The young man is guilty of nothing, has not yet been officially charged as an adult, he is under the age of 18, and every news outlet that is showing his name and identity should be sued relentlessly.
They are profiting by scandalous reporting of an event involving a minor. Since they are knowingly and willingly doing this, monetary damages should be trebled.
The young man is guilty of nothing, has not yet been officially charged as an adult, he is under the age of 18, and every news outlet that is showing his name and identity should be sued relentlessly.
They are profiting by scandalous reporting of an event involving a minor. Since they are knowingly and willingly doing this, monetary damages should be trebled.
And every politician that has called him a white supremacist and terrorist
Cotton eye Joe backward look intensifies
https://thedonald.win/p/GvTmB1SW/facebook-is-blocking-searches-fo/c/
Just highlighting the clock-being-stopped in one spot.
Instantly. That's a big one.
Patreon terminates accounts just for being conservative, but GoFundMe is ok financing terrorists? Well ok then.
I’ve seen this line of thinking in a few posts here. I am aware of no law (statutory or common law) prohibiting the publication of a minor charged with a crime.
Can you point me in the right direction?
The reported news of a minor can only be protected if it came from an official public source. The only official information released was "A 17 year old individual from Antioch, Illinois..." They didn't release the name because he is a minor.
How did these news agencies get the name?
Again, can you point me to the law you are basing this on?
Landmark case. Legal precedent. Doesn't need laws in each state. The information must be lawfully obtained. Each media outlet did not lawfully obtain the minor's name since the police never identified him. Again, what was their source of his identity?
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1978/78-482
Okay. There was a West Virginia statute prohibiting the practice, and the court held it was invalid as to lawfully obtained information.
What Wisconsin, Illinois, or federal law would apply? What reason do you have to suspect the press obtained the information illegally?
Spez: To be clear, your case says the state may not bar publication of lawfully obtained information; it does not say the state may bar publication of illegally obtained information. Those are different things.
Must be lawfully obtained. They may be different things. Sue them all and either let the courts decide this issue or get appropriate settlements.
That is not the proposition the case stands for. It addresses state bans on lawfully obtained info, which are invalid.
You have not provided a WI, IL, or fed law prohibiting the publication of information related to a minor charged with a crime, regardless as to whether illegally obtained. You have failed to show there was illegal obtainment.
Now, as to the relevant legal issue. Can the state bar publication of illegally obtained information? Generally, no. See New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).
in this case they can publish his name because he is being charged as an adult so there is no law that stops the publishing on his name.
There will be payment, a financial FAFO, if you will.
They will and it's going to be epic. Nick Sanderman and Kyle Rittenhouse will have to decide which one of them is the Chairmen of the CNN board and which one is the only board member.
if they are charging him as an adult does that still matter?
Not sure. He's still a minor under civil law. Can't vote, under parent guardianship, etc.
Sue Fox News for it's dog shit report trying to frame him as a cold blood murderer.
Sandman 2 : Electric Boogaloo
You can bet your ass that Kyle's new attorney is gonna sue the media for slander!!! Sandman 2.0. 😁
I was thinking about this 2 days ago
There’s a Supreme Court case that actually holds that it violates the first amendment to prohibit the media from releasing the names of minors charged with crimes as long as the names were legally obtained, whatever that means. But his name has been in the public for a while, it was doxxers who grabbed it, but the media didn’t doxx him. This isn’t illegal. They can and should sue him for defamation (and no, I don’t think Sandmann being a minor played a role in his case, which was settled so we don’t even know the actual outcome). I think the left is pursuing a herd strategy where if they ALL do it, there’s only so much money Kyle can recover, so they’ll just pile on en masse for the cause knowing that it won’t result in more net losses for them. They’re intentionally saying “you know what? It’s worth the money to forward the false narrative”
Make Kyle rich, just like Nick 👍
100%
typically, news organizations justify revealing the ID of a minor when they've been charged as an adult for a crime.
Thats right! How come his name was put out there so quickly.
And Google, Facebook for colluding with terrorist orgs to suppress and distort news.
I remember wistfully when no one was allowed to say the name Eric Ciaramella.
Excellent point.
That puts you on the list then, Mr Big Brain