Here is the legal complaint. It's a mix of non-legal accusations and legal claims, the main one being defamation. Here are some of the claims:
The Post published its False and Defamatory Accusations negligently and with actual knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth.
As one of the world's leading news outlets, the Post knew but ignored the importance of verifying damaging, and in this case, incendiary accusations against a minor child prior to publication.
The negligence and actual malice of the Post is demonstrated by its utter and knowing disregard for the truth available in the complete video of the January 18 incident which was available contemporaneously with the edited clip the Post chose because it appeared to support its biased narrative.
Instead of investigation and publishing the true story, the Post recklessly rushed to publish its False and Defamatory Accusations in order to advance its own political agenda against President Trump.
In doing so, the Post lifted the incident from social media and placed it in the mainstream media, giving its False and Defamatory Accusations credibility and permanence.
It's not real clear who the "unbiased" witnesses are that the
Post should have talked to before printing. (In fact, I'm not sure there were any unbiased witnesses at all.) My gut feeling is, if it goes to trial, Sandmann will have a difficult time winning. I suspect there's going to be a settlement in this case.
Onward and upward,
airforce
