Tag Archives: Washington Post

Covington Catholic Schoolboy Nick Sandman's 250 Million Lawsuit Against The Washington Post Dismissed

Covington Catholic Schoolboy Nick Sandman’s $250 Million Lawsuit Against The Washington Post Dismissed

A $250 million lawsuit — filed by the lawyers for the family of the allegedy smug MAGA loving Covington Catholic schoolboy Nick Sandmann against The Washington Post — has been dismissed by a federal judge.

Sandmann, was the center of a controversy after his face was depicted across social media, along with Native American protester Nathan Phillips. The encounter happened in January, during a trip Sandmann and classmates from Covington Catholic High School made to an anti-abortion event.

At one point, Sandmann came face-to-face with a Native American man named Nathan Phillips. Some considered Sandmann’s reaction to Phillips disrespectful, or even worse, with thousands of people weighing in on social media

The lawsuit claimed that the Post “wrongfully targeted and bullied Nicholas because he was the white, Catholic student wearing a red ‘Make America Great Again’ souvenir cap on a school field trip and added that the Post engaged in “a modern-day form of McCarthyism” and “ignored basic journalist standards.”

“They didn’t investigate it,” Wood said. “They got it wrong. They published the false narrative and did not publish the truth” and argued that The Post’s first story suggested that Nick had assaulted or physically intimidated Nathan Phillips and engaged in racist taunts

Eastern District Federal Judge William O. Bertelsman wrote that “this is not supported by the plain languages in the article, which states none of these things.”

As the Court explained at oral argument on this motion, in modern libel law there are many affirmative defenses, even for blames based on defamatory statements. These defenses are calculated to protect defendants, especially the press, from strict liability.

“The defense that a statement of opinion is not actionable protects freedom of speech and the press guaranteed by the First Amendment.

“The Court accepts Sandmann’s statement that, when he was standing motionless in the confrontation with Phillips, his intent was to calm the situation and not to impede or block anyone.“However Phillips did not see it that way. He concluded that he was being “blocked” and “not allowed to “retreat.” He passed those conclusions on to The Post They may have been erroneous, but, as discussed above, they are option protected by the First Amendment. And The Post is not liable for publishing those opinions . . “

Bertelsman added that it was irrelevant to the defamation case that Sandmann was scorned on social media.

Lawsuits against CNN and NBC are pending. In all, Sandmann sued for amounts totaling $750 million.

Same-Sex Marriage and the Supreme Court: What Happens If We Lose?

What if


WaPo talks about the worst possible case scenarios :

In deep-red states such as Oklahoma, Utah and Kansas, officials probably would waste no time trying to put a stop to same-sex marriages. Groups may attempt to have existing marriages invalidated or may press state officials not to allow state benefits for gay couples who have wed. Arizona state Sen. Steve Smith, a Republican from Maricopa County, predicted an immediate push to reinstate a constitutional amendment, approved in a 2008 voter referendum, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. “I don’t know how much clearer the will of the people can be expressed than by a vote to that effect,” he said.

In states such as Oregon and New Jersey, where the political climate has become more favorable to gay marriage in recent years, there probably would be a scramble to enact legislation to allow same-sex marriages. But the process could be more drawn out in places such as California, whose prohibition on same-sex marriage was part of the state constitution. If that ban was reinstated as a result of a Supreme Court decision, a voter referendum would be needed to get rid of it.

Elsewhere, the battles could be more pitched. In Virginia and Pennsylvania, for instance, freshly minted Democratic governors may resist attempts to revert to old laws, potentially clashing with conservative state lawmakers. And Republican leaders in Florida and elsewhere could find themselves squeezed between their conservative bases and gay rights forces that would label them bigots.

The biggest question: What would become of the thousands of couples who got married in the 22 states during the brief period same-sex marriage was allowed? James Esseks, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, pointed to several recent cases involving same-sex marriage that suggest courts generally think that “once you’re married, you’re married.” But some experts think it could take years of litigation, and perhaps another go before the Supreme Court, to clarify that.


Now before everyone gets rattled by what happened today.  Please remember that the Supreme Court could have stopped, or postponed, most of the gay marriage bans from falling if they had chosen to.  But they didn’t.  Also SCOTUS would have never taken up this issue if the 6th Circuit didn’t vote against its cases.  Our occupants wanted this because this really was their last best chance to thwart us, but given how Kennedy voted with us on the DOMA 2 question in the Windsor case, it goes against all precedence to vote the other way this time.

