"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
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.




--
Me - stupid

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

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.

Personally, I don't give a **** if she found someone to say "she helped
us out in the end"... They seem to find folks to support their lies,
like planting signs in the tea party movement and lying about racial
insults on the steps of the congress...

She is and was a racist, one way or another. Even if she claims to have
"changed". If she was a republican and even knew of a racist, she would
be sent home on a rail, but because she is a dem, she get's another free
pass... just like the cowardly soldier boy, butt **** wanna' bee's that
stood on the steps of the voting booths with clubs and high school
musical, Michael Jackson wardrobe rejects... **** her, she is a racist,
send her packing...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

You're a moron. Her father was murdered at the hands of racists. You're a
racist. You murdered her father.

"BAR" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...
Sherrod resigned. She wasn't fired or otherwise forced out. If she has a
suite it is with OMB.

If the press was sued for printing half the story they would not exist
any more regardless of whether you classify them as main stream media or
another type of media.

She was pressured into resigning as a result of a false smear
perpetrated by Breitbart.

She was pressured into resiging by a knee-jerk reaction by Obama and
Vislack, both of whom are Democrats.

Her only quarrel seems to be with the asshole who smeared her
unfairly.

Her quarrel seems to be with herself and how she is a racist.

That's the beauty of a free society. You get to choose who you sue
and for what reasons. If this scum bag hadn't have purposefully
targeted her with concocted accusations, her life and employ would
have continued undisturbed.

You mean if she had kept her mouth shut and not outed herself as a
racist.

Breitbart has it coming. Perhaps it'll be a lesson to he and others
who think they can smear people with impunity.

Sherrod is the cause of all of her problems. The fact that the cleansing
light of sunshine and transparency has cleaned another racist out of
government is a plus in my book.

You're a racist moron. That pretty much sums it up.

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

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

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.

Personally, I don't give a **** if she found someone to say "she helped
us out in the end"... They seem to find folks to support their lies,
like planting signs in the tea party movement and lying about racial
insults on the steps of the congress...

She is and was a racist, one way or another. Even if she claims to have
"changed". If she was a republican and even knew of a racist, she would
be sent home on a rail, but because she is a dem, she get's another free
pass... just like the cowardly soldier boy, butt **** wanna' bee's that
stood on the steps of the voting booths with clubs and high school
musical, Michael Jackson wardrobe rejects... **** her, she is a racist,
send her packing...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

You're a moron. Her father was murdered at the hands of racists. You're a
racist. You murdered her father.

On Jul 30, 5:02*am, "Harry ?" wrote:
wrote in message

...

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.

--
Me

Well, let's look at the requirements for a libel conviction:

1. You have to know it's false.

He obviously had to have the full tape in order to edit it, so that's
a given.

2. It has to be done with intent to injure.

Yeah, that's pretty much a given to.

Looks to me like Breitbart's ass is grass.

On 7/30/10 3:20 PM, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
On Jul 30, 5:02 am, "Harry wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

--
Me

Well, let's look at the requirements for a libel conviction:

1. You have to know it's false.

He obviously had to have the full tape in order to edit it, so that's
a given.

2. It has to be done with intent to injure.

Yeah, that's pretty much a given to.

Looks to me like Breitbart's ass is grass.


The operative word is...malice. Breitbart knew what he was doing, knew
his version of the tape was grossly misleading, and knew it would harm
the woman's reputation.

On 7/30/10 4:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:53:06 -0400, Harry
wrote:

On 7/30/10 11:25 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:49:04 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, 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.
Since she was a political appointee and not US Civil Service it would
be easy to say she was a public figure.
This will be an issue before the court. It will really come down to
where she brings the suit and who is on the jury. If she is in DC she
will likely win and since that is where Breitbart works, he has no
reason to get a change of venue.
The only way he can win is if he can successfully bring the freedom of
the press argument up in appeal or of the judge dismisses it in
motions but that is a very good possibility. The courts seem to come
down on the side of journalists most of the time even if the
journalist has an agenda.

Again, the only winners will be the lawyers.



Uh...I doubt Ms. Sherrod would be considered a "public figure" prior to
Breitbart's attack for her purposes of pursuing a defamation lawsuit.
And even if she were a public figure, Breitbart acted with malice. That
negates any claim Breitbart might make that Ms. Sherrod was a public
figure.

