As usual, you speak from your ass. She's not a public figure.

Lemme get this straight. She's a government employee of a large agency, and
she's speaking in a public forum. Everything she says is recorded or
written down. All her actions and directives are a matter of public record.

Help me understand what you do not understand about her being a public
figure.

Or maybe you are just plain stupid. From your eloquent post, I would guess
the latter to be the case.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

On 7/30/10 6:53 PM, Steve B wrote:
As usual, you speak from your ass. She's not a public figure.

Lemme get this straight. She's a government employee of a large agency, and
she's speaking in a public forum. Everything she says is recorded or
written down. All her actions and directives are a matter of public record.

Help me understand what you do not understand about her being a public
figure.

Or maybe you are just plain stupid. From your eloquent post, I would guess
the latter to be the case.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com




You obviously know nothing about the term "public figure" in
defamation lawsuits.

Perhaps you can get someone to explain this to you:

Public Figure is a term usually used in the context of libel and
defamation actions where the standards of proof are higher if the party
claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has to prove
defamatory statements were made with actual malice. Harte-Hanks
Communications v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657, 666-668.

The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried. To begin with, a fairly
high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to
public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d
711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public
affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of
particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of
the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure.
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345.

Ms. Sherrod was not a public figure when the video tape that was
"edited" was made. Further, there's little doubt Breitbart had "actual
malice" in mind when he defamed Ms. Sherrod.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm


Now, Steve, you can slip back into your stupor.

"Harry " wrote in message
m...
On 7/30/10 6:53 PM, Steve B wrote:
As usual, you speak from your ass. She's not a public figure.

Lemme get this straight. She's a government employee of a large agency,
and
she's speaking in a public forum. Everything she says is recorded or
written down. All her actions and directives are a matter of public
record.

Help me understand what you do not understand about her being a public
figure.

Or maybe you are just plain stupid. From your eloquent post, I would
guess
the latter to be the case.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com




You obviously know nothing about the term "public figure" in
defamation lawsuits.

Perhaps you can get someone to explain this to you:

Public Figure is a term usually used in the context of libel and
defamation actions where the standards of proof are higher if the party
claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has to prove
defamatory statements were made with actual malice. Harte-Hanks
Communications v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657, 666-668.

The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried. To begin with, a fairly
high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to
public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d
711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public
affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular
public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues
involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v.
Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345.

Ms. Sherrod was not a public figure when the video tape that was "edited"
was made. Further, there's little doubt Breitbart had "actual malice" in
mind when he defamed Ms. Sherrod.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm


Now, Steve, you can slip back into your stupor.

Wow... nice citations. I didn't bother, because as someone once said...
"Never explain-- your friends do not need it, and your enemies
will not believe it anyway."

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/30/10 6:53 PM, Steve B wrote:
As usual, you speak from your ass. She's not a public figure.

Lemme get this straight. She's a government employee of a large agency,
and
she's speaking in a public forum. Everything she says is recorded or
written down. All her actions and directives are a matter of public
record.

Help me understand what you do not understand about her being a public
figure.

Or maybe you are just plain stupid. From your eloquent post, I would
guess
the latter to be the case.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com




You obviously know nothing about the term "public figure" in
defamation lawsuits.

Perhaps you can get someone to explain this to you:

Public Figure is a term usually used in the context of libel and
defamation actions where the standards of proof are higher if the party
claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has to prove
defamatory statements were made with actual malice. Harte-Hanks
Communications v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657, 666-668.

The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried. To begin with, a fairly
high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to
public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d
711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public
affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular
public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues
involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v.
Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345.

Ms. Sherrod was not a public figure when the video tape that was "edited"
was made. Further, there's little doubt Breitbart had "actual malice" in
mind when he defamed Ms. Sherrod.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm


Now, Steve, you can slip back into your stupor.

Wow... nice citations. I didn't bother, because as someone once said...
"Never explain-- your friends do not need it, and your enemies
will not believe it anyway."

It's hard to believe a sweet little girl like you would have enemies.

--
Me

In article ,
says...

Posting a video for public consumption of a news worthy event? Sherrod
is going to be laughed out of court if the suit isn't summarily
dismissed.

