CNN To Be Sued 250 Million Over Fake News

Calumniated would assume they ignored further developments in the story and kept on reporting the damaging part, or even stopped reporting the damaging part for a while and came back to it later. FOX is big on that, as they did with the " no-go zones and just about the entirety of Hillary Clinton's life, who is STILL being called the murderer of Vince Foster.

 

The only real innovation in financing that Donald Trump ever did was the idea of keeping lawyers on staff, so he could rely upon his creditors being eaten by hourly fees long before he'd ever have to pay them

 

Do I hear the sum of one dollar?

 

It is my understanding that the kid was taking part in a public protect demonstration an therefore at least during that time period making himself a public figure.

The libel laws for Public figures are as follow:

Good luck in collecting even a dollar.

 

It sounds like you support the msm intentionally ruining the lives of high school children with malicious lies.

That says a lot about you.

 

One dollar is a way of saying you have a case at law, but none in actual fact. There seems some actual damages done here, but just not 250 mill.

 

I think a public figure isn't a one time thing or just expressing your opinion. While not always I think it has to involve some elements of making your living by it.

 

News outlets have some latitude to do their job of reporting to the public. The bar is higher to collect from a news outlet than if you or I start making public comments on someone else. A public figure is in an even worse position to sue than the kid.

 

As ridiculous as the US legal system is in these matters, the idiot comes through with it ... 250 million dollars! In my country, the judge would laugh once and throw the bastard out of court!

 

Your sociopathic fake news purveyors aren't worthy of being called news networks, you silly goose.

 

But that's only one network, they're suing the NYPost for the same amount and other networks as well. I think it's great. When networks lack morality, then fear is the only thing they know, so scare the wits out of them.

The difference between frivolous lawsuits and Sandmann's lawsuit is that frivolous ones are self serving and destructive to society, while with this lawsuit the whole moral fiber of our society might change. At least that's what I and I'm sure millions of Americans are hoping for.

It's time the media came to an account for its lies, slanders and all their excesses which have driven us to war and have been responsible for the destruction of nations and the deaths of millions.

Bravo Sandmann, go for it:

 

I commented on the sleazy media extensively in the thread(s) discussing the issue when it happened.

 

Selective litigious disdain... predictable, lol.
I wanted to post a clip of that pompous, pedophilic lawyer in the show 'Hatfields & McCoys' where he said 'the law is like a muscle, exercised too little it becomes flabby.... '

 

Let me explain what the issue is here:

Networks have a way of defaming people and nations without opening themselves to lawsuits by inserting terms like 'allege', 'they believe' or it 'is assumed' before the accusation. It's a brainwashing method to denigrate whoever they want and whenever they want. In other words they can make everyone believe that you're a murderer, criminal or pedophile and get away with it simply by using one of those terms.

As an example, if you look up the Skripal case, you'll notice they'll use terms like the above because they have no proof that Russia was behind it. It's the only way they can convince people without being libel.

With Sandmann they have no protection. They picked up a video of Sandmann smiling at an American Indian so as to avoid confrontation. What the networks wanted to do was present Sandmann smirking at the Indian as an example of how racist and bigoted the pro life Catholic protesters were.

I don't doubt it was a set up by some liberal group.

 

But it will cost CNN dearly.

 

CNN sucks !

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think a public figure has any ground to sue. This kid isn't a public figure, which is why he has a case.

I also think its a good thing that he sues. Maybe the media will be more hesitant to report on stupid non-stories like this in the future.

 

LOL the trouble is if such lawsuits was possible it would be similar to two nations arm with poison gases by the tens of thousands of drums.

The results would be that there would be no news sites/channel neither fox or cnn and so on.

They all would be driven out of business by the legal bills an from watching fox now and then my guess is that fox would be the first to go.

 

Very good.

 

As far as I know being a public figure or not tests does not revolved around finance considerations

David Miles Hogg a former student at Parkland High for example had turn himself into a public figure for guns control laws an therefore he had less protection then the average teenager.

 

I don't see how.

 

Free negative advertising as coverage of the case is broadcast, confirming what a majority of the public already knows about MSM outlets like CNN.

That could hardly be viewed as a positive thing.

 

It would be nice if it slowed them down, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

You may be right but i still think there may be some question of intent and time. The teen in question was a part of a demo and wearing a hat, that shouldn't remove his protection from Libel laws

 

First, the only “negative advertising” will be by FauX , a known right-wing propaganda outlet. Second, it will be difficult to establish that this was a malicious act by CNN. Absent malice and with the First Amendment on their side, Sandman and his MAGA hat will have an uphill battle. Third, the “majority of the public” didn’t vote for Dirty Donnie and believe CNN.

Too bad.