Image 01 Image 03

Next Up: Nicholas Sandmann sues NBC

Next Up: Nicholas Sandmann sues NBC

Complaint: “NBCUniversal attacked Nicholas by relying heavily on biased and unreliable sources without conducting any reasonable investigation of the circumstances surrounding the January 18 incident.”

You know the story. Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandman was maligned and became the mainstream media’s object of derision because he has the audacity to stand there with a smile on his face as a Native American activist banged a drum inches from Sandmann’s face.

He stood his ground, and for that became the poster child for white privilege in the rhetoric of the media and social justice warriors. Initial reports blamed Sandmann for being part of a mob that surrounded and tried to intimidate the drum-banger, described in the media as a “Native American Elder.”

Of course, it was a false narrative, promoted with deceptively edited video. When more complete video came out, it was clear that there was no mob surrounding and intimidating the drum-banger, and Sandmann did nothing wrong.

Sandmann has filed two lawsuits previously, against The Washington Post and CNN. You can get the background — and my concerns — about those suits in these prior posts.

WaPo Lawsuit

CNN Lawsuit

New NBC Lawsuit

Sandmann just sued NBC. You can read Sandmann’s Complaint (pdf.) against NBC Universal Media, LLC,  in full at the bottom of this post.

The Complaint reads similar to the prior complaints against other media in terms of framing the media coverage in the context of anti-Trump bias:

1. This action for defamation arises out of television and online reporting by NBCUniversal Media, LLC, which published false and defamatory accusations against Plaintiff Nicholas Sandmann (“Nicholas”), a minor, the 16-year old student who stood quietly for several minutes after being unexpectedly confronted without explanation by Nathan Phillips (“Phillips”), a Native American activist, who beat a drum and sang loudly within inches of his face on January 18, 2019, at the Lincoln Memorial (the “January 18 incident”).

* * *

18. MSNBC has a well-known bias in favor of liberal political views and against conservative political views, publicly positioning itself as a liberal alternative to Fox News in October 2010, when it adopted the tagline “Lean Forward” to embrace its self-styled “politically progressive identity.”

19. NBC News division and MSNBC have a well-known bias against conservatives in general and President Donald J. Trump in particular.

* * *

26. NBCUniversal attacked Nicholas by relying heavily on biased and unreliable sources without conducting any reasonable investigation of the circumstances surrounding the January 18 incident.

27. NBCUniversal’s attacks on Nicholas included at least fifteen (15) defamatory television broadcasts, six (6) defamatory online articles, and many tweets falsely accusing Nicholas and his Covington Catholic High School (“CovCath”) classmates of racists acts, including among other things, engaging in racist conduct by instigating a threatening confrontation with several African American men (“the Black Hebrew Israelites”) and subsequently instigating a threatening confrontation with Native Americans who were allegedly in the midst of prayer during the Indigenous Peoples March at the National Mall when Nicholas confronted them, during which NBCUniversal asserted Nicholas assaulted both the Black Hebrew Israelites and Native American
political activist Phillips.

28. NBCUniversal created a false narrative by portraying the “confrontation” as a “hate crime” committed by Nicholas.

29. Over the course of its coverage, NBCUniversal failed and refused to acknowledge that Nicholas did nothing wrong and continued to perpetuate its false narrative for over one week following the January 18 incident.

30. Indeed, NBCUniversal continued to imply – and even outright state – that Nicholas was culpable for racist behavior for which he should, at the very least, apologize.

31. NBCUniversal continued to promote its false narrative that Nicholas had instigated a racist confrontation with Phillips long after Phillips was exposed as a fraud whose version of events was not entitled to any credibility by responsible members of the media.

Of interest is that the Complaint brings up pundit panels:

34. NBCUniversal created panels on its talk shows to frame the January 18 incident as one involving a “hate crime” and demonstrating “white supremacy” as a result of “whites” being “emboldened” by President Trump’s presence in the White House and repeated these premises over and over, while continuously showing a carefully selected few seconds from the heavily edited videos that omitted the entire context of the incident.

This complaint seems to go into much more detail about the allegedly false statements made about Sandmann, perhaps informed by the defense mounted by WaPo in its motion to dismiss. But most of the narrative in the complaint is more about opinions expressed rather than false factual statements, and the concept of “false and defamatory gist.” There also are a lot of references to interviews with people who expressed negative opinions about Sandmann and what happened.

I have the concern I had with the prior lawsuits that the negative innuendo and opinions directed at Sandmann may not be enough to sustain a defamation claim, even if Sandmann is deemed a non-public figure.