IMO today’s hearing was judicial theater at its best.  There was much questioning about the “definition” of marriage.  But not much about the “constitutionality” of it in terms of same-sex marriage. And that is where the real verdict lays.





Washington Post Editorial Board SLAMS Obama Over Refusal of EO For LGBT Fed Contractor Employees

ENDAThis past Sunday the editorial board of the The Washington Post  which is regarded as one of the leading daily American newspapers and the most widely circulated newspaper published in Washington, D.C.   slammed  President Barack Obama for his refusal to sign an executive order protecting LGBT people employed by federal contractors  as “increasingly indefensible and inexplicable.” 

“The rejection of ENDA, a version of which was proposed as far back as the mid-1970s, has become something of a ritual: The act has been introduced in every Congress since 1994, save one.

President Obama could sign an executive order that would immediately protect gay and transgender employees of federal contractors from workplace discrimination.

Those contractors, which employ approximately 20 percent of the nation’s workforce, are currently prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion or sex, but aren’t subject to comparable provisions regarding sexual orientation or gender identity.

The order would not be unduly burdensome. After decades of urging by civil rights groups, more than 80 percent of Fortune 500 companies have adopted similar provisions of their own. Many contractors already abide without difficulty by these corporate codes protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. Besides, there’s considerable precedent for the White House mandating that those who do business with the federal government do it fairly and don’t discriminate against their employees in the process. In 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an order requiring that federal contractors adhere to principles of fair competition; in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson prohibited racial discrimination in contractors’ hiring processes.”

Recently White House Press Secretary Jay Carney that“the president is pursuing a path that he thinks has the best chance of success, which is trying to get Congress to pass ENDA, the legislative action that he supports.”  And here children is your laugh of the day.

While many consider President Obama to be the best pro-LGBT Presidents there has been, but remember that the bar isn’t set too high on that to begin with.  He himself has never taken a stand and CHALLENGED directly the LGBT communities status as second class citizens.  All his “fixes” to date have been workarounds of current laws that never directly challenged them . And his words of support are just that. WORDS.  We all need to realize and remember that we, the LGBT community have been responsible for the Matthew Shepard hate Crimes Bill passing, for DADT being repealed and for the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision that which will now result in bi-national couples having immigration rights and same sex federal marriage benefits.  NOT President Obama. (Remember the Democrats and Obama himself readily threw us under the bus to get some movement from the GOP on the immigration issue which now looks like it has a very slim chance to passing and as far as benefits all Obama really did is throw some minor crumbs with the DOMA workarounds) 

The bottom line is that President Obama can sign an Executive Order today that will protect 20% of the LGBT workforce while the all encompassing ENDA attempts, once again to work its way through Congress and tries to get passed.  EO’s like this have been signed before and there is Presidential precedent.  But President Obama refuses.  And that my friends is not only “increasingly indefensible and inexplicable.”  it is also cowardly, indefensible and unacceptable.



EXCLUSIVE: The Washington Post Once Again Enables And Gives Platform To Anti-Gay Organiztions

Continuing the paper’s tradition of giving a platform to bigots, the Washington Post once again felt it appropriate to run an anti-gay rights column in this Sunday in the print edition called On Gay Marriage, Stop Playing The Hate Card” by Matthew J. Franck is director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution of the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J.

The article is essentially a combination of spin and blatant lies which are currently being used by anti-gay hate groups trying to play victim and use the strategy of “if they say it over and over again people will believe its true”   Whats interesting is that this time it is not one of the hate groups itself which WaPo  published the article b,  but one called The Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J which after a very little research can be found to have direct ties to Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council which is one of the groups named an “official” hate group by the Southern Law Poverty Center .(Of course this is not mentioned in the article and I am sure that WaPo’s fact checkers just accidentally missed that fact.)

This is how the article describes the SLPC:

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a once-respected civil rights organization, publishes a “report” identifying a dozen or so “anti-gay hate groups,” some for no apparent reason other than their vocal opposition to same-sex marriage. Other marriage advocacy groups are put on a watch list.

