Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!



Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups





















Director of National Intelligence Coates Out? Docs Declassified? News on the FISA Abuse Investigation Coming? | Main | Supreme Court Backs Trump on Using Pentagon Funds to Build Border Wall
July 26, 2019

Judge Dismisses Nick Sandmann Lawsuit After First Round of Motions, Saying Just That It Was An "Opinion" That Sandmann Was a Racist And so the Washington Post Cannot Be Liable for Publishing His Lies

And the Washington Post, furthermore, wasn't even required to view a 20 minute video which would have proven that Chief Lieawatha was lying.

It's an "opinion" -- publish all the lies you want without any fact-checking required to maintain your immunity to lawsuit.


He didn't say that last part, but that's what the judge must have found when he typed up this very short dismissal order which did not mention that simple viewing of the full video, available to everyone, and only 20 minutes long, would have shown the Post that they were publishing a lie, but apparently they don't have to even bother watching a 20 minute video as the most minor of fact-checking before slandering a child.

Let me just say that my experience in the federal courts, before an Obama appointee, by the way, also fighting for the right for free speech, and with the additional consideration that anonymous speech was long-recognized as a core part of the First Amendment, was not met with the same eagerness to dismiss,

In my case, a conservative being sued by a leftist instead of a liberal billion dollar corporation being sued by a presumably-conservative child, the court really wanted to go through two and a half years of very expensive motions and orders and really wanted to make sure that the leftist had not had any avenues of justice closed off to him prematurely.

In my case, the right of the press to report freely without being overly fearful of lawsuits was.... how do I put this? Not even on the docket, as they say.

Let me just point out that I have been very, very fearful about what I write since that lawsuit, and have in fact been very, very inhibited in seeking and writing what I believe to be the truth.

See, but that doesn't matter; I'm a conservative. I should be fearful. My rights to free speech must take not just second place but possibly seventh or eight place to anyone who claims to have been harmed by my speech.

But the Washington Post is a leftwing billion dollar media corporation, you see. Its free speech rights are ABSOLUTELY PARAMOUNT, and greater in fact than that of a child to not be defamed in national media, and in fact so ABSOLUTE is this right of a leftwing corporation to destroy people that it must not be encumbered even by the requirement of having to watch a 20 minute video, available to everyone on the internet, before rushing out with a defamatory lie about a child.

See, it's just "opinion."

My case? Not opinion and even if it was, so what? It was BAD OPINION.

So yeah, this is me, having gone through an emotional hell for 2 1/2 years and around $40,000 in personal expenses telling you that the yes, the system is rigged against you, and yes, you are second class citizens, and you need to decide if you're willing to tolerate that situation and for how long.

This is intolerable.

Sorry to be so dramatic. You have no idea the anger I'm feeling right now.

This will be my last real post for a while. I'm shaking with rage.

I have seen the future of what they plan for you. When I speak about dual classes of citizenship, I am not being rhetorical. I mean it. I've seen it.

And this is just one more government finding that there are two classes of citizens, and they have wildly, extravagantly different rights and responsibilities.

The Rule of Law Has Been Stolen From You and Replaced With Ruthless Will-to-Power Marxism:

>>>As that lawyer for the Newspaper said in the Paul Newman movie "absence of malice" so they have no case.

Even the absence of malice standard can be met if you knew it was untrue or if you published with reckless indifference to whether it was true or not.

Given that there was a 20 minute video, available when they printed, that showed Phillips to be a liar, and they either didn't bother watching that or did watch it and then reported the lie anyway, they do in fact have legal malice here.

That's why this judge claimed, bizarrely, that it was an "opinion." The Washington Post loses, slam-dunk, on any defamation charge.

So the only possibility to vindicate the Washington Post is to claim the statement is not even capable of being defamatory, because it was mere opinion.

Now, here's the Fact/Opinion distinction: A fact is either true or not true. It can be proven true or false.

