I want to sue Stephen A Smith and Max Kellerman and Shannon Sharpe and Skip Bayless for INCORRECTLY SAYING THE ROCKETS NEVER WON A TITLE WHEN JORDAN WAS PLAYING F Foxsports F ESPN
that kid should take half of it and put in Amazon and Tesla stock. When he turns 30s, he'll be rich enough to buy an NBA team.
"Did CNN’s Stelter Shatter The Sandmann Confidentiality Agreement?": https://jonathanturley.org/2020/07/...atter-the-sandmann-confidentiality-agreement/ excerpt: At the outset, as I stated in the recent blog column, I find it astonishing and frankly disgraceful that media figures continue to downplay what happened to this 16-year-old boy in false accounts that ran nationally on his encounter. Neither he nor his lawsuit should be described as nuisances or improper. It was chilling to see a kid treated to such an abusive media frenzy including comparisons to George Zimmerman who killed an unarmed African American. The lack of empathy by figures like Stelter and Rangappa is striking in suggesting that this complaint should just “go away” like a strike suit or nuisance action filed by some crank. The media was wrong in its abuse of this kid. Terribly wrong. Yet, media figures continue to attack him for somehow causing this controversy. Now to the legal issue. We do not know the language of the confidentiality agreement anymore than Zaid does. Often these agreements include provisions that bind the employees of the signatories. That is meant to avoid precisely this danger of companies attacking the other party through its employees while claiming adherence to the agreement as a corporate entity. That however is tough when the entity is a new organization and this is news. For example, people look to Rangappa for legal analysis and she was analyzing the story. Moreover these tweets could be viewed by a court as de minimis, particularly Rangappa’s six words. Neither Stelter not Rangappa claimed knowledge of the settlement or disclosed terms. They did appear to disparage the underlying lawsuit and did comment directly on the settlement. That would technically trigger provisions of the agreement and it is the dilemma faced by CNN when it signs such agreements. There is an interesting analogy to confidentiality agreements limiting future analysis or comments. Some confidentiality agreements seek to limit the ability of lawyers to represent individuals in the future. Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6 states that a lawyer shall not participate in “an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice is part of the settlement of a client controversy.” Here the agreement would contain a restriction of a news organization covering or discussing the settlement as part of a national news story. The question could come down to the language. There are actually two types of provisions that could come into play, not one. First, there can be a confidentiality provision barring comments on the settlement other than an approved statement. These agreements often not only cover “disclosure” of terms but also comments on such terms. Thus, parties will sometimes agree that they will not allow anyone to make “statements or otherwise permit or cause any publicity, directly or indirectly, concerning any Settlement Information.” Second, there is often a non-disparagement provision preventing “heirs, assigns, agents, employees and attorneys shall not disparage or make any derogatory remarks whatsoever about any of the other parties thereto or their heirs, assigns, agents, officers, directors, employees and attorneys.” CNN’s lawyers obviously knew that this would be a newsworthy story so they had a choice of allowing their employees to discuss the settlement or barring such comments. If they did the latter, the attorneys would ordinarily send around a memo informing all employees that they are not to comment on the settlement or go beyond an approved statement. It will come down, therefore, to terms. However, much like not knowing about the money exchanged in any settlement, we do not know the terms. There is no reason to assume that there was a tiny payment for nuisance value any more than a windfall. As we discussed earlier, the complaint against the Washington Post was dismissed as opinion but a court reinstated part of the complaint on appeal. That does not mean that it was a strong case for trial but there are plenty of settlements are reached on meritorious actions to avoid discovery or trial or the risk of an adverse trial verdict. The attorneys for CNN may be the most miffed. Media lawyers are often the ones pushing for confidentiality because they do not want to encourage future lawsuits by stories of settlement payments. If these CNN employees are covered in the agreement, it could permit the filing of a new action for breach and a demand for damages. This could prove a couple of costly tweets for the company. However, if it turns out that way, the story shows the difficulty faced by media counsel in crafting non-disclosure agreements on issues of national concern. Ironically, in that respect, CNN finds itself in the same type of controversy over non-disclosure agreements that it has covered with respect to President Trump.
Trump Youth Taunter of Native American Elder to speak at Republican convention: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...as-sandmann-to-speak-at-republican-convention
more on the Sandmann lawsuits https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2020/08/sandmann-bringing-the-dream.html
Let's see if the media gives this sort of thing the same coverage they gave to Sandmann. It is also not the only occurrence - there are several different videos of different restaurant goers being accosted like this.
Wow, another one. Very impressed by the people that are refusing to bow down to these crazies. This lady knows what she's doing is right, that is why she's strong enough to resist the mob.
Solid post by Turley...CNN really should reprimand both of their staffers for their immature behavior last night.
They did a whole segment this morning on Morning Joe and it was widely condemned. White folks need to chill.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news...epting-provocateur-in-training-nick-sandmann/ discussing https://jonathanturley.org/2020/09/...le-professor-promises-to-monitor-his-conduct/
Interesting articles...I think I'm most amazed by the fact that there is a Transylvania University in the United States. Never would have guessed.
The whole thing is like a Mel Brooks bit. First I am not sure why they keep talking about the schools high standards. The school accepts 90% of those that apply and the percentage is likely even higher for private school students. So, the fact Sandmann was accepted isn't shocking at all. Second, I can understand someone being a professor and aware of Sandmann coming to the school and not wanting the distraction, but it wasn't a distraction until the school and ACLU began discussing it. Third, worry about Sandmann doing something wrong AFTER he has done something wrong. There is a good chance nothing happens. The kid is a dope, he likely just attends the school and lives off his earnings from CNN. If he chooses to be a right wing celebrity activist, that is his right.... although he has the charisma of a turnip. Some people have too much time on their hands.