The SPLC’s report on “hate groups” gives the game away. It notes that no group is listed merely for “viewing homosexuality as unbiblical.” But when describing standard expressions of Christian teaching, that we must love the sinner while hating the sin, the SPLC treats them as “kinder, gentler language” that only covers up unreasoning hatred for gay people. Christians are free to hold their “biblical” views, you see, but we know that opposition to gay marriage cannot have any basis in reason. Although protected by the Constitution, these religious views must be sequestered from the public square, where reason, as distinguished from faith, must prevail.

In actuality the SPLC is highly respected and has been in existence over 50 years exposing hate groups for what they are and has taken on such groups as the KKK and Stormfront.  And as far “identifying a dozen or so “anti-gay hate groups,” some for no apparent reason other than their vocal opposition to same-sex marriage. This is an out and out lie. 

According to the SLPC:

Of the 18 groups profiled below, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) will be listing 13 next year as hate groups (eight were previously listed), reflecting further research into their views; those are each marked with an asterisk. Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.

Earlier this year Washington Post editors Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn legitimized an anti-gay screed of Tony Perkins, the President of the hate group the Family Research Council and now once again the paper is giving a platform to anti-gay hate and bigotry with an article full of blatant lies and misinformation.

One of the unwritten rules of mainstream political discourse is that naked bigotry — unrepentant and irrational hate for whole classes of people based on characteristics that they cannot change — is indecent and unacceptable.

The Washington Post should apologize and pledge to stop offering legitimacy to those who base their arguments in the bigotry on lies of recognized hate group or the paper and its advertisers should be boycotted.

There are no longer any excuses that are acceptable for giving blind hate a platform and publishing lies.

We MUST begin to stand up strongly against it.

The Washington Post Gives GLAAD’s President Jarett Barrios Equal Space To Respond To Recent Gay Hater’s Tony Perkins Anti-Gay Hate Article

Earlier this week The Washington Post allowed an editorial from anti-gay bigot Tony Perkins of  The Family Research Council to broadcast his unfounded  anti-gay rhetoric and  hate in spite of the fact of the recent epidemic of LGBT suicide which is lined to such hate speech in Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn’s  “On Faith” column and after much criticism the Post horrendously tried  justify it by saying that Perkins column was supposed to offset and be a “balance” to a Live Blog chat that WaPo hosted with Dan Savage over LGBT Teen Suicide and the “It’ Gets Better” Project.

Today, Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn’s “On Faith” column gave equal space to Jarrett Barrios, The President of GLAAD to respond.  Barrios does make a good case against Perkin’s and the Post for publishing it.but never touches the fact that many national organizations have long proved Perkin’s and his ilks claims and scientific data to be junk science at best and pure lies at worst.  THAT is a message that we need to broadcast over and over to discredit Perkins, and all other anti-gay organizations. 

You can read Jarret Barrio’s full  ON FAITH Op-Ed Reply to The Post and Perkins after the jump.below.  Just CLICK “Read more…”  (I refuse to link to that rag any longer.)

There are not “both sides” to teen suicide issue
By Jarrett Barrios

By giving noted anti-gay activist Tony Perkins a platform from which he could explicitly blame the victims of bullying for their own depression, the Washington Post became part of the problem.

Perkins took to the Post’s ‘On Faith’ section this week with two goals in mind. First, he wanted to extricate himself and other anti-gay activists from any blame for the tragic suicides of the past several weeks. Second, he wanted to tell the hundreds of thousands of children who are gay, or are perceived to be gay, that they themselves are to blame if they feel hopeless or helpless – not the bullies.

We called the Post out for their decision to let Perkins do this. The Post told us, via Twitter: “we’re working to cover both sides. Earlier, we hosted Dan Savage of It Gets Better in a live chat.”

Yes, you read that right. “Both sides.”

The Washington Post – one of the most respected news sources in our country’s history – is telling a nation full of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender children, that their lives are up for debate.

I was a nine-year-old in Florida in 1977 during Anita Bryant’s infamous ‘Save Our Children’ campaign, when the airwaves and newspapers were flooded with hysteria. Bryant had set out to overturn a Dade County ordinance which protected people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation – and to support a proposed ban on adoption by gay and lesbian couples. She launched an all-out media blitz, Bible-in-hand, pressuring lawmakers and voters into supporting her anti-gay efforts. And it worked.

But the effects of that campaign didn’t stop when all the votes were counted. By giving voice to Bryant and her followers, the media had instilled in my nine-year-old heart the belief that being gay was bad. Several years later, when I realized that I was gay, all the messages that the media had given my younger self came rushing back. I felt like I was wrong for being who I was. I felt like the world would be a terrible place for me. I felt hopeless. Helpless. Like I would never be worthy of anyone’s love.

