 |
| Parents must be proud. Video of Trump-supporting, young racists sent chills across the world. YouTube |
The case grew from videos of a young man in a red Make America Great Again hat and fellow high school students caught on video taunting and smirking at Native American elder and Vietnam Veteran, Nathan Phillips in January 2019, (Schilling, Indian Country) at an encounter in D.C. Different groups participating in different protests had encountered each other in the resulting confrontation.
The case was filed on behalf of Nicholas Sandmann. Sandmann was a student at Covington Catholic High School of Kentucky, and attended a rally in Washington D.C. in January 2019, the March for Life, an annual anti-choice rally for misogynists and the religious right.
Sandmann claimed he was defamed in the Washington Post's coverage of the confrontation that spread across the world on social media.
The case is Nicholas Sandmann v. WP Company LLC, d/b/a [doing business as] The Washington Post (2:19-cv-00019).
The case was heard by Judge William Odis Bertelsman in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Opinion and Order is linked here in a Washington Post document.
"One reason that [Sandmann] video is cutting so deep today: The smug, fixed, chilly smile. That's not a teenager out of control. It's the familiar gleam of a zealot. Never in the history of this country has that look portended anything but bad news," commented Mark Harris on Twitter after videos of the confrontation went viral in January.
Sandmann and his family hired a Republican Party-connected public relations firm, RunSwitch Public Relations, and then filed a federal defamation suit of behalf of the teen who objected to how he was portrayed by sources in the Post's coverage.
From the Washington Post:
U.S. District Judge William O. Bertelsman ruled that seven Post articles and three of its tweets bearing on Nicholas Sandmann — who was part of a group of Catholic students from Kentucky who came to Washington to march against abortion — were protected by the First Amendment. In analyzing the 33 statements over which Sandmann sued, the judge found none of them defamatory; instead, the vast majority constituted opinion, he said.
'Few principles of law are as well-established as the rule that statements of opinion are not actionable in libel actions,' Bertelsman wrote, adding that the rule is based on First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech. 'The statements that Sandmann challenges constitute protected opinions that may not form the basis for a defamation claim.'
Sandmann’s parents, who brought the suit on their son’s behalf, said they would appeal. 'I believe fighting for justice for my son and family is of vital national importance,' Ted Sandmann said in a statement. 'If what was done to Nicholas is not legally actionable, then no one is safe.'
The libel action brought by this Republican family may represent a coming priority of the Republican Party to overturn a foundational First Amendment case, New York Times v Sullivan, in accordance with President Donald Trump's oft-expressed criticism of speech critical of Republican Party-connected citizens and public figures, (New York Times, Mal Contends).
---
In Wisconsin, a public figure, Manitowoc County Sheriff Lt. Andrew Colborn (ret), has asked a federal court explicitly to overturn New York Times v Sullivan, (Mal Contends).
The federal case is: Colborn v. Netflix, Inc (1:19-cv-00484).
The case is being heard by Judge Pamela Pepper, United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Colborn's case is intended to shield police against citizens' speech, negative coverage in the press and analysis and reporting in documentaries such as Making a Murderer.
Plaintiff Colborn's action accuses Netlix, Inc and other defendants of having "omitted, distorted, and falsified material and significant facts in an effort to portray Plaintiff [Andrew Colborn] as a corrupt police officer who planted evidence to frame an innocent man," (Appleton Post-Crescent).
Netflix' and other defendants filed a May 9, 2019 motion to dismiss. The Netflix motion to dismiss argues in part the failure of Colborn to meet the low threshold of stating a claim upon which relief can be granted, citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 12(b)(6).
This week Judge Pamela Pepper published a NOTICE of Hearing on pending motions set for December 19, 2019.
It appears likely Judge Pepper will dismiss Colborn's legal action, Colborn v. Netflix, Inc (1:19-cv-00484).
Just as likely, Colborn will appeal the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
