wrote in message
news
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 18:07:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:31:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I hope she sues everyone. But, I doubt that it would be considered
wrongful
termination, since she was offered a better job (or her old job).

That gets back to my question, what were the damages? She will end up
with a whole lot better job than she would have ever got from
diligence and hard work. Her slandered reputation only lasted a couple
days and now she is totally vindicated.

She's only been "vindicated" by people who are willing to listen. There's
a
vast community of people (as demonstrated on this ng) who continue to ring
the "she's a racist" bell.

She would get a lot more respect by just saying Breitbart is an
insignificant weasel who nobody should have ever listened to and who
should never be trusted again. Then move on as the winner.

Respect from whom? He needs to get the message that's not ok to do what he
did. Nothing like a lawsuit to do this.

That is a whole lot better than a law suit that might turn up more
tapes. Breitbart will be hiring a lawyer too you know.


More tapes... so this is the right wing refrain. She should be quiet
because
of something she might have (even likely) did. BS.


Why would anyone want to open their life up to a defense lawyer's
investigators on the chance they might win a civil suit that will
invariably end up being about the 1st amendment.
I think you will be surprised at the people who will hold their nose
and support Breitbart. This is certainly not more disgusting than
Flynt's case.

I'm continually surprised by people. However, it really doesn't have
anything to do with a level of disgust. Flynt wasn't lying about a person.
He was publishing "offensive" material. Breitbart lied or caused lies to be
told about a person. It may end up as a 1st Amend. argument, but it's not
clear that will fly. We'll see. Sounds like she's adamant about pursuing it.