An opinion is, well, pure opinion. It's like if I call you ugly -- well, there's no way to say you're definitely not ugly. Even if 90% of the public said that you were in the to 10% of good-looking people, I could find that your features just didn't appeal to me and say you're ugly, and you can't sue me for that.

This is the important thing: You cannot just say "Well it's my opinion that you cheat on your wife" and then claim "it was just an opinion" in court.

Because your opinion made a statement about a fact that could be true or could be false, and you said it was true. True, you added in "In my opinion," but if all it took to be immune to lawsuit was to say "in my opinion," then we'd have no defamation law at all.

Let's face it, any contested fact could be said to just be an opinion.

If I say someone is an idiot, that's just an opinion. Maybe he's an idiot by my standard.

But if I say, "It's my opinion that he's an idiot because he failed his bar exam," well, that first part is opinion, but the second part is a factual claim -- even if the word "opinion" is in the sentence there, somewhere.

Now, in this case, Phillips lied. He said Sandmann blocked his forward movement and taunted him.

These are factual claims. He cannot escape liability for these factual misrepresentations just by saying, "Well, that's my opinion."

Otherwise I could just say "You cheat on your wife and beat your kids" -- factual statements, again -- and then, when hailed into court, I could just say, "Well that's my opinion."

And the judge says, Case dismissed.

Is that how it works? No, of course not. Again, if that's how it worked, there would be no claim of defamation at all, ever, anywhere.

Now, the Washington Post published this false claim of fact without checking its veracity. They are liable for it, then. If a newspaper publishes me saying of you, "You cheat on your wife and you beat your kids," the newspaper cannot evade responsbility for publishing the defamation just by saying, "Well, in the opinion of Ace, that's what we thought."

If it worked this way, again, there'd never be defamation.

But the judge is determined to dismiss the suit -- so he takes a black-letter statement of fact , which can either be proven true or false, and simply says, without any argument supporting his position, "It's opinion and therefore not libelous. Case dismissed."

But Sandmann did not block the Indian -- the Indian marched right into his face.

Sandmann did not "taunt" the Indian -- the Indian banged a drum in his face, taunting Sandmann.

The Indian made false, defamatory claims of fact, not opinion, and the Washington Post published these false, defamatory claims of fact, either knowing they were false or having been recklessly indifferent to their truth or falsity,

When you refuse to just watch a TWENTY MINUTE VIDEO before defaming a child -- what could define "reckless indifference to truth or falsity" than that?

This is black-letter law -- by which I mean, the sections written in BIG BLACK LETTERS to let you know that these are foundational points of the law upon which all other law is based.

And this judge just threw black-letter law out the window,

Because this was a contest between a leftwing billion-dollar corporation and a little conservative kid from an unfashionable little town, and it doesn't matter what the law says -- the real law is that leftists win, always and forever.


digg this
posted by Ace of Spades at 06:27 PM

| Access Comments




Recent Comments
Mister Scott (Formerly GWS): "How many people, percentage wise, are actually all ..."

nurse ratched: "olddog, I think kitties get amped up for a couple ..."

Eromero: "just pulled a length of what appeared to be undige ..."

LenNeal: "Maybe everyone needed to be stung on a playground ..."

Braenyard: " Rumble: https://shorturl.at/elEI8 CSPAN: https: ..."

LenNeal: "87 How many people, percentage wise, are actual ..."

JROD: "Smaller bandage on his ear now. ..."

Barkingmad59, wandering lurkette: "Slow day today, but that's just fine. After the ma ..."

Ben Had: "The Bribe'em administration is planning on sanct ..."

Ciampino - Crazy Casa of Cats #11: "No Trump or Vance!! ..."

Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere [/i] [/b]: "[i]Trump's up. Posted by: Braenyard at July 20, 2 ..."

Mister Scott (Formerly GWS): "Why is everyone so afraid of stinging insects? The ..."

Recent Entries
Search


Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64