problem is he's not a US lawyer and US law isn't the same as quebec law. he's offering his non-expert opinion and people are treating it like he knows what he's talking about. he doesn't.
hahahhahaahahahahhaahhahahahahhhahahahahahahahahhahahaahahhahahahahahahahhahahahhhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahhahahhahahahahhhhahahaahahhhahhahahahahhhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahhahahaahhahaahahahhaahahahahahhahahaahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahThe media enabled a narrative in the absence of fact and should be held liable for their rush to judgment
The press does not have the freedom to advance the confirmation biases of echo chambers.
If you were truly being honest on this subject, you would withdraw any criticism of Fox News.
The media enabled a narrative in the absence of fact and should be held liable for their rush to judgment
The press does not have the freedom to advance the confirmation biases of echo chambers.
If you were truly being honest on this subject, you would withdraw any criticism of Fox News.
the way he's talking about things being premature. it's a 12(b)(6) motion. it has to be filed before your substantive defensive pleading. so within 21 days of being served. it's by necessity an early motion, not a premature one. premature one would be moving for no-evidence summary judgment immediately.@ElFenix where did he err, if I may ask?
...except he wasn't. The poster was sharing legal commentary from a Quebec lawyer who has been following the case and summed up the biggest development ("lawsuit against WaPo is happening after all"). The lawyer is not a "third rate, right wing YouTube blowhard going on and on about the piteous plight of some teen-age twerp in a Trump hat."
No matter how you "rate" him, he's not "right wing" and he doesn't go on and on about some "teen-age twerp." It's literally been months since he last talked about Sandmann. He only made another video about it when there was something significant/new to discuss from a legal perspective... and this development was certainly significant news that could benefit from a lawyer's explanation (exactly what his channel exists for).
He's a vlogger who "vLAWgs" about law. Like LegalEagle, he's just a lawyer who publicly provides legal perspective on current events, Twitter trolls, the legality of what we see in movies/TV, and many others. It's literally been months since he talked about Sandmann. Other current events he's talked about since then: Everything from Jussie Smollett to the college admissions scandal to PewDiePie's retracted donation promise to Brexit to Canadian elections to... -well, I have to end this somewhere but the list goes on and on. Point is, more than half his content is legal stuff about YouTube, Facebook, Brexit, and cases in Canada as opposed to US politics. It simply isn't political commentary. It's legal commentary.
Even when he is discussing US politics, it's as legal commentary and not political commentary (Tulsi Gabbard suing Google as the latest example). How anyone could call him a political blow hard is beyond me. One only needs to pick a video at random to know that's not who he is.
You got zimmermaned.hahahhahaahahahahhaahhahahahahhhahahahahahahahahhahahaahahhahahahahahahahhahahahhhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahhahahhahahahahhhhahahaahahhhahhahahahahhhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahhahahaahhahaahahahhaahahahahahhahahaahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahah
Excessive hahas removed.
admin allisolm
One can never have too many laughs in life.
I guess one can have too many laughs, eh Gray?...
Excessive hahas removed.
admin allisolm
trying to squash freedom of speech? Victorian Gray is right -- rofl!!If anyone wants a sane forum to post/debate on, can we please get rid of garbage posts like this? We get it, you can't debate but you disagree with a post so you just make a statement as if their post is funny to you. It's pretty sad.
Book covers.Based on a quick scan of his channel, it seems like something he just randomly does for fun and looks like a normal family man? Doesn't even look like your typical political Youtuber.
You have heard the saying -- if it looks like and smells like then it must be...I'm not saying or vouching for his credibility. I'm simply explaining how partisanly stupid it has gotten to the point of talking down to the YouTuber because someone that might lean slightly right posted it.
Based on a quick scan of his channel, it seems like something he just randomly does for fun and looks like a normal family man? Doesn't even look like your typical political Youtuber.
I guess one can have too many laughs, eh Gray?
They claimed Sandmann and the students blocked Nathan Phillips, then surrounded him and prevented him from leaving. If they spent a brief moment to check, they would have easily found that is absolutely false.... Defamation requires a statement of fact. For example you could publish something that says 'fskimospy looks like a sex offender' and that's first amendment protected because it's clearly just their interpretation of how I look, even though it's a shitty thing to say and clearly I'm incredibly good looking. If they say 'fskimospy IS a sex offender' that's a statement of fact and they have opened themselves up to a defamation case. ...
They claimed Sandmann and the students blocked Nathan Phillips, then surrounded him and prevented him from leaving. If they spent a brief moment to check, they would have easily found that is absolutely false.
Then they try to weasel out because they didn't use his name (only his picture).
Court sanctions. Give us a fucking break.So we are now reduced to claiming that this kid’s life has been ruined and that he has been unfairly smeared because the Post reported that Nathan Phillips claimed he was blocked from leaving by them.
Yeah.
Give me a fucking break. This is nonsense and if anything the kid should be subject to court sanctions for frivolous litigation.
Don’t hurt yourselfhahahhahaahahahahhaahhahahahahhhahahahahahahahahhahahaahahhahahahahahahahhahahahhhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahhahahhahahahahhhhahahaahahhhahhahahahahhhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahhahahaahhahaahahahhaahahahahahhahahaahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahah
Excessive hahas removed.
admin allisolm
Court sanctions. Give us a fucking break.
Go to Times Square on any weekend and you will see the Black Israelites. They are provocateurs that peddle in inflammatory rhetoric to instigate confrontation. On more than one occasion I’ve seen people get into shouting matched with them, with others recording it on their smart phones.
None of those incidents made the national news.
Throw a white kid with a MAGA hat into the mix, and it affirms all the confirmation biases of TDS suffering snowflakes.
Just look at all the internet tough guys that wanted to punch his smug face, some of them in this very thread. Sites like Vox and Slate lost their fool minds over this incident. Not surprising that a white male teenager from KY with a MAGA hat became the very manifestation of TDS.
WAPO on the other hand has a reputation and legacy of journalistic integrity. Not sure why you insist on defending their dabbling in viral tabloid sensationalism to accomplish nothing more than affirm confirmation biases.
President Obama recently cautioned the left about giving in to its smug tendencies. You should take note.
You’re not. You’re obtusely rationalizing tabloid sensationalism to affirm a confirmation bias.I’m defending the constitution from people like you, not defending the Washington Post.
You should ask yourself why you’re so willing to throw it away.
Yes?
You’re not. You’re obtusely rationalizing tabloid sensationalism to affirm a confirmation bias.
Freedom of the press does not place the press beyond reproach.
It’s more vital that people like me exercise my first amendment right to call out the tribalistic nonsense you’re advocating. Freedom of the press is not freedom from liability.Now you’re trying to move the goalposts. I have never once said the Post should not be criticized, just that attempting to sue them for defamation is wrong and against the Constitution.
You on the other hand have repeatedly stated they engaged in defamation. It’s vital that we all defend the first amendment and the Constitution against people like you who want to use the government to punish the press.
Thank you for providing the class with a demonstration Timmy.Tell us again how youre concerned about being smug.
Thank you for providing the class with a demonstration Timmy.
Thank you for providing the class with a demonstration Timmy.