wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:53:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:18:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:21:29 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

(AP) - Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod says she
will sue a conservative blogger who posted an edited video of her
making
racially tinged remarks last week.

Sherrod made the announcement Thursday in San Diego at the National
Association of Black Journalists annual convention.

The edited video posted by Andrew Breitbart led Agriculture Secretary
Tom Vilsack to ask her to resign, a decision he reconsidered after
seeing the entire video of her March speech to a local NAACP group. In
the full speech, Sherrod spoke of racial reconciliation and lessons
she
learned after initially hesitating to help a white farmer save his
home.

- - -

Breitbart libeled Sherrod big time, and also did her great harm. He's
not going to be able to hide behind a freedom of the press claim. His
activities against Ms. Sherrod were *not* absent malice. Malice was
uppermost on his mind.

The open question would be whether she was a public figure. If so the
press has great latitude. I bet he wins, only because of the screwed
up legal system.

She's not really a public figure, at least in my estimation. She was a
fairly low-level bureaucrat, and she was deliberately targeted and lied
about.

She was making a speech in front of a national organization and it was
published. All BB did was edit it. He will take the standard tack, "I
am an entertainment show".

I love it... "all he did was edit it." No, actually, he didn't edit it. He
just accepted it already edited, knew it was bs, and published it anyway.

Michael Moore made a career of selectively editing tape. I say again,
it will be the media that steps up to defend Breitbart.
As for Breitbart himself, you can't buy this kind of publicity. In his
target audience, his marketability has shot up. The more we talk about
it the better it goes for him. I bet the hits on his blog are up 400%
and somebody might actually buy a Washington Times.

Right, except he didn't defame someone calling them a racist when the
opposite was the case. So, the equivalency is false.