In article ,
says...

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

Bingo, we have a winner. Someone who understands what happened in this
case and what happens with the press all of the time.

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


You're deluded. Everyone involved has acknowledged she was forced to
resign.




Why? Something is fishy about this whole story.

Ms. Sherrod has demonstrated that she is an intelligent woman with years of
public service experience. Seems to me that the first logical question she
(or anyone) would ask when request to resign a job would be, "Why?" How
many people would immediately resign with no reason given for the request?
If the reason was given, why didn't she challenge the accuracy of the edited
video - without submitting her resignation.

Doesn't make sense.

CC

"Charles C." wrote in message
...


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


You're deluded. Everyone involved has acknowledged she was forced to
resign.




Why? Something is fishy about this whole story.

Ms. Sherrod has demonstrated that she is an intelligent woman with years
of public service experience. Seems to me that the first logical question
she (or anyone) would ask when request to resign a job would be, "Why?"
How many people would immediately resign with no reason given for the
request? If the reason was given, why didn't she challenge the accuracy of
the edited video - without submitting her resignation.

Doesn't make sense.

CC

Sure it does. She was technically appointed to the position, so she can be
technically fired. She was asked to resign, which is pretty standard
practice. There was a lot of pressure to do so. They called her and asked
her to do it immediately over the phone. Same with McCrystal. He was forced
to resign. Sure, he could have said no, but that wasn't protocol.

You also have to remember that she probably didn't know what exactly was on
the edited vid.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:34:22 -0400, BAR wrote:

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.

You are a stupid idiot, which is not a fresh pronouncement.

She was found to be anything but racist but you're too much of an ass
to listen to the whole story since it doesn't support your simple
conclusion.

All these years of wisely ignoring you and I wasted my time reading
your predictable drivel.

My bad.

Any organization that promotes one race over another race is a racist
organization. If it is fair to have an NAACP then it is fair to have an
NAAAP, NAAEP, .... What is the criteria for creating a race based
organization?

The members of the Congressional Black Caucus are racist. Membership in
that organization has nothing to do with the constituency of the member
but the race of the member himself. Are we not a representative
republic?

What will be the excuse of the people in the world when poverty still
exists once the people of the world have truly jumped into the melting
pot. Will the distinctions be the varying shades of browness?

In article ,
says...

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


You're deluded. Everyone involved has acknowledged she was forced to
resign.




Why? Something is fishy about this whole story.

Ms. Sherrod has demonstrated that she is an intelligent woman with years of
public service experience. Seems to me that the first logical question she
(or anyone) would ask when request to resign a job would be, "Why?" How
many people would immediately resign with no reason given for the request?
If the reason was given, why didn't she challenge the accuracy of the edited
video - without submitting her resignation.

Doesn't make sense.

CC

Well, it makes sense if the whole story of the calls to the cell phone
were accurate, and I have serious doubts. Still more falling on a sword
for this idiot president...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

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

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


You're deluded. Everyone involved has acknowledged she was forced to
resign.




Why? Something is fishy about this whole story.

Ms. Sherrod has demonstrated that she is an intelligent woman with years
of
public service experience. Seems to me that the first logical question
she
(or anyone) would ask when request to resign a job would be, "Why?"
How
many people would immediately resign with no reason given for the
request?
If the reason was given, why didn't she challenge the accuracy of the
edited
video - without submitting her resignation.

Doesn't make sense.

CC

Well, it makes sense if the whole story of the calls to the cell phone
were accurate, and I have serious doubts. Still more falling on a sword
for this idiot president...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

Still