Judge Dismisses Covington Teen’s $250 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against The Washington Post

Nick Sandmann was attacked and shamed by the media for doing nothing. We all watched it happen in real time.

The fact that he was wearing a MAGA hat seems like a significant detail, too.

He is suing some major media companies, but one of the lawsuits just got tossed. The Washington Post is off the hook.

FOX News reports:

Judge dismisses Covington student’s defamation suit against Washington Post

A federal judge in Kentucky Friday threw out a defamation lawsuit filed against The Washington Post by Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann and his family over the paper’s reporting of an incident between the young man and a Native American man this past January in Washington.

POLL: Do You Think Trump Should Appoint A New Supreme Court Justice?

Completing this poll entitles you to Pro Trump News updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime with a single click. Here's our Privacy Policy.

The lawsuit, which was filed in February, sought $250 million in damages and accused the Post of practicing “a modern-day form of McCarthyism” by targeting Sandmann and “using its vast financial resources to enter the bully pulpit by publishing a series of false and defamatory print and online articles … to smear a young boy who was in its view an acceptable casualty in their war against the president.”

Sandmann became the focus of outrage after a video of him standing face-to-face with a Native American man, Nathan Phillips, while wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat surfaced and rapidly spread online.

Sandmann was one of a group of Covington students attending the anti-abortion March for Life in Washington, D.C., while Phillips was attending the Indigenous Peoples’ March on the same day.

In a 36-page ruling, U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman noted that the Post never mentioned Sandmann by name in its initial coverage of the incident, referring only to groups of “hat wearing teens.” Bertelsman added that “the words used contain no reflection upon any particular individual” and thus could not be constituted as defamation.

The judge also ruled that the newspaper used language that was “loose, figurative,” and “rhetorical hyperbole” which is protected by the First Amendment.

This hardly seems fair.

These students didn’t ask to be thrust into the public spotlight and painted as villains for the left.

The media did that to them, unfairly and under false pretenses.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.