Kevin Graham wrote:
I'm not talking about alleged false claims, I'm talking about actual false claims.
The specific allegations for false statements in each article are listed in the complaint. You quoted the "gist" claims for the first article, but not the specific allegations of falsity:
In its First Article, the Post published or republished the following false and defamatory statements:
The headline “‘It was getting ugly’: Native American drummer speaks on the MAGA-hat wearing teens who surrounded him.”
“In an interview Saturday, Phillips, 64, said he felt threatened by the teens and that they suddenly swarmed around him as he and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave.”
“Phillips, who was singing the American Indian Movement song of unity that serves as a ceremony to send the spirits home, said he noticed tensions beginning to escalate when the teens and other apparent participants from the nearby March for Life rally began taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd.”
“A few people in the March for Life crowd began to chant ‘Build that wall, build that wall,’ he said.”
“‘It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’ Phillips recalled. ‘I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.’”
“‘It clearly demonstrates the validity of our concerns about the marginalization and disrespect of Indigenous peoples, and it shows that traditional knowledge is being ignored by those who should listen most closely,’ Darren Thompson, an organizer for the [Indigenous Peoples Movement], said in the statement.”
“Chase Iron Eyes, an attorney with the Lakota People Law Project, said the incident lasted about 10 minutes and ended when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
“‘It was an aggressive display of physicality. They were rambunctious and trying to instigate a conflict,’ he said. ‘We were wondering where their chaperones were. [Phillips] was really trying to defuse the situation.’”
“Phillips, an Omaha tribe elder who also fought in the Vietnam war, has encountered anti-Native American sentiments before . . . .”
Kevin Graham wrote:Reporting what other people said about an event, even if they turn out to be inaccurate, is not defamation by a newspaper.
It can be, if the newspaper is negligent in doing so. The complaint also includes a long list of the ways that plaintiff claims the Post was negligent:
The Post published its False and Defamatory Accusations negligently and with actual knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth.
As one of the world’s leading news outlets, the Post knew but ignored the importance of verifying damaging, and in this case, incendiary accusations against a minor child prior to publication.
The negligence and actual malice of the Post is demonstrated by its utter and knowing disregard for the truth available in the complete video of the January 18 incident which was available contemporaneously with the edited clip the Post chose because it appeared to support its biased narrative.
Instead of investigation and publishing the true story, the Post recklessly rushed to publish its False and Defamatory Accusations in order to advance its own political agenda against President Trump.
In doing so, the Post lifted the incident from social media and placed it in the mainstream media, giving its False and Defamatory Accusations credibility and permanence.
The Post negligently published its False and Defamatory Accusations by departing from the reasonable standard of care employed by journalists, including those standards articulated by the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics.
The Post’s collective conduct demonstrates a purposeful avoidance of the truth and the publication of the False and Defamatory Accusations with actual knowledge of falsity following its review of the complete video evidence and Nicholas’ statement no later than January 20.
The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation prior to publication.
The Post’s failure to investigate is heightened where, as here, the January 18 incident was not breaking news and involved a minor child.
The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation by not having a credible or reliable source for its publications.
The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations by relying on unreliable and biased sources with questionable credibility.
Indeed, the Post negligently and recklessly relied upon only Phillips and other Native Americans with a biased pre-disposition.
Phillips, himself, is wholly unreliable and lacks credibility as shown in part by his false claim to have served in Vietnam while a member of the military, as a professional activist with a known bias against President Trump and his supporters, his documented history of making similar false accusations, his use of the January 18 incident to promote his own political and personal agenda, the contradictions in his story established in his interviews, and that the video evidence that totally refute his story.
The Post published its False and Defamatory Accusations in continued reliance upon those it knew to have political and personal biases, including Chase Iron Eyes of the Lakota People Law Project who was, in effect, managing and/or representing Phillips, Jon Stegenga who had also attended the Indigenous Peoples March, Deb Haaland who is a politician with a demonstrable bias against President Trump, and the Hebrew Israelites whose lack of credibility is widely known.
