Does Rittenhouse have a case to sue the media for slander?

[NickB79]

This is what a lot of chatter on the RW message boards is discussing now. Apparently they think that, because he was found innocent, it means he can sue all the liberal news outlets that called him a murderer. They're comparing it to the case of Nick Sandmann V. CNN in their reporting of his altercation with a Native American singer a few years ago.

Thoughts? I think it's not comparable AT ALL, but God, would it sicken me to see that little puke get millions.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/media/cnn-settles-lawsuit-viral-video/index.html

[11 Bravo]

1. No.

[Tomconroy]

2. No.

[Ocelot II]

3. No.

If he could, that would mean every subsequently-acquitted criminal defendant could sue every media outlet that speculated or opined about their possible guilt. He can try, of course, but this is nothing like the Sandmann case. Rittenhouse's prosecutor found probable cause sufficient to prosecute him, and only the legal system is obligated to presume a defendant's innocence. Nobody else is bound by that principle.

[MichMan]

4. He might have a case against being called a white supremacist

Probably not for murder though since that was the focus of the trial.

[DeeNice]

6. he was proudly photographed with some of the Proud Boys

so not much of a leg to stand on there...

[greenjar_01]

15. MichMan doesn't believe the Proud Boys are white supremacists, sooooooo

[DeeNice]

38. comment uncalled for and quite frankly rude.

[Devil Child]

21. +1 MichMan n/t

[Progressive Jones]

5. If he's smart, he'll keep his head down and avoid drawing attention to himself. nt

[Tommy Carcetti]

7. No.

He's a public figure at this point, so he'd have to prove actual malice, which is an extraordinarly high standard to meet.

Sandmann had 30 of his 33 counts dismissed. He settled confidentially shortly thereafter. All tea leaves seem to point that this was a face saving measure on this part, meaning that he probably got nuisance value for his case; they paid him a pittance rather than spend the time and money having to defend the suit, even though they would have likely prevailed.

[AngryOldDem]

8. He just needs to go away. Period.

He’s done enough damage. He’s free. Got away with killing two people. That should be more than enough.

He’s no goddamn martyr.

[madinmaryland]

9. Did OJ? He could have, but it would have gone nowhere.

[maxsolomon]

10. They'll be hard-pressed to find a MSM News Org that didn't adhere to legal policy.

Particularly after Sandmann.

They don't call him a murderer, they say he shot 3 people. That's not a fact in dispute. He's on trial for murder; but he's innocent till proven guilty. Or not.

Legacy Media don't editorialize in their news articles.

[uncle ray]

12. which liberal new outlets called him a murderer?

he shot people and was on trial as an accused murderer. that's how i've seen it reported.

[marie999]

13. I haven't seen an article that didn't use the word alledged.

[relayerbob]

14. I think he needs to be saving up ...

For the numerous lawsuits he is going to get hit with. Don’t forget OJ was acquitted also, and got his assed kicked in civil court.

[Thomas Hurt]

16. If he is as innocent as presented, he needs to stop letting people use him and...

well maybe the military will take him. That would keep out of people's hair and protect him.

[keithbvadu2]

34. I don't think the military would take him.

He is a Ted Nugent 'tough guy' who has actually killed someone.

[Orangepeel]

17. not guilty doesn't mean innocent

[Froggyproggy]

18. It's possible.

There’s so much coverage on this that somebody, somewhere probably slipped up enough for KR to recover some damages. It will be very interesting to watch how the post-verdict activities play out.

[radius777]

19. Of course not, the case was not about that,

but about specific actions within the constructs of state laws. The label of white supremacist is one Rittenhouse deserves for his private actions, which (iirc) was not allowed into the trial.

He also can still be tried on federal charges, ie for violating the civil rights of the victims.

[NickB79]

33. He was a white man killing other white men

What civil rights charges could the Feds even bring?

[Devil Child]

20. Yes n/t

[Initech]

22. If he does, they won't let it go to trial.

They'll settle for pennies on the dollar to keep him from getting any sort of significant pay day, like that dipshit from the Indigenous People's Rally a couple years back.

[meow2u3]

23. No

Rottenhouse is a budding psychopath who expects to be praised for getting off scot-free after a biased judge and a biased jury improperly acquitted him.

He deserves every bit of scorn heaped on him.

[LiberatedUSA]

24. I will say this...

…I’ve been watching MSNBC, and not long, maybe an hour, ago, Al Sharpton repeated the bringing the gun across state lines lie again.

The narrative has been declared and they are sticking to it.

[ripcord]

25. I'm not sure why you are suprised

That same untruth is repeated here constantly.

[LiberatedUSA]

30. I am not surprised.

Sandmann is hated for doing nothing but standing still with a smirk on his face. That is it. And look at posts about him. They almost all mention the smirk. They hate that smirk so much, they forget what the whole damn situation was about. The smirk that drove the world mad.

[MichMan]

26. Wonder if Rittenhouse's mother has a good case for slander ?

[lame54]

27. He wasn't found innocent

[Captain Stern]

28. My guess would be 'no'.

Of course, he can sue anyone he wants to sue. He can sue you, or me.


But, I think you meant the question to be does Rittenhouse have a reasonable chance of winning a slander case against some/any media.

I think it depends on what was said by each entity of the media. Were they opinion pieces, or were they reports that were just wrong?

Someone saying "In my opinion, Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer" isn't the same as saying "Kyle Rittenhouse brought a gun across state lines, so he could kill people." The first sentence is an opinion that does not favor Rittenhouse...but it's still just an opinion. The second sentence is a lie, and could probably get some media folks i trouble.

But, if the media was just reporting that someone said Rittenhouse brought a gun across state line to kill folks...well that's just reporting.

[Johonny]

29. He did murder two people so it would be a hard case to win

[budkin]

32. No, in fact...

Link to tweet

?s=20

[keithbvadu2]

35. Not a convicted murderer. Definitely a killer.

[jcmaine72]

36. No, but he'll sue and win just the same

Remember, this is shithole America, where calling out little Nazis for what they really are is tantamount to handing them a winning Powerball ticket. Just ask Nick Sandmann.

So on top of Shittenlouse getting away with murder we'll probably see him rolling in mucho dough as well. Think about that.

[NowISeetheLight]

37. His victims families need to sue!