Covington High School Issue

[Benton]

(01-25-2019, 12:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, that is exceedingly hard to prove. You're talking about proving someone's motives. Unless you have a smoking gun like hard evidence of them saying "I am intentionally lying to do this," you can't prove it.

I have mentioned before that I am one of the people at my university that adjudicates sexual misconduct cases. Much like a civil case, they are based on a preponderance of the evidence and really try to ascertain motives of individuals. Did they get consent? Did they know that the person was incapable of giving consent? Would a reasonable person know they were incapable of giving consent? Do we have evidence that supports that? These are questions I routinely have to ask. Much like actions in the justice system, the decision I make must be based on the evidence. Even if my gut says the victim was raped, if I don't have enough evidence to reach the level of preponderance, I can't say the accused student is responsible because doing so would be a violation of their civil liberties.

That's how a civil suit like this works, as well. You need actual evidence at that level to say someone is guilty of libel. And when you're dealing with the media, the test for that because even stricter because it is a matter of the First Amendment and the test for that is strong. Proving a case like this would be tremendously difficult, it doesn't matter how good the lawyer is.

Correct. It would take something like an email or some other communication saying "I know this is only partially true, but I'm going to use it to manipulate a story." 

Although, these days, some of the talking heads coming really close to it when they say things like 'you know, this might not be true, but it sounds like something this person would say.' I'm surprised one of them hasn't been sued over that yet (or maybe they have and I wasn't paying attention).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-25-2019, 12:38 PM)Benton Wrote: Correct. It would take something like an email or some other communication saying "I know this is only partially true, but I'm going to use it to manipulate a story." 

Although, these days, some of the talking heads coming really close to it when they say things like 'you know, this might not be true, but it sounds like something this person would say.' I'm surprised one of them hasn't been sued over that yet (or maybe they have and I wasn't paying attention).

All of this is absolutely true for media outlets.  It's almost impossible to sue them for reporting something inaccurately.  As you and Bel state, you have to be able to prove they did so intentionally.  Less certain is suing the people who publicly called for direct action against these kids.  Whether it be calls for doxing them or calls to injure them.  I'm not even remotely expert in civil law, but I have to wonder if it's possible to prove severe emotional distress based on all the threats these kids received.  Public calls by celebrities or the blue checkmark crowd, to dox or injure these kids could be argued as fueling these threats.  I think we can say it's not as cut and dry with individuals as it is with media outlets.

I will say it would be delicious if Kathy Griffin had to shell out a bunch of cash to these kids.

[Belsnickel]

(01-25-2019, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: All of this is absolutely true for media outlets.  It's almost impossible to sue them for reporting something inaccurately.  As you and Bel state, you have to be able to prove they did so intentionally.  Less certain is suing the people who publicly called for direct action against these kids.  Whether it be calls for doxing them or calls to injure them.  I'm not even remotely expert in civil law, but I have to wonder if it's possible to prove severe emotional distress based on all the threats these kids received.  Public calls by celebrities or the blue checkmark crowd, to dox or injure these kids could be argued as fueling these threats.  I think we can say it's not as cut and dry with individuals as it is with media outlets.

I will say it would be delicious if Kathy Griffin had to shell out a bunch of cash to these kids.

Okay, yeah, that one would be easier and I would have zero problems. She did call for people to dox them, which is something I had forgotten about.

I am curious about the other individuals, though, did they outright call for actions against the kids? That is what it would take. If they did, then I'm all in favor of them getting their pants sued off of them because even though I still consider them to be snot-nosed little jerks, I don't condone the actions taken against them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-25-2019, 12:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Okay, yeah, that one would be easier and I would have zero problems. She did call for people to dox them, which is something I had forgotten about.

I am curious about the other individuals, though, did they outright call for actions against the kids? That is what it would take. If they did, then I'm all in favor of them getting their pants sued off of them because even though I still consider them to be snot-nosed little jerks, I don't condone the actions taken against them.