I was wrong to believe those things. But the media was wrong to sell those lies to me, under the guise of a “debate.”

By letting Tony Perkins stand on its soapbox, the Washington Post is telling today’s kids, their parents, and the educators whose job it is to prepare them for life, that it’s perfectly reasonable to claim (as Perkins does) that those dark thoughts are caused by simply being gay – and not by the fact that people like Perkins have made it their lives’ work to deny gay people the opportunity to live freely and peacefully.

In his piece this week (mere paragraphs after he claimed that he believes no person should be subjected to verbal harassment) Perkins called gay children “abnormal” and “self-destructive.” According to the Post, there’s nothing wrong with that sort of name-calling. It’s just one side of the debate. And technically the Post is correct when it says it is covering “both sides” of the scourge of anti-gay bullying.

But one of those sides belongs to the bully himself.

When have we ever seen Tony Perkins in the media, discussing an issue that did not involve the lives of gay people? How often is he on CNN to discuss poverty? When was the last time he showed up in the op-ed pages to talk about hunger or homelessness? Perkins only shows his face in the media when there’s a chance for him to argue that the lives of gay people are unworthy.

If Perkins truly believes that all people – even gay people – should be able to live their lives free from bullying, then he needs to stop bullying them himself.

Until Perkins ends his campaign to keep basic freedoms away from gay people, the Washington Post and other media outlets need to stop treating him like a reasonable contributor to our national dialogue. And if they keep giving him a soapbox, they’re telling the nation that his anti-gay screeds are just as reasonable as the opinions of those who want the bullying to stop.

The Washington Post’s Justification For Tony Perkins Anti-Gay Column That Uses Nazi Science? "We’re working to cover both sides. Earlier, we hosted Dan Savage of "It Gets Better" (LGBT Teen Suicide Prevention) in a live chat.

As everyone knows by now.  The Washington Post allowed an editorial from anti-gay bigot Tony Perkins of  The Family Research Council to broadcast his unfounded  anti-gay rhetoric in Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn’s  “On Faith” column, 

What’s even worse is the recent excuse that WaPo has given to why it let Perkins promote his hate speech.  The  homophobic, fact-free op-ed screed of Tony Perkins was supposed to offset and be a “balance” to a Live Blog chat that WaPo hosted with Dan Savage over LGBT Teen Suicide and the “It’ Gets Better” Project.

So WaPo thinks that to balance out a piece that can help save the lives of LGBT teens who are committing suicide for feelings caused by hate from Perkins, The Family Research Institute and other they give Perkins column space to spew his hatred and inaccurate junk science to undo any good that came from the Savage Live Blog? 

That is REAL responsibility in journalism in action isn;t it?

And if that’s not bad enough’s not bad enough WaPo didn’t even bother to fact check Perkin’s piece. The Family Research Council who for years been promoting the “Nazi” science (that’s what the Southern Poverty Law Center calls it) of a known “hate group” run by Paul Cameron called The Family Research Institute that Perkin’s quotes in his column of  that is listed alongside the Klan on the SPLC Web site..  Yes the KLAN. 

Do you think the Washington Post would let someone who openly promotes Klan literature write in their paper?  No chance in hell.  But when the bigot is anti-gay, and when he’s promoting known hate groups that excel in Nazi-type science – groups that are listed alongside the Klan – somehow the hate-enabler is now practicing legitimate journalism. 

And as for the “science” of Paul Cameron and The Family Research Institute that Perkin’s the Family Research Council , and WaPo seems to be legit enough to quote. Cameron told the 1985 Conservative Political Action Committee conference that “extermination of homosexuals” might be needed in the next three to four years. He has advocated tattooing AIDS patients in the face, and banishment to a former leper colony for any patient who resisted. He has called for gay bars to be closed and gays to be registered with the government.  Cameron even called AIDS a “godsend,”

After a call to WaPo’s Ombudsman Andrew Alexander who is supposed to be the readers’ representative within the newspaper to complain about Perkin;s column and WaPo’s irresponsibility I was told that his position is not covered by this because this was an opinion piece and that I was to direct questions aand comments to onfaith@washingtonpost.com 

I highly doubt that contacting Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn would do any good.  It would be like pissing on a forest fire.  What WE NEED to do is for once and for all is to go after Perkin’s, The Family Research Center and all hateful anti-gay groups like them like them that use made up science and facts to cause harm to the LGBT Community.  They need to be exposed, they need to be destroyed.