The Post had obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of its purported firsthand sources, including because they are manifestly biased and because the short video evidence on which the Post relied did not show Nicholas or the students swarming Phillips, uttering the chants or slurs they were accused of making, or Nicholas or the students blocking Phillips’ egress.
The Post further had reason to doubt the veracity of its social media sources, including Kaya Taitano and @2020fight. Kaya Taitano also had a known bias having been present to support the Indigenous Peoples March, and the @2020fight account bore all the hallmarks of being a fraudulent account with a political agenda, as later proven true.
The Post consciously elected to ignore this contrary information in favor of its pre-conceived false narrative against President Trump and his supporters.
The only category of individuals present at the January 18 incident that the Post chose not to rely upon were the CovCath students.
The Post negligently and recklessly failed to consult publicly available information demonstrating its False and Defamatory Accusations to be false, including, without limitation, other video evidence available online demonstrating that Phillips specifically approached the students and specifically confronted Nicholas, and that Nicholas did not engage in swarming, surrounding, mocking, taunting, blocking, or otherwise physically intimidating Phillips or anyone else present.
Not only was the Post aware that the snippets of video it reviewed did not support its False and Defamatory Accusations, but it was also aware that the video it reviewed was woefully incomplete, but the Post nonetheless published its accusations against Nicholas without any further investigation.
The Post continued to publish its False and Defamatory Accusations with actual knowledge of falsity, having reviewed video evidence and statements of Nicholas Sandmann contradicting its False and Defamatory Accusations.
The Post negligently and recklessly failed to seek information from other obvious sources who would have demonstrated its False and Defamatory Accusations to be false, including Nicholas, his classmates, and/or the chaperones present at the January 18 incident.
The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations despite internal inconsistencies in Phillips’ claims as well as material differences in his statements to other outlets published January 19 and 20.
The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations in derogation of accepted principles of journalistic ethics, including by failing to use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles.
The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations in derogation of accepted principles of journalistic ethics, including by failing to verify each before publication.
The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations in derogation of accepted principles of journalistic ethics, including by failing to take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify its coverage, and by failing to provide any appropriate context to its False and Defamatory Accusations.
The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations in derogation of accepted principles of journalistic ethics, including by failing to avoid stereotyping.
The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations in derogation of accepted principles of journalistic ethics, including by failing to examine the way in which its own biases and agenda shaped its false reporting.
The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations in derogation of accepted principles of journalistic ethics, including by failing to treat Nicholas as a human being deserving of respect.
The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations in derogation of accepted principles of journalistic ethics, including by wrongfully placing the anti-Trump, anti-Catholic, and pro-life agenda over the harm its False and Defamatory Accusations caused to Nicholas.
At the time of its initial reporting of and concerning Nicholas, the Post did not know Nicholas’ age and did not make any reasonable attempt to ascertain it despite the general knowledge that Nicholas was a high school student.
Kevin Graham wrote:This meme going around that the Post refused to take normal journalistic procedure in trying to get the "other side" of the story is undermined by the very first article mentioned in the lawsuit whereby the author says they tried to contact the school, but "school officials did not respond to messages for comment."
Does this mean they're not allowed to report on a story that had already gone viral worldwide, simply because the other side had no comment?
As you can see by the list of alleged negligent acts, the issues is much more complicated than a meme. The claims include the notion that the Post had reason to believe that some of what it published was false based on recorded accounts it had access to. Also, school officials in Kentucky were not witnesses to the incident, and so the fact that the Post asked them for a comment may not be sufficient under applicable journalistic standards. It certainly isn't a get out of jail free card in a defamation lawsuit.
Kevin Graham wrote:The gist? Is that normal legal speak in defamation suits? Because I'm no lawyer but i would imagine a defending lawyer would tear this to shreds as a subjective viewpoint.
Yes, it's normal legal speak. In a defamation suit against a media publisher, plaintiff has to prove that the article contains false statements and that the "sting" or "gist" of the article is defamatory. https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-pe ... ander.html