There's several that called for doxing them.  There's one blue checkmark that promised a BJ if someone punched the kid in the face.  Then there's the Disney exec that posted the "straight into the wood chipper" post that he has since apologized for.  Then you have the "punchable face crowd or the comparing the kids to Nazis crowd (you can never omit Nazi comparisons, it's mandatory at this point).  It'll be interesting to see who gets sued and what happens to them.  It's pretty disgusting when the 4chan crowd displays more maturity on an incident than celebrities do.

[Belsnickel]

(01-25-2019, 12:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's several that called for doxing them.  There's one blue checkmark that promised a BJ if someone punched the kid in the face.  Then there's the Disney exec that posted the "straight into the wood chipper" post that he has since apologized for.  Then you have the "punchable face crowd or the comparing the kids to Nazis crowd (you can never omit Nazi comparisons, it's mandatory at this point).  It'll be interesting to see who gets sued and what happens to them.  It's pretty disgusting when the 4chan crowd displays more maturity on an incident than celebrities do.

The "punchable face" and Nazi comparisons wouldn't go anywhere. Calls for violence should and can. I think calls for doxxing should, but I don't know the judicial precedent on that. I just don't get that behavior. Whether it is the 4chan crowd, redditors, celebrities, or whomever, it just isn't right to call for those sorts of things. I really couldn't care less what your opinion of someone is and I support your right to say whatever the hell you want with regards to that, but call someone an asshole and move on. You don't need to take action against them or call for others to do the same.

[GMDino]

(01-25-2019, 01:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The "punchable face" and Nazi comparisons wouldn't go anywhere. Calls for violence should and can. I think calls for doxxing should, but I don't know the judicial precedent on that. I just don't get that behavior. Whether it is the 4chan crowd, redditors, celebrities, or whomever, it just isn't right to call for those sorts of things. I really couldn't care less what your opinion of someone is and I support your right to say whatever the hell you want with regards to that, but call someone an asshole and move on. You don't need to take action against them or call for others to do the same.

There will always be a subset of humans that think violence is the first answer to any perceived slight or disagreement.  they also think those of us who oppose it are either being disingenuous or are weak/beta.  It's sad.

[BFritz21]

(01-25-2019, 03:15 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The entire group was whooping and doing a mock Indian chant.  And doing the tomahawk chop is racist and offensive.

And they won't get a penny.  If people got paid everytime someone on the internet made a death threat half of the country would be getting paid.

For someone that claims to be on their side and always about PC, I'm surprised that you call them Indians when the correct term is Native American (or even American Indian).

[BFritz21]

To everyone arguing that it would be hard to prove motive, you just put them on the stand and say "why didn't you show the parts of the video that show the elder walking up to the students and why didn't you show things like the Israelites yelling at the students?"

Things like that or say "why did you state that the CCH student was mocking him when you have no evidence of that if you weren't trying to slander their name?"

Or most of the videos on their websites have been taken down, so say "why were you so quick to delete your story when more videos became public of what actually happened?"

[treee]

(01-25-2019, 06:47 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: For someone that claims to be on their side and always about PC, I'm surprised that you call them Indians when the correct term is Native American (or even American Indian).

Actually there isn't really a consensus on what they prefer to be called. Many don't like Native American because 'American' it is a title imposed by the Europeans.

[BFritz21]

(01-25-2019, 12:35 PM)Benton Wrote: From the list, most of those aren't related to the media. Of the couple that are, being a lawyer on a case doesn't mean the case was successful. Did they win those?

That's essentially his resume. And like any resume, it doesn't mean you were good or bad at your last job.

So you think all of those big cases would hire the guy if he wasn't winning his previous cases?

[BFritz21]

(01-25-2019, 12:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Did he win most/some of those?

(01-25-2019, 12:35 PM)Benton Wrote: From the list, most of those aren't related to the media. Of the couple that are, being a lawyer on a case doesn't mean the case was successful. Did they win those?

That's essentially his resume. And like any resume, it doesn't mean you were good or bad at your last job.

