Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Dead !Pool..v42s joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later[^][v]#1,186,424
I'm sure Mitch McConnell is giving him a hand. And plus, he won or settled with a handful of them already. Doesn't this just mean he has to sue the individual publishers instead of their owner?
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 16 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,186,528
@1,186,424 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
I don't know anything about the cases you've posted. I haven't heard about them in the news, so I don't know what was involved with any of them. They probably didn't fulfill all 4 of the criteria I gave you earlier, and the teenage boys do easily fill all 4 of the criteria. That's why the media is opting to settle out of court. It's either that, or run the risk of losing a 1/4 of billion $$$ which a judge just might be willing to award them.
The Washington Post and MSNBC would NOT have settled out of court if they knew they could easily win their cases. Corporations just don't do that. The cases you posted are proof of it. If they know they can win, then they'll let you take them to court where they can beat you and finish you off with an anti-SLAPP lawsuit just like the cases you mentioned. Since they didn't do that with Sandmann, that tells me they suspect Sandmann has a damn good case against them.
I don't know why AT&T owning CNN would matter? MSNBC is owned by Microsnot (where do you think the MS comes from), and it folded. What makes you think AT&T won't fold under the same pressure since 2 of them already have?
I know who Dan Bongino is, because I've seen him interviewed by Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity on Fox News. That makes him a public figure, and what did I tell you about public figures? It's extremely difficult for them to win defamation lawsuits. It's been done, but it isn't easy for them. That's why people like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity don't sue anyone, because they are public figures and know they'd most likely lose. They'll just bash the hell out of the other news outlets on their own shows instead since they do have far more viewers anyway. Tucker Carlson's show was rated #1 out of the top 15 shows. He beat out everything CNN had to offer. lol
I don't know where you get the idea that Sandmann might only have gotten a few tens of thousands of dollars. All of that has been sealed, so we (as in joe public) have no clue how much Sandmann got. His lawyers will be working piecemeal (Sandmann can't afford their salaries, and neither can Rittenhouse), which means the attorneys will get anywhere from 33% to 50% of the take. His lawyers will want a lot more than a few tens of thousands of dollars for the amount of time they have invested, and that's a given. My honest opinion is, they wouldn't settle for anything less than $2 million per lawsuit, but they usually go for at least 10% of what they were initially suing for.
That would be $2+ million from the Washington Post and another $2+ million from MSNBC. That would be chump change for those news outlets and a lot less than the $250 million he was initially suing them for, but still a pretty penny for a young teenager. Both of these teenagers will be multimillionaires by the time they're finished, and there's no doubt on my mind about that. They'll be set for life for sure. So, it isn't just up to Sandmann and Rittenhouse since the salaries of their lawyers are involved in the final settlement as well.
Also, I didn't say Sandmann and Rittenhouse would be able to sue them out of business. All of those news outlets are backed up by billions of $$$, so they have plenty of money. I said if enough people started suing them, then they might end up going belly up. It would take an awful lot of lawsuits to do it, though, but Sandmann and Rittenhouse are setting the groundwork for it by showing others that it can be done. :)
Hell, if the Press ever screwed up my life with their lies, then I'd find someone with a record for winning cases like the late F. Lee Bailey to fight on my behalf. Someone the media would be very much afraid of. I don't know if that is what Sandmann did or not, but it is what I'd do.
Your problem is, you think the Press can do whatever they want and get away with it. The 1st Amendment does not give anyone that much power. Just like Freedom of Speech has limits, Freedom of the Press has limits as well.
