Sixth Circuit Rules Against Nicholas Sandmann Vs. NYT, CBS, Disney, Etc. Over Strong Dissent. (Supreme Court Next?)

08/20/2023

John Ross of the Institute for Justice has a regular roundup of various circuit decisions on the Volokh Conspiracy. From the latest:

Kentucky high school student attends a political demonstration near the Lincoln Memorial. This leads to an interaction between the red-hatted teenager and a Native American man that goes viral. The media coverage is predominantly unkind toward the teenager, who alleges that media orgs defamed him by repeating the man’s statements that the teen blocked him from leaving. Sixth Circuit: The man’s statements were opinion, not fact, so they’re protected by the First Amendment and not defamatory. Dissent: The reporting vilified the teen as a racist while the videos depict something entirely different. A jury should determine whether the media orgs exercised reasonable care in reporting an objectively verifiable factual statement.

The case, if you hadn’t guessed, was the Nicholas Sandmann/Covington Catholic media meltdown, in which Sandmann was comprehensively libeled and defamed by every MSM organ, and some Conservative Inc ones.

To let you know who’s involved, the case is called NICHOLAS SANDMANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY (22-5734); CBS NEWS, INCORPORATED, VIACOM, CBS, INCORPORATED, and CBS INTERACTIVE, INCORPORATED (22-5735); ABC NEWS, INC., ABC NEWS INTERACTIVE, INCORPORATED, and WALT DISNEY COMPANY (22- 5736); ROLLING STONE, LLC and PENSKE MEDIA CORPORATION (22-5737); GANNETT COMPANY, INC. and GANNETT SATELLITE INFORMATION NETWORK, LLC (22-5738), Defendants-Appellees.

This link will take you directly to the dissent, by Richard Griffin, a George W. Bush appointee:

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

These cases raise classic claims of defamation. Through their news reporting, defendants portrayed plaintiff Nicholas Sandmann as a racist against Native Americans. Their characterization of Nicholas was vicious, widespread, and false. Defendants’ common narrative was readily accepted and effective to the extent that, on national television, NBC’s Today Show host Savannah Guthrie asked the 16-year-old if he thought he “owe[d] anybody an apology” for his actions and if he saw his “own fault in any way.”

"Do you feel from this experience that you owe anybody an apology? Do you see your own fault in any way?”

Tune in to @NBCNightlyNews for a preview of @SavannahGuthrie’s interview with Nick Sandmann. Full interview tomorrow on TODAY. pic.twitter.com/7Croh0Toyj
— TODAY (@TODAYshow) January 22, 2019

Moreover, the false portrayal of Nicholas caused the Diocese of Covington to issue an apology for its parishioner’s actions. An apology that was later retracted once the Diocese learned the truth.

The truth is depicted on eighteen stipulated videos of the incident, which unequivocally show that 16-year-old Nicholas Sandmann did nothing more than stand still and smile while confronted by a stranger.

These cases should be submitted to a jury to decide the factual issue of whether each defendant exercised reasonable care in its reporting. I disagree that summary judgment is appropriate. In this regard, the majority opinion affirms the summary judgment granted in favor of all defendants, not on the basis that their reporting was substantially true or that plaintiff was a public figure necessitating a claim of malice, but on the ground that all the news articles were opinion, not fact. I disagree and would reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Griffin is right: the news organizations are responsible, having engaged in both “reckless disregard” for the facts and “actual malice,” which Sandmann doesn’t need to prove.

Some major MSM outlets have already settled with him:

At this time I would like to release that NBC and I have reached a settlement. The terms are confidential.
— Nicholas Sandmann (@N1ckSandmann) December 17, 2021

We have settled with WAPO and CNN.

The fight isn’t over. 2 down. 6 to go.

Don’t hold your breath @jack.
— Nicholas Sandmann (@N1ckSandmann) July 24, 2020

And Sandmann will probably appeal to the Supreme Court.

When this happened, Audacious Epigone wrote here that

Fortunately, the attempted regrouping over subsequent videos has been entirely unable to stop what has turned into a total rout. It’s worth pondering how many times throughout history the lying media has reported false stories that make it into the historical record as truth because the kind of technology that today allows their lies to be exposed didn’t exist then. I suspect Sandmann’s Stand will take its place alongside the Kavanaugh calumnies, the hands-up-don’t-shoot hoax, and the mendacity surrounding Trayvon Martin as one of the biggest red-pilling events of the last decade. Gen Z will be especially galvanized by it …

And he added this video:

< Previous

Next >

This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.