Can you say retraction?

[Honda]

Yeah the WAPO knows they are fixing to get their asses busted in the lawsuit filed by the kid over their false and defamatory coverage of the Covington HS kid and the Native American incident. Ha, this is a little too late. Get out the check book Mr. Bezos. Your fake news, partisan newspaper is going to take a big hit in court.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/th...age/ar-BBUgMX4

[Mike]

Way too late..................

[Honda]

If I were counsel for the WAPO facing this innocent fresh faced little kid and knowing that the WAPO's false partisan based coverage has put a stain on him for the rest of his life I would be telling them "folks we don't need a jury in Kentucky hearing this case." Let's get this thing settled and settled now. I figure 25-30 million will get it done. And, that's just a start there are plenty of other folks in Hollywood that are going to have to donate to the cause also. I figure there are around 15 more defendants out there. I say make these hacks pay until it hurts the way they treated and defamed this innocent child.

[wacojoe]

The threshold question is, “Did the boy become a ‘limited purpose public figure’ in the confrontation,” and if he did then in order to prevail in his lawsuit he must prove the WaPo recklessly or with malice falsely slandered the boy. How the courts will set the parameters of determining what constitutes a limited purpose public figure will thus be critical. I think there is little doubt that a Kentucky jury will be itching to find for the boy, as noted by others here, but the real issue may well come down to the appeals courts and their interpretation of the criteria for the instructions to the jury.

I have real trouble seeing how the boy(s) could fit in any definition that they became public figures, when he (they) were clearly the passive victims of both aggressors. I also view today’s non-retraction “clarification” statement as pathetically inadequit, and if I were on a jury would serve to only enflame me. I wonder who-the-hell composed that pitifully inadequit statement. The WaPo is in a world of hurt, as it should be, and they just made it worse by admitting they recognize the inaccuracy of their coverage yet without apologizing or even expressly retracting it. What idiots! This statement would be my first exhibit or my last as their plaintiffs’ attorney.

Next up, Bill Maher, then many others! The real hoot here is I can see a string of cases against slanderous offenders resulting in big judgements, but because each will be appealed the recoveries will not be final and thus cannot be used to lessen recoveries in each one by arguing the plaintiff(s) have already been compensated entitling each subsequent defendant to an offset. That fact set gives an incentive to plaintiffs to not settle because any settlement actually paid could be argued convincingly as an offset because the boy’s reputation can be harmed only so much, right?

[mgrist]

That's going to get squashed one way or another I think or settled quietly anyway or try to be anyway. Too much racial strife already coming up I think
Plus they are going to find that he took advantage of a girl at his eight grade party playing spin the bottle.