Sounds pretty successful to me:

Quote:n 2011, the Washington Post described Wood as a trial attorney who has “carved out a successful career representing the high-profile and falsely accused, often seeking eye-popping damages for those he believes have been libeled or slandered in the press.”


At the time, Wood defended Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, who had been facing accusations of sexual harassment by four women that torpedoed his campaign.

Former CBS news anchor Dan Rather once dubbed Wood the “attorney for the damned.”

[Belsnickel]

(01-25-2019, 06:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: To everyone arguing that it would be hard to prove motive, you just put them on the stand and say "why didn't you show the parts of the video that show the elder walking up to the students and why didn't you show things like the Israelites yelling at the students?"

Things like that or say "why did you state that the CCH student was mocking him when you have no evidence of that if you weren't trying to slander their name?"

Or most of the videos on their websites have been taken down, so say "why were you so quick to delete your story when more videos became public of what actually happened?"

Easy to explain. They didn't have the full video with what you're describing until after their initial stories ran. They were basing their stories on the information they had available to them. When more information became available they retracted their stories. That's a standard thing in journalism.

[BFritz21]

(01-25-2019, 06:59 PM)treee Wrote: Actually there isn't really a consensus on what they prefer to be called. Many don't like Native American because 'American' it is a title imposed by the Europeans.

Ok but bottom of the list is Indian.

[treee]

(01-25-2019, 08:19 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ok but bottom of the list is Indian.

That's not for you to decide

[Belsnickel]

(01-25-2019, 08:19 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ok but bottom of the list is Indian.

That actually depends on the individual, often. I know several indigenous persons that prefer to be called American Indian.

[*bfine32*]

(01-25-2019, 08:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That actually depends on the individual, often. I know several indigenous persons that prefer to be called American Indian.

Perhaps, but the post he quoted didn't call them American Indian.

[Benton]

(01-25-2019, 06:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: To everyone arguing that it would be hard to prove motive, you just put them on the stand and say "why didn't you show the parts of the video that show the elder walking up to the students and why didn't you show things like the Israelites yelling at the students?"

Things like that or say "why did you state that the CCH student was mocking him when you have no evidence of that if you weren't trying to slander their name?"

Or most of the videos on their websites have been taken down, so say "why were you so quick to delete your story when more videos became public of what actually happened?"

A- if they didn't have the full video, there's is 0 case.
B- if they had the full and only reported what they saw, even if they didn't report all of it, there's 0 case.
C- if they had the full, reported with intent to distort facts and are willing to say they distorted facts intentionally then there's a case.

As you and I and many others watch the same 2 hour video and have different t opinions, the likelihood of an option C is negligible. Unless there's some evidence, like someone has an email where they outline C .

(01-25-2019, 07:00 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: So you think all of those big cases would hire the guy if he wasn't winning his previous cases?

Yes.

The last murder trial I covered was fairly notable. Another reporter asked me who was representing the guy and started laughing when I said (as the guy being represented was complaining all trial about his lawyer). The reporter said "hey, even the last guy in law school is still a lawyer."

We've got a firm locally where they sue class action against drug companies . Their success rate is around 15 percent. That doesn't make then good lawyers, it just makes them lawyers with lots of class action drug suits.

[BFritz21]

(01-25-2019, 08:26 PM)treee Wrote: That's not for you to decide

It is well known.

(01-25-2019, 08:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That actually depends on the individual, often. I know several indigenous persons that prefer to be called American Indian.

He didn't say American India- he just said Indian.  There's a big difference.

[GMDino]

(01-25-2019, 07:13 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Sounds pretty successful to me:

Still didn't say how many (if any) he won.  Just that he filed them.

[GMDino]

(01-25-2019, 08:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Easy to explain. They didn't have the full video with what you're describing until after their initial stories ran. They were basing their stories on the information they had available to them. When more information became available they retracted their stories. That's a standard thing in journalism.

Easy to explain =/= easy to understand.

This has only been explained over 8 pages.