|
Would $10 million do it?
(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. |
Would $10 million do it?
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. |
Would $10 million do it?
|
Would $10 million do it?
wrote in message ... 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. The open question would be whether she was a public figure. If so the press has great latitude. I bet he wins, only because of the screwed up legal system. She's not really a public figure, at least in my estimation. She was a fairly low-level bureaucrat, and she was deliberately targeted and lied about. |
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. |
Would $10 million do it?
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 02:25:35 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:16:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... 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. What exactly was "news worthy" about a highly edited event that deliberated mis-stated what she was discussing? Sounds like a pretty good case to me. It really gets back to whether she is a public figure. If showing a highly edited video that makes someone look like a moron, Bush and Clinton both have hundreds of cases. Jon Stewart would be doing hard time. They are not private citizens. She's not a public figure. Your stand is disingenuous so why take it? Breitbart has his comeuppance sitting on the horizon. Be glad. |
Would $10 million do it?
|
Would $10 million do it?
|
Would $10 million do it?
|
Would $10 million do it?
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. |
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 |
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry ?" wrote in message
m... On 7/29/10 10:42 PM, wrote: 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. The open question would be whether she was a public figure. If so the press has great latitude. I bet he wins, only because of the screwed up legal system. She wasn't a public figure and he libeled her, with malice. Yawn. What about going after all the dumb knee jerkers, beginning with your boy. -- Me |
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. |
Would $10 million do it?
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:40:50 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:03:52 -0700, jps wrote: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 02:27:29 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:18:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... 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. The open question would be whether she was a public figure. If so the press has great latitude. I bet he wins, only because of the screwed up legal system. She's not really a public figure, at least in my estimation. She was a fairly low-level bureaucrat, and she was deliberately targeted and lied about. She was making a speech in front of a national organization and it was published. All BB did was edit it. He will take the standard tack, "I am an entertainment show". The footage was not taken from a period in which she held the job she holds now, which is still not as a public figure making public policy. At the time of the speech, she was working on a private effort to help those losing their farms retain proper counsel. Breitbart will have his hands full. The question will be when did the libel and slander occur. I bet he ends up making more money in this perverse world we live in. Among the people who support him, he can't buy this kind of publicity. In the end it would have been better to ignore him. I have to say I had never heard of him before this. I bet that is true of most folks out here in flyover land. He was the one behind the Acord hit piece. Got the government to flip to his whistle then too. He'll only be funded by the type of assholes that funded the swiftboat escapades. Breathren scum. |
Would $10 million do it?
wrote in message ... On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:16:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... 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. What exactly was "news worthy" about a highly edited event that deliberated mis-stated what she was discussing? Sounds like a pretty good case to me. It really gets back to whether she is a public figure. If showing a highly edited video that makes someone look like a moron, Bush and Clinton both have hundreds of cases. Jon Stewart would be doing hard time. Again with this equivalency thing? She's not comparable to former presidents. She was a low-level EPA employee. Claiming anything else is just a right-wing fantasy defense. |
Would $10 million do it?
wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:00:34 -0700, jps wrote: It really gets back to whether she is a public figure. If showing a highly edited video that makes someone look like a moron, Bush and Clinton both have hundreds of cases. Jon Stewart would be doing hard time. They are not private citizens. She's not a public figure. Your stand is disingenuous so why take it? Breitbart has his comeuppance sitting on the horizon. Be glad. I wouldn't mind seeing this weasel get smacked down but I am just not sure it is going to happen. Sherrod was not an "employee" she was a political appointee. That puts her right up there with Karl Rove and Rahm Emmanual. This will be tried in DC and they are supposed to know the difference between Civil Service and patronage positions. If creative editing was a crime all of the news outlets would go to jail. So, you're claiming she wasn't fired? Again equating Rove and Sherrod is a false equivalency. Who heard about her before Breitbart when after her? Nobody. |
Would $10 million do it?
wrote in message ... On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:18:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. 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. The open question would be whether she was a public figure. If so the press has great latitude. I bet he wins, only because of the screwed up legal system. She's not really a public figure, at least in my estimation. She was a fairly low-level bureaucrat, and she was deliberately targeted and lied about. She was making a speech in front of a national organization and it was published. All BB did was edit it. He will take the standard tack, "I am an entertainment show". I love it... "all he did was edit it." No, actually, he didn't edit it. He just accepted it already edited, knew it was bs, and published it anyway. |
Would $10 million do it?
wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:53:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:18:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... 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. The open question would be whether she was a public figure. If so the press has great latitude. I bet he wins, only because of the screwed up legal system. She's not really a public figure, at least in my estimation. She was a fairly low-level bureaucrat, and she was deliberately targeted and lied about. She was making a speech in front of a national organization and it was published. All BB did was edit it. He will take the standard tack, "I am an entertainment show". I love it... "all he did was edit it." No, actually, he didn't edit it. He just accepted it already edited, knew it was bs, and published it anyway. Michael Moore made a career of selectively editing tape. I say again, it will be the media that steps up to defend Breitbart. As for Breitbart himself, you can't buy this kind of publicity. In his target audience, his marketability has shot up. The more we talk about it the better it goes for him. I bet the hits on his blog are up 400% and somebody might actually buy a Washington Times. Right, except he didn't defame someone calling them a racist when the opposite was the case. So, the equivalency is false. |
Would $10 million do it?
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 |
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 |
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. |
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." |
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 |
Would $10 million do it?
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. |
Would $10 million do it?
"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 |
Would $10 million do it?
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. |
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. |
Would $10 million do it?
"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. |
Would $10 million do it?
|
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry " wrote in message m... 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. She had no national reputation before this. Now she has a very good one. |
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry ?" wrote in message
m... 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. There's a juicy back story to this. THE FIRING WITHOUT JUST CAUSE -- Me |
Would $10 million do it?
"Charles C." wrote in message ... "Harry " wrote in message m... 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. She had no national reputation before this. Now she has a very good one. Only for those who actually listen to real news. Anyone listening to Rush/Faux, etc. would think otherwise. |
Would $10 million do it?
wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:40:51 -0400, BAR wrote: 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. 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. Instead of being stuck in some mundane department director job until Obama leaves office (it was a patronage job after all) , she will now end up with a much better job, speaking fees and she will probably write a book. I imagine Beyonce Knowles will play her in the Movie. That is one middle class person who will get a raise Bob. And who says the Obama administration isn't creating jobs? Steve ;-) visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com |
Would $10 million do it?
In article ,
says... wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:40:51 -0400, BAR wrote: 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. 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. Instead of being stuck in some mundane department director job until Obama leaves office (it was a patronage job after all) , she will now end up with a much better job, speaking fees and she will probably write a book. I imagine Beyonce Knowles will play her in the Movie. That is one middle class person who will get a raise Bob. And who says the Obama administration isn't creating jobs? Saving and creating jobs. |
Would $10 million do it?
"BAR" wrote in message .. . In article , says... wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:40:51 -0400, BAR wrote: 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. 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. Instead of being stuck in some mundane department director job until Obama leaves office (it was a patronage job after all) , she will now end up with a much better job, speaking fees and she will probably write a book. I imagine Beyonce Knowles will play her in the Movie. That is one middle class person who will get a raise Bob. And who says the Obama administration isn't creating jobs? Saving and creating jobs. Who was at the switch when they decided all those batteries for the new electric cars were to be built in South Korea? It would be funny if it weren't so sick. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com |
Would $10 million do it?
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... "Charles C." wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message m... 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. She had no national reputation before this. Now she has a very good one. Only for those who actually listen to real news. Anyone listening to Rush/Faux, etc. would think otherwise. Why was she fired? -- Me |
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Charles C." wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message m... 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. She had no national reputation before this. Now she has a very good one. Only for those who actually listen to real news. Anyone listening to Rush/Faux, etc. would think otherwise. Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is still after her. |
Would $10 million do it?
"Steve B" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote in message .. . In article , says... wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:40:51 -0400, BAR wrote: 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. 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. Instead of being stuck in some mundane department director job until Obama leaves office (it was a patronage job after all) , she will now end up with a much better job, speaking fees and she will probably write a book. I imagine Beyonce Knowles will play her in the Movie. That is one middle class person who will get a raise Bob. And who says the Obama administration isn't creating jobs? Saving and creating jobs. Who was at the switch when they decided all those batteries for the new electric cars were to be built in South Korea? It would be funny if it weren't so sick. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com Holland Michigan is in S. Korea? "The forecast was released as President Barack Obama attended a groundbreaking ceremony for a battery plant being built in Holland, Michigan by a U.S. unit of South Korea's LG Chem(051910.KS) and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy." |
Would $10 million do it?
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... "Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Charles C." wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message m... 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. She had no national reputation before this. Now she has a very good one. Only for those who actually listen to real news. Anyone listening to Rush/Faux, etc. would think otherwise. Why was she fired? -- Me Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times. Let's not forget that this is the real issue here. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com