his case for libel against the Pest is weaker.
That said, it is incumbent on the paper to fairly assess the validity of any slanderous charges before quoting them. Otherwise they can be liable for propagatng the slander.
WP should keep that legal team-those they malign will most appreciative.
I’m sure Mr. L. Lin Wood is very impressed with the Compost’s filing.
Bust Bezos balls
So, the WaPo was really praising the Covington kids and the MAGA message. Who knew?