This will be interesting. You must admit that cases reach trial, and awards
are given on things that would have been dismissed with prejudiced plus
plain being laughed out of court twenty years ago. Such is modern
lawyering.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

Everyone believes that they have the right to be compensated for being
offended.

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

Posting a video for public consumption of a news worthy event? Sherrod
is going to be laughed out of court if the suit isn't summarily
dismissed.

This will be interesting. You must admit that cases reach trial, and
awards
are given on things that would have been dismissed with prejudiced plus
plain being laughed out of court twenty years ago. Such is modern
lawyering.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

Everyone believes that they have the right to be compensated for being
offended.

Being compensated for being offended was never a right.

Where does it say that?

How did these people get this impression?

I don't believe I have that right, so why did you say "everyone"?

I've been offended thousands of times, and never received a dime.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

In article ,
says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

Posting a video for public consumption of a news worthy event? Sherrod
is going to be laughed out of court if the suit isn't summarily
dismissed.

This will be interesting. You must admit that cases reach trial, and
awards
are given on things that would have been dismissed with prejudiced plus
plain being laughed out of court twenty years ago. Such is modern
lawyering.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

Everyone believes that they have the right to be compensated for being
offended.

Being compensated for being offended was never a right.

Where does it say that?

How did these people get this impression?

I don't believe I have that right, so why did you say "everyone"?

I've been offended thousands of times, and never received a dime.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

You are taking a generalization as a personl comment.

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/30/10 6:53 PM, Steve B wrote:
As usual, you speak from your ass. She's not a public figure.

Lemme get this straight. She's a government employee of a large
agency, and
she's speaking in a public forum. Everything she says is recorded or
written down. All her actions and directives are a matter of public
record.

Help me understand what you do not understand about her being a public
figure.

Or maybe you are just plain stupid. From your eloquent post, I would
guess
the latter to be the case.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com




You obviously know nothing about the term "public figure" in
defamation lawsuits.

Perhaps you can get someone to explain this to you:

Public Figure is a term usually used in the context of libel and
defamation actions where the standards of proof are higher if the party
claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has to prove
defamatory statements were made with actual malice. Harte-Hanks
Communications v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657, 666-668.

The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried. To begin with, a fairly
high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to
public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d
711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public
affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of
particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of
the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure.
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345.

Ms. Sherrod was not a public figure when the video tape that was
"edited" was made. Further, there's little doubt Breitbart had "actual
malice" in mind when he defamed Ms. Sherrod.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm


Now, Steve, you can slip back into your stupor.

Wow... nice citations. I didn't bother, because as someone once said...
"Never explain-- your friends do not need it, and your enemies
will not believe it anyway."

It's hard to believe a sweet little girl like you would have enemies.

--
Me


It's hard to imagine someone like you breathing without intervention.

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

Posting a video for public consumption of a news worthy event? Sherrod
is going to be laughed out of court if the suit isn't summarily
dismissed.

This will be interesting. You must admit that cases reach trial, and
awards
are given on things that would have been dismissed with prejudiced plus
plain being laughed out of court twenty years ago. Such is modern
lawyering.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

Everyone believes that they have the right to be compensated for being
offended.

Being compensated for being offended was never a right.

Where does it say that?

How did these people get this impression?

I don't believe I have that right, so why did you say "everyone"?

I've been offended thousands of times, and never received a dime.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com



What planet are you from? You don't have a clue about libel or slander.

On 7/31/10 3:35 AM, wrote:



I do wonder what her "damages" actually are. I agree she did have one
horrible week but now she is the belle of the ball with job offers
coming out of the woodwork.

You're kidding, right? The right-wing slime machine slanders a woman who
had no business being its political target, and you think she wasn't
damaged by that? She was ridiculed on national TV, her reputation was
damaged, she suffered emotional damage, and who knows what else.

It's not relevant whether she "recovers" with a new job.

Breitbart, Fox, et al, told gross lies about the woman and defamed her
character. There was malice aforethought. Breitbart, the slimeball who
started the defamation, has a reputation for this very sort of character
assassination. He got caught...again...and *this* time he may have to
pay for his shenanigans. If there is a settlement or a jury award for
Ms. Sherrod, I hope it bankrupts him.