Lisa Kashinsky is an award-winning multimedia journalist and general assignment reporter for The Boston Herald. A graduate of Boston University, she previously covered the Merrimack Valley for The Eagle-Tribune and the South Shore for Wicked Local weeklies and The Patriot Ledger. Her Sundays are reserved for Brady and Belichick.

The Kentucky MAGA teen who was vilified after a viral faceoff with a Native American activist last month is striking back with a threatened libel suit - with his high-profile lawyer sending "preservation demand letters" to U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and a long list of media outlets and commentators who disparaged him."The Sandmann Family was blindsided by the mainstream and social media mob accusations and threats against Nick," Lin Wood, who represents 16-year-old Nick Sandmann, told the Boston Herald. Wood said civil lawsuits could encompass libel, slander, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, cyberbullying and cyber assault.Sandmann's faceoff with activist Nathan Phillips, 64, in Washington, D.C. in January was initially reported as a "smirking" confrontation - which prompted widespread denunciation of the Covington Catholic High School students.Warren tweeted on Jan. 19: "Omaha elder and Vietnam War veteran Nathan Phillips endured hateful taunts with dignity and strength, then urged us all to do better."Warren's office didn't respond to a request for comment.Wood said WarrenSandmann's team hopes to "start to effectuate a sea (of) change" in how media responds to "social media flash mobs." Their other libel targets reportedly include The Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, NPR, HBO's Bill Maher and comedian Kathy Griffin.Boston civil rights attorney Harvey Silverglate said there were more effective ways to show Warren "made a fool of herself" than suing for libel.But Glenn Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and Instapundit.com blogger, said he believe Sandmann has a strong case."These kids were not in any sense public figures ...," Reynolds said, adding that the more conservative Supreme Court might be ready to roll back some press protections such as the absence of malice standard, at a time when the media is seen as more partisan and less professional.