We may get a signal as to how these lawsuits will fare when we get a ruling, in a few months, on the motion to dismiss in the first filed case against WaPo.


Sandmann v NBC – Complaint With Exhibits by Legal Insurrection on Scribd


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | May 3, 2019 at 7:39 pm

Here’s hoping the Nicholas lawsuits bankrupts NBC, WaPo, and CNN – so broke they can’t reorganize under bankruptcy laws or have any assets left.

Scratch them and you’ll find they’re all anti-Semites too….

This will become a very public trial as case after case is presented to the public. Public opinion is very likely to be a major factor in the outcome. As a non-lawyer, I can’t say much about case law. But as a reasonable person, I get annoyed by pedants who deconstruct the obvious, big picture story with small point arguments in order to confuse everyone.

Once the public has had enough examples of what the big media does, it is the entire journalism profession that will be on trial. What is the purpose of “news” and “journalism” when it becomes obvious that it is not serving the public good? Is the question even going to be asked? What is the point of all of these media hoaxes? Why are they all the same? No conspiracy there!?!?

Is the law of defamation different when the target is a minor? And if not, why the hell not?

“… even if Sandmann is deemed a non-public figure.”

I’m not a lawyer. Could someone explain to me how Sandmann could be deemed a public figure?

    MarkS in reply to clintack. | May 4, 2019 at 8:03 am

    The press tried that crap with George Zimmerman, claiming that since he was in the news he was a public figure

This kid keeps getting cuter and cuter.

Clinton pedophile friend Jeffery Epstein must be getting very, very excited.

PrincetonAl | May 3, 2019 at 9:07 pm

I think the only reason this has a chance is because it’s a minor.

There is enough outrageousness overall I think that at least one of these will be allowed to proceed to see if NBC in fact had the intent to defame via an overload of opinion, with the potential that at least one of these judges for one of these will let it proceed because it’s a minor.

Then it’s into discovery etc.

I would love to think there is an outcome here that would teach them a lesson but it will be the wrong one – that they only have to slightly tighten up how they handle things in general and be cautious around minors and otherwise they can continue to get away with that.

It’s about time that the innuendo defense be expunged from defamation law.

Framing an otherwise false and defamatory report as innuendo, and then claiming that the innuendo is just “opinion” should be disallowed.

All of these cases will be tossed. Not because of the legal merits (or lack thereof), but because the Swamp protects its own. Don’t think for one microsecond that the fix is not already in.

Recall there was no legal/Constitutional basis for John Robert’s ruling on Obamacare, nor the rulings enshrining abortion and homosexual “marriage”, DACA, the temporary restrictions on travel from some Muslim countries, the reinstatement of Acosta’s press pass, and a host of other wacky rulings in recent years. Instead, the judges in these rulings simply did whatever they pleased. Even a nonlawyer such as myself can smell the dishonesty and bad faith in these decisions.

No mention, but I thought the latest suit vs NBC was filed in Federal Court, whereas the first two were filed in Kentucky State Court. Isn’t it worth looking at the differences in how these cases may be handled?

    MarkS in reply to RobM. | May 4, 2019 at 8:07 am

    How can a Kentucky court have jurisdiction when the offense occurred elsewhere?

I find the defense of the Complaint most interesting. ‘Because he is a public figure of our creation, he is now a Sullivan, and hence has no rights to privacy’.
That preposterous makes perfect sense to an Obama Judge.

If this isn’t defamation, then there really is no point at all to have defamation laws on the books. In short, if no defamation is found legally, then the laws need to be updated after this case is done to make what happened here defamation.

I don’t even watch the news….I only read online media (both left and right) and watch the short vids posted. This kid got absolutely crucified in the media….and the ones doing the crucifying knew what they were saying was false (after less than 24 hours the entire video was available for everyone) and yet they continued to say that this kid was a poster child of white supremacy. When the media has the full video and says the opposite in order to craft a false narrative, that absolutely should be defamation if it already isn’t.

What happened here was downright despicable. Honest people that hate MAGA and hate Trump did come clean in short order when the full video was available….some begrudgingly and some on their own. Others doubled down. NBC doubles down and should have to pay dearly. Again, if this wasn’t defamation then the legal bar is way too high and the law needs changed.

One more comment:

Legally, if I don’t know the speed limit while breaking the speed limit, I am still at fault even if I am ignorant. Likewise, when the media falls back on an excuse that says “the video existed but I didn’t bother to watch it” or worse when they effectively say, “I am so dumb at my job that I didn’t even realize I needed to double source this or even look for the truth”, they are pleading innocent by ignorance. It doesn’t work with other laws and it shouldn’t work here.