Jurors in any fair-minded city where people of color are fairly
represented will decide in her favor, I think.

Let's not forget that Breitbart has a rep for being involved in
defamatory news reports. The videos he funded against Acorn were found
to be "highly edited" to make them inflammatory.

My guess is that Breitbart will want to settle this out of court. I hope
Ms. Sherrod tells him to go **** himself. We have some lawyers in the DC
area who will turn Breitbart inside out. I hope he has significant
assets to lose.

The strange thing is, it will be the media that ends up supporting
Breitbart. They don't want the precedent that an edited tape is
slander no matter what the motive is.
TV news is all edited tape. They will take a 40 minute speech and
cherry pick out one line that makes the speaker look stupid, simply as
what they do.


There you go with that moral equivalency again. Breitbart's edited tape
made a woman who was talking about the need for reconciliation into a
racist.

On 7/30/10 4:36 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:55:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The only way he can win is if he can successfully bring the freedom of
the press argument up in appeal or of the judge dismisses it in
motions but that is a very good possibility. The courts seem to come
down on the side of journalists most of the time even if the
journalist has an agenda.

He's not a journalist. You said he would claim to be an entertainer. Which
is it.

I believe he works for the Washington Times (newspaper)
He also has a blog.

Again, the only winners will be the lawyers.

Lawyers always win. lol


They collect 100% from the defendant and 30-50% from the plaintiff.
That is more than just winning. You can see why torts are so near and
dear to the legal profession.
Even when they lose, they get to deduct all of their expenses from
their taxes.


Gee...will BP deduct the cost of the cleanup from the taxes it doesn't pay?

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:53:06 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

On 7/30/10 11:25 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:49:04 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, 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.
Since she was a political appointee and not US Civil Service it would
be easy to say she was a public figure.
This will be an issue before the court. It will really come down to
where she brings the suit and who is on the jury. If she is in DC she
will likely win and since that is where Breitbart works, he has no
reason to get a change of venue.
The only way he can win is if he can successfully bring the freedom of
the press argument up in appeal or of the judge dismisses it in
motions but that is a very good possibility. The courts seem to come
down on the side of journalists most of the time even if the
journalist has an agenda.

Again, the only winners will be the lawyers.



Uh...I doubt Ms. Sherrod would be considered a "public figure" prior to
Breitbart's attack for her purposes of pursuing a defamation lawsuit.
And even if she were a public figure, Breitbart acted with malice. That
negates any claim Breitbart might make that Ms. Sherrod was a public
figure.

Jurors in any fair-minded city where people of color are fairly
represented will decide in her favor, I think.

Let's not forget that Breitbart has a rep for being involved in
defamatory news reports. The videos he funded against Acorn were found
to be "highly edited" to make them inflammatory.

My guess is that Breitbart will want to settle this out of court. I hope
Ms. Sherrod tells him to go **** himself. We have some lawyers in the DC
area who will turn Breitbart inside out. I hope he has significant
assets to lose.

The strange thing is, it will be the media that ends up supporting
Breitbart. They don't want the precedent that an edited tape is
slander no matter what the motive is.
TV news is all edited tape. They will take a 40 minute speech and
cherry pick out one line that makes the speaker look stupid, simply as
what they do.

I doubt it. This isn't anything like the media's defense of Larry Flint.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:55:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The only way he can win is if he can successfully bring the freedom of
the press argument up in appeal or of the judge dismisses it in
motions but that is a very good possibility. The courts seem to come
down on the side of journalists most of the time even if the
journalist has an agenda.

He's not a journalist. You said he would claim to be an entertainer. Which
is it.

I believe he works for the Washington Times (newspaper)
He also has a blog.

Again, the only winners will be the lawyers.

Lawyers always win. lol


They collect 100% from the defendant and 30-50% from the plaintiff.
That is more than just winning. You can see why torts are so near and
dear to the legal profession.
Even when they lose, they get to deduct all of their expenses from
their taxes.

Then, he can't claim he's an entertainer.

Huh? Lawyers don't collect 100% from anyone. That's nonsense.

Well, expenses are expenses. Not sure what that has to do with anything. If
a plumber tries and fails to fix a busted toilet, should he be prevented
from deducting the cost of the parts?