Sandmann may very well have grounds for slander and/or libel cases. And other torts such as Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress may be grounds for a case as well.
Unquestionably unprivileged statements were widely made and/or published about Sandmann to third parties. That is the easiest element of slander/libel to tick off the list.
That some made statements that were both false and defamatory is the heart of the case. It seems the lawyer thinks that such can be proven.
And as a private individual Sandmann need not prove actual malice was involved in making false statements. It is sufficient to show that false and defamatory statements were negligently made. That so much was published without even seeking comment from Sandmann first makes negligence a low bar to cross.
Certain statements that may have been made as opinions may not meet the standard for libel/slander. But certain statements that continued to be made after further video evidence came to light might more easily shown to be slander/libel. He’s got a case.
Then there is the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress route that is open. This might be a a legal approach to sue those who engaged in doxxing of Sandmann.
A school which has a fairly generous scholorship setup, but yes, in this case one parent is VP of an investments firm and the other a sales manager at an automotive company.
I hope they win a boatload of money. The reckless character assisination did show a lot of people for what they are though. It was a fascinating look into media narratives and those that buy into anything that confirms their biases. Still, I hope they get theirs out of lying manipulative media outlets.
He’d have to name one or more specific news organizations, which shouldn’t be hard to do. For precedent, see Richard Jewell, the hero security guard at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta who moved members of the public away from a bomb shortly before it exploded - and for his trouble, was painted as a suspect by the media before being eventually exonerated. He sued several news organizations, most/all of which settled with him.
Perhaps because it’s a Catholic school, but that actually seems low for private school. Some of the prep schools in the Northeast cost quite a bit more than that. At the Hopkins School in New Haven, tuition is $43,500, although they give out quite a bit in scholarships.
Don’t really care about this particular case, but I’m glad to see there’s pushback against the trend of the mainstream media reporting social media trends uncritically. Just cause someone is saying it doesn’t make it news. Especially when you don’t have any reason to think the person saying it is honest and fair.
I don’t think the mainstream media was reporting on a social media trend but instead on a story that was promoted on social media. Similarly, some of the incidents in which police officers shot people of color started with a smartphone video that might have first been shared via social media.
What is a problem, I think, is that the immediate nature of the news cycle means that no one takes the time to do a deep dive on a story. There’s a big push to be first to report. The old days when a reporter had the whole day to investigate and write a story before it was published for the next day’s paper are gone.
The news media outlets who jumped on this racist bandwagon without actually vetting the story they chose to report can be sued, and held liable, for damages. The one person who should be included in any libel/slander lawsuit would be Guamanian Kaya Taitano, who posted the first, biased, racist, tweet which led to all of the other haters joining the mob.
It looks like you “thought” wrong. Better luck next time.
As was mentioned in an earlier linked article, Kaya Taitano provided the first tweet. 2020fight was later banned for retweeting, and adding some more racist horseshit, Kaya Taitano’s original twit.
That would be the contents of Guamanian Kaya Taitano’s original twit of the incident between the white teenager and Team Philips. Didn’t you read it? Haven’t you found it? Did you look for it? She has her own website. It’s easy to find. Is your internet connection broken?
The Guamanian Kaya Taitano started this racist shit storm. I wonder if the teenager’s lawyer is as good as the lawyer who represented Melania Trump against The Telegraph?
A British newspaper apologized to first lady Melania Trump and agreed to pay “substantial damages” after publishing a story that it says made false statements about her family and modeling career.
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Mr. Sandmann put his name out there himself with that PR statement? That’s got to hurt their chances of getting money.
I love how all the board’s racist righties are having kittens for this kid. Trayvon Martin’s murder was totally justified but this little smarm’s racist crap is apparently to be defended to the death…
I failed to pay much attention to this story or its coverage, but it seems odd that the lawyer would think he could sue media outlets if they were following a reasonable journalistic standard. Most major news sources that I am aware of are pretty careful not to make unfounded accusations, for fear of libel. The only likely targets would have to be pundit-types who sometimes make strong statements, but if a program is presented as opinion rather than fact, that does not seem like it would especially vulnerable to accusations of slander/libel.
But this attorney is apparently good at his job and will probably get settlements from the big outlets, which is most likely what he is aiming for.
Can someone actually give me an example of any factual claims made about this individual that were untrue? I cannot recall reading any. Yes, people called him racist, but that’s an opinion. Yes, news organizations published that he did X “according to Y,” as they always do, because they can only report what their sources say. It would seem strange for news organizations to stop performing their CYA tactics.
All I’ve seen argued so far is that this guy is good at his job, and he wouldn’t have taken the case. But being good at your job can just mean good at scaring people into getting settlements by making it more costly to fight than not to fight. It doesn’t inherently mean that he has a case. And he could, of course, be wrong.
If the idea is that people can’t call someone racist without knowing for sure, then I don’t want the court going anywhere near that. If we can’t stop bigoted speech under freedom of speech, then we can’t go after speech accusing people of bigotry. That would be taking a side, dictating allowable content, rather than the kind of content.
…I found it before I asked you the question. But I asked you for a cite because nothing I read looked remotely actionable, so I figured that maybe I must have read the wrong thing. So do us all a favor here and take a couple of seconds out of your day to show us what Kaya said that you think would actionable in a lawsuit. Or not. Its up to you.