As for the Washington Post be sure to look for the Op-Ed column by David Dukes of the KKK the next time there is an article about the NAACP..  that would be what The Post considers “balanced” wouldn’t it?

Wingnuts Have A Hissy Over Washington Post Gay-Kissy Photo

\TheWashington Post last week published a front-page photo of two men kissing in the courthouse’s “gay marriage line.” and the wingnuts went batshit.   Today, Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander talked about the complaints that he recieved of the hot man-on-man sexy kiss time so prominently in its print newspaper, which America’s seniors read in the privacy of their own homes.

A few of the readers have engaged in rants, often with anti-gay slurs. One called me to complain about “promoting a faggot lifestyle.” Another complained about the photo in an e-mail to the two Post reporters who wrote Thursday’s story about the licenses: “That kind of stuff makes normal people want to throw up. People have kids who are being exposed to this crap. I will be glad when your rag goes out of business. Real men marry women.”

But most simply said The Post had offended their delicate sensibilities by publishing the photo, especially on the front page.

Wrote Lee Miller of Columbia: “I would appreciate it if your cover pictures would not be so disturbing where my kids can see it easily on the kitchen table… please don’t shove this “Gay” business in our face. This is something that should have shown up on an inside page or two (without the picture).”  Another comment went…….“the picture of two guys kissing makes me cringe.” And another: “Put it on page 10 or page four, put it in the paper, but I do not like it right there where I can’t avoid looking at it.”

– No fucking gay faggots should be on the front page, stupid fucking faggots. Real faggots marry women.
– “Gay business” should not be shoved down my kids’ throats.
– Show the photo on an inside page and don’t show the photo.
– Don’t put the photo on the front page, because then people can’t help but stare at it constantly.  (Got a big closet I suppose)

Anyway, Andrew Alexander, get the last word on these in his final paragraph:

“There was a time, after court-ordered integration, when readers complained about front-page photos of blacks mixing with whites. Today, photo images of same-sex couples capture the same reality of societal change.”

Only problem is Andrew, as sad as it sounds you over-estimate these wingnuts and the same people would probably ctill omplain about that today also. 

Some people seriously need to get a life or at least crawl back into the primordial ooze and keep evolving.

‘Several Year Process’ to Repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ – Washington Post


In a Washington Post article today the timeline process for the completion of DADT could take as long as 2012! 

“The Defense Department starts the clock next week on what is expected to be a several-year process in lifting its ban on gays from serving openly in the military.A special investigation into how the ban can be repealed without hurting the morale or readiness of the troops was expected to be announced Tuesday by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While the review is likely to take the better part of this year to complete, and even more time to implement, its initiation will advance President Barack Obama’s goal of repealing the ban and bring a divisive issue for the military back to the fore.”

Among the many “important” topics to be discussed that wil cause this delay:

“The review to be announced next week was expected to delve into practical issues that surround changing the law: Can a soldier be forced to room with someone who is openly gay if they are the same sex? Would the military recognize civil unions and how much would it cost to extend benefits to a service member’s partner? Would quotas be imposed to ensure openly gay service members aren’t passed over for promotions?”

“Without hurting the motale and readiness of the troops?”  For a war mongering understaffed military coutry like ours that should hardly be an issues.  And as for the “Can a soldier be forced to room with someone who is openly gay if they are the same sex?”  Can soilders be forced now to room African Americans if they are caucasian?  Or forced to room with Muslims if they are Christian?  Or be forced to room with stupid bigoted rednecks tea baggers if they are liberals?

Not only is this bullshit.  Its degrading and reminiscent of discussions of 1943 when African Americans were fighting to be “allowed” to join the Military.

So this is the United States at work, More discussion of military showers and barracks, and segregation, and sexual predation, completely ignoring the fact that there are thousands of gay and lesbian military servicemembers already serving in the military, and multiple studies already completed on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’. And that almost every major civilized country in the world already allows Gay and lesbians soliders to serve openly.

If the plan is to draw this out over a number of years, then Obama should sign (and we should demand he sign) an executive order immediately putting a moratorium on gay expulsions while this ridiculous overblown debate is undertaken.

Personally right now though I wonder why any gay or lesbian would want to fight and defend this country.