Alright, let's try to get that submitted to Merriam-Webster douchebag ---------------- noun 1. a male who smiled at some point in their life when they shouldn't have 2. a male
I'm calling BS on that one. I just googled "signs of douchebag" and went through the top five hits...it says nothing about smiling in an innappropriate situation.
Whether a 16 year old is an adult or a child depends what political lens your viewing the event through but I'm pretty confident legally speaking a 16 year old is a "child."
The news defamed his character and misrepresented him. They can sue for that. I'm not sure how you can sue a random twitter handle, but I personally feel like he could sue the verified twitter users like Kathy Griffin for the threats. What a ****ing monster, standing there with his smirk.
Have you really never heard of douchebags being tied to frequent grinning? It is tied with smugness that a douchebag is perceived to have. Could he be a good kid? Absolutely. Is he being a douchebag in that video? IMO. Is it a big deal? No. Is he a kid? Yes.
I haven't seen anything from the news that defamed or misrepresented his character. At best maybe Phillips did, and maybe there could be a case there if he did. I haven't seen any of the threats, but if a person like Kathy Griffin did, I have no qualms about prosecution or potential lawsuit. Did I call him a monster? No. Doesn't make you a bad person even.
Phillips walked up to him. WTF are you talking about? I think you may of some issues showing here. standing there and smiling makes him a douchebag but not a bad person. I think im done with this conversation. What an incredible waste of time.
The media made him the poster boy for the Covington students. They characterized the students as racists that instigated the whole event. Some students did make some racist remarks to the Native Americans (I'd even argue that it was in response to the Native Americans shouting racist remarks to the students), but Nicholas Sandmann never did. The media manufactured this story by not investigating properly, which led to an innocent family getting threatened in the national spotlight. They should be held responsible for poor journalism that could lead to dangerous vigilante justice.
He was the poster boy because he was in the initial viral video. I agree the media (in particular though Social Media) made this non-story into a massive story. But I don't see defamation, and while they dealt with a short amount of negative press, that is really now gone, so it is hard to see much in the way of damages even if there were. I can see being disliking the 24 hour news cycle combined with social media that can certainly suck, but unless the news is reporting things they know to be false, they aren't going to liable.
I think the guy being sued was wronged by the media. I don't think he did anything wrong. His fellow students carried out some racist acts and speech. They were pointed out, but the wrong kid was made the face of the students' racist behavior.
What a dumb tweet. What exactly did Nick Sandmann "dish out"? If you have been defamed by the irresponsible and incorrect reporting done by media outlets that's why defamation statutes exist. If David Hogg or Emma Gonzalez have been defamed then let them seek the redress of the courts.
The left wing activists that pretend to be journalists kissed their ass and didn't libel them. Libel is a very specific crime and if they did get libeled... not insulted... libeled... then they should sue. My guess is they weren't libeled by any main outlets.
