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.

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.

"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

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.

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

"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.