Legal Brief - Week 03: Nicholas Sandmann - defamation lawsuit

 

Fabrice Tshiyoyi Banyingela

Professor Michael Hales – BYU Idaho

Business Law 375

2 October 2021

Nicholas Sandmann

- defamation lawsuit  

 

Case Facts

 

The Washington Post is the latest news organization to settle a defamation lawsuit launched by Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann over its botched coverage of a viral confrontation with a Native American elder that had portrayed the Kentucky teen as the aggressor.

 

Sandmann announced the victory on Twitter.

"On 2/19/19, I filed $250M defamation lawsuit against Washington Post. Today, I turned 18 & WaPo settled my lawsuit. Thanks to @ToddMcMurtry & @LLinWood for their advocacy. Thanks to my family & millions of you who have stood your ground by supporting me. I still have more to do," Sandmann wrote on Friday.

This follows the multi-million dollar settlement CNN made with the teenager back in January.

Sandmann's attorney, Lin Wood, similarly wrote, "For our present to @N1ckSandmann  to celebrate his 18th Birthday, @ToddMcMurtry & I gave Nicholas the gift of justice from . . . THE WASHINGTON POST #FightBack."

A spokesperson for The Washington Post told Fox News, "We are pleased that we have been able to reach a mutually agreeable resolution of the remaining claims in this lawsuit."

In March 2019, Sandmann's attorneys filed a suit against CNN for its coverage of the incident before all the facts had surfaced. The teen was seeking a whopping $800 million in damages from CNN, NBC and the Post.

Attorney Todd McMurtry previously told Fox News that lawsuits against “as many as 13 other defendants" would be filed.

Among them: ABC, CBS, The Guardian, The Huffington Post, NPR, Slate, The Hill, and Gannett which owns the Cincinnati Enquirer, as well as miscellaneous other small outfits, according to McMurtry. Separate lawsuits against the Washington Post and NBC have already been filed, he added.

Sandmann was swept up in a controversy after a video clip depicted the "MAGA" hat-wearing student smiling at Nathan Phillips beating a drum and singing a chant as he was surrounded by Sandmann's peers, who all had joined in on the chant in front of the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.

However, several mainstream media outlets, including CNN and The Washington Post, portrayed the incident with Sandmann and the other teens as being racially charged before additional footage later showed that a group of Black Hebrew Israelites had provoked the confrontation, slinging racial slurs at the students as they were waiting for their bus following the March For Life event.

Footage then showed Phillips, who was in town for the Indigenous Peoples March, approaching the students amid the rising tension between the two groups.

 

Issue

 

The main issue, in this case, is to conclude whether or not after being exonerated by a video that opposed the Washington Post’s publication, Sandmann has the right to open a defamation lawsuit against the Publisher accusing him and his classmates of reckless behavior against a senior citizen.

 

Rule

 

Defamation is the intentional publication (communication to a third party) of a false statement that harms the reputation or character of an individual, business, or product.  (Chapter 5 of the textbook).

 

No one is allowed by law to make or publish a public untrue statement either in writing or verbal about another party.

 

Although common law concepts about defamation require publication, defamation can either be in the form of libel or slander. While libel refers to written statements (defamation), slender refers to oral statements.

 

The Legal Information Institute explains that “to prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) the publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence, and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.”

 

The press industry is protected by the First Amendment of the US constitution by having the right to share information without censorship. However, individuals have the right to oppose false statements that challenge their reputations. The Supreme Court famously referred to libel in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) as an unprotected category of speech, similar to obscenity or fighting words.

Application

 

Often The First Amendment rights of free speech and free press clash with the right of privacy as described by the US constitution. In general, the law emphasizes that “Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have— (a) their person or home searched; (b) their property searched; (c) their possessions seized, or (d) the privacy of their communications infringed.”

 

The alleged publication that went viral contains the Washington Post’s coverage of Sandmann – a student’s encounter with a senior citizen Nathan Phillips by instigating the incident on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in February 2019.   

 

But later video and investigations proved that Sandmann and classmates had neither instigated Mr. Phillips nor made racist statements. Sandmann, classmates, and families suffered for days. They became the prey of a mob of bullies who attacked and threatened them. Unhappy, Sandmann filed a $250 million defamation suit against Washington Post in March 2019.   

 

They fought to prevail in the lawsuit by proving that the Washington Post negligently published defamatory accusations which caused injury to their reputation and caused them to suffer emotional distress.

 

Besides objecting to the lawsuit filed by Sandmann, The Washington Post has maintained that its publications were accurate and fair, and the Post’s attorneys argued that the company was only doing its job – by reporting what Phillips had experienced. From the next video which exonerated the students, it is clear that Washington Post did not conduct a proper journalistic investigation before the publishing of a defamatory article on Sandmann.

 

Ruling

 

The Post did not consider Sandmann’s age, did not follow the industry’s standards that require media companies to duly investigate information before becoming victims of fake news and publishing defamatory content. The media company is guilty of all charges of defamation and Sandmann may seek compensation for the damages caused by the libelous accusations.

 

Reference

 

Michael H (2021). “Business Law.”

Brigham Young University - Idaho, pp. 34

 

The Legal Information Institute. “Defamation”. 1992

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation. (Accessed 2 October 2021)

 

David L. “The First Amendment Encyclopedia”. 2020

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/997/libel-and-slander. (Accessed 2 October 2021)