> I don't know anything about the cases you've posted. I haven't heard about them in the news, so I don't know what was involved with any of them. They probably didn't fulfill all 4 of the criteria I gave you earlier, and the teenage boys do easily fill all 4 of the criteria. That's why the media is opting to settle out of court. It's either that, or run the risk of losing a 1/4 of billion $$$ which a judge just might be willing to award them. > > The Washington Post and MSNBC would NOT have settled out of court if they knew they could easily win their cases. Corporations just don't do that. The cases you posted are proof of it. If they know they can win, then they'll let you take them to court where they can beat you and finish you off with an anti-SLAPP lawsuit just like the cases you mentioned. Since they didn't do that with Sandmann, that tells me they suspect Sandmann has a damn good case against them. > > I don't know why AT&T owning CNN would matter? MSNBC is owned by Microsnot (where do you think the MS comes from), and it folded. What makes you think AT&T won't fold under the same pressure since 2 of them already have? > > I know who Dan Bongino is, because I've seen him interviewed by Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity on Fox News. That makes him a public figure, and what did I tell you about public figures? It's extremely difficult for them to win defamation lawsuits. It's been done, but it isn't easy for them. That's why people like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity don't sue anyone, because they are public figures and know they'd most likely lose. They'll just bash the hell out of the other news outlets on their own shows instead since they do have far more viewers anyway. Tucker Carlson's show was rated #1 out of the top 15 shows. He beat out everything CNN had to offer. lol > > I don't know where you get the idea that Sandmann might only have gotten a few tens of thousands of dollars. All of that has been sealed, so we (as in joe public) have no clue how much Sandmann got. His lawyers will be working piecemeal (Sandmann can't afford their salaries, and neither can Rittenhouse), which means the attorneys will get anywhere from 33% to 50% of the take. His lawyers will want a lot more than a few tens of thousands of dollars for the amount of time they have invested, and that's a given. My honest opinion is, they wouldn't settle for anything less than $2 million per lawsuit, but they usually go for at least 10% of what they were initially suing for. > > That would be $2+ million from the Washington Post and another $2+ million from MSNBC. That would be chump change for those news outlets and a lot less than the $250 million he was initially suing them for, but still a pretty penny for a young teenager. Both of these teenagers will be multimillionaires by the time they're finished, and there's no doubt on my mind about that. They'll be set for life for sure. So, it isn't just up to Sandmann and Rittenhouse since the salaries of their lawyers are involved in the final settlement as well. > > Also, I didn't say Sandmann and Rittenhouse would be able to sue them out of business. All of those news outlets are backed up by billions of $$$, so they have plenty of money. I said if enough people started suing them, then they might end up going belly up. It would take an awful lot of lawsuits to do it, though, but Sandmann and Rittenhouse are setting the groundwork for it by showing others that it can be done. :) > > Hell, if the Press ever screwed up my life with their lies, then I'd find someone with a record for winning cases like the late F. Lee Bailey to fight on my behalf. Someone the media would be very much afraid of. I don't know if that is what Sandmann did or not, but it is what I'd do. > > Your problem is, you think the Press can do whatever they want and get away with it. The 1st Amendment does not give anyone that much power. Just like Freedom of Speech has limits, Freedom of the Press has limits as well.
kid has a shit eating grin. totally enough to drag him through the mud. like just look at him, total piece of shit. punchable little face
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 2 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,186,563
@previous (shelly)
He does have a punchable face, but I also hate it when 'spiritually enlightened' folk act like everyone should move out of their way because they can't leave their path or whatever.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 19 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,186,770
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
The entire Truth of in both the Rittehouse and the Sandmann incidents were available to the Lamestream media and deliberately edited to fit their narrative with both Malice and Forethought, causing immediate harm and endangerment to both the Sandmann and Rittenhouse families. It would be difficult to find a clearer case of Overt Slanderous actions. Sandmann settle his $275 Million lawsuit against NBC with 7 more lawsuits pending. Rittenhouse will likely end up a Very Rich kid as well.
@1,186,563 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Now go back into your mom's basement and watch another taped episode of "empire". I hear that one of the actors stepped out for a subway sandwich.
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 59 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,186,791
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
So what's your point?
I pretty much always agree with everything I SAY!
This is a clear and OBVIOUS Defamation of Character case. It Does Not come under the Freedom of the Press or Free Speech since it clearly doesn't come under the required "Absence of Malice" precedent since the facts were Known and deliberately distorted .
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,186,877
@previous (boof)
When the fake news outlets get their hands on your REAL NAME and start blasting from the rooftops for the whole country to see, that you're stupid, then maybe you'll have a case providing you can prove to a judge that you're not stupid. :)
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 2 days later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,187,246
@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
What made you think I'm upset?
I might be upset about the Biden admin turning the USA into another third world country. Over half the population is upset about that, but I'm not upset about anything else.
Buni joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 16 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,187,250
omg, don't read court documents to just try and see what the whole thing is broadly about. this is like trying to read html code and css files to figure out what a website looks like. yeah, sure, you CAN i guess, or just look it online.
what happened? some dude stood still and a nother dude had to stand and wait too? the NOVEL?