jps wrote in :
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
jps wrote in
m:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps
wrote:
Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.
She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.
That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.
Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer. Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.
Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable. Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.
This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets off.
Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes directly
from the comforts of a barcalounger.
He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew full well
there was more to the story.
It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls, it's the
whole package of mischaracterization and libel.
I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the fact that I am a real live lawyer with a
degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years ago. You should be able to tell I'm a lawyer
from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he intended to libel her or not simply
doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first place. Bar exam question: What are the elements
of libel? Answer:
1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of
the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.
If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else matters. So, tell me, where is the "false
statement?"