What does the high school student suing CNN for $250m actually hope to achieve?

'Go get them Nick. Fake news!' President Trump tweeted when he heard of the original lawsuit

Young Nick Sandmann is reportedly to sue CNN for a whacking $250m over its coverage of his encounter with an indigenous American man. Rather than drawing a line under the affair, it is likely to further polarise opinion.

The incident which has led us here happened in January. Sandmann and his schoolmates from Covington Catholic High School were in Washington for a pro-life march, "Make America Great Again" hats proudly atop their heads. By coincidence, the Indigenous People’s March was taking place at the same time and at some stage Sandmann came face to face with a Native American, Nathan Philips – the two seemingly at diametrically opposed ends of America’s social and cultural spectrum.

Initial reports set out a familiar (if simplistic, and ultimately flawed) narrative. Philips – older, non-white, socially oppressed – surrounded, then taunted by young, white, Trump-supporting conservatives. It was such an easy fit into an established left vs right narrative that it seemed a gift.

But then additional materials emerged, other videos and images suggesting that in fact the incident was not quite as billed. Instead, it seemed that the schoolboys had themselves been on the receiving end of some abuse by an entirely separate group – and that, perhaps, Philips had moved in front of Sandmann, rather than the other way around.

Both of the main protagonists made statements indicating that they had been trying to bring peace to a potentially volatile situation. By then, however, Sandmann had been cast as the “Maga Hat Boy”, a baiter of America’s indigenous people; his conservative, religious background (and choice of headgear) turned into something more sinister.

Now he is fighting back. Last month he filed a lawsuit against the Washington Post, seeking $250m in libel damages. The paper has said it intends to defend the complaint and that steps were taken to "address concerns" as the full story emerged. Now, he is coming after CNN for even more; his lawyer, L Lin Wood, arguing that the latter was “probably more vicious in its direct attacks on Nicholas than the Washington Post. And CNN goes into millions of individuals’ homes”.

The enormity of the monetary claims may be something of a red herring: it is not plausible that a US court would order such a level of damages. Indeed, defamation in America is traditionally defendant-friendly: certainly when compared to the UK. Public figures in particular have to prove to a high threshold that false statements have been made about them deliberately – which is rarely straightforward.

However, Sandmann is patently not a public figure, notwithstanding that he has spoken publicly about the January incident. If the organisations he is suing admit to having erred, and if he can prove damage to his reputation, he will be quids (well, dollars) in.

And fundamentally, why should he not take the legal route? Defamation laws exist to offer a degree of protection against the scurrilous publication or broadcast of damaging inaccuracies. It will be for a court to decide on the merits of the case and, if applicable, the size of any payout.

Yet the obvious irony in all this, is that if Sandmann found himself unfairly caught up in a pre-existing narrative that cast him as a pro-Trump, anti-liberal symbol of privilege, he has now achieved almost precisely the same effect by seeking to take on (or bring down, if you’re that way inclined) the allegedly left-leaning mainstream media – the “enemy of the people” against which the president so regularly rails.

That may not be fair either, though it is a sign of how deep the cultural and political divide in the US is that it seems the natural conclusion to draw – possibly for both sides. As if to prove the point, when Sandmann filed his lawsuit against the Washington Post, President Trump tweeted his support: “Go get them Nick. Fake news!” It hasn’t gone unnoticed either that when Wood discussed his client’s plan to sue CNN it was on, you guessed it, the conservative broadcaster Fox News – the president’s favourite.

One way or the other then, we seem to be back where we started – even if Sandmann is, indeed, the wronged party.

It would be nice to imagine a scenario where that were not so, where Americans united over the need to see justice done calmly. But who will bring us that dream? Not Sandmann, nor those who still believe he represents an America that isn’t theirs.