As a thought experiment, let's assume the best or worst intentions of the participants depending on their relation to the case: - The blogger is cynically maki

As a thought experiment, let's assume the best or worst intentions of the participants depending on their relation to the case: - The blogger is cynically making money by appealing to conservatives - Hacker News commenters are privileged and prejudiced - The family is prejudiced, and altering their story in bad faith - The college and students meant well and thought there was genuine prejudice involved Even in this extreme version of the scenario, I still think the situation is terrible and that the family's life was irreparably and unfairly altered. Do they deserve tens of millions? Maybe not, but then again America is the land of big things happening. They do deserve some reparation based on the facts as delivered in the court transcript. I see commenters here flagging the story, dismissing its relevance or validity with various arguments but this doesn't really hold up at a second glance, even if you take into account the context of culture war grifting.