Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Would $10 million do it?
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:27:41 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... 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. Gosh darnit you beat me to another one. Let's dance in the streets in celebration and hope that others will pile on this piece of **** Breitbart. 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. As usual, you speak from your ass. She's not a public figure. |
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Would $10 million do it?
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry ?" wrote in message
m... On 7/30/10 7:28 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:27:41 -0400, wrote: In , says... 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. Gosh darnit you beat me to another one. Let's dance in the streets in celebration and hope that others will pile on this piece of **** Breitbart. 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. As usual, you speak from your ass. She's not a public figure. It doesn't matter, she was speaking in a public forum. Speaking in a public forum doesn't make one a public figure, and even if it did, Breitbart's deliberate presentation of a tape he knew was deceiving indicates malice. He libeled her. You're speculating brother. I'd be going after the moronic assholes that pressured her into resigning before hearing the facts. -- Me |
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Would $10 million do it?
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:28:02 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:27:41 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... 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. Gosh darnit you beat me to another one. Let's dance in the streets in celebration and hope that others will pile on this piece of **** Breitbart. 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. As usual, you speak from your ass. She's not a public figure. It doesn't matter, she was speaking in a public forum. 15 years ago while working for a private charity concern. Breitbart did a hit piece and will have a log shoved up his ass as a result. Time for his comeuppance. |
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Would $10 million do it?
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 |
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Would $10 million do it?
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. |
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Would $10 million do it?
"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." |
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Would $10 million do it?
"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 |
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Would $10 million do it?
"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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
8 MIllion dollars... | General | |||
8 MIllion dollars... | General | |||
:How many idiots are there? At least 2 million | General | |||
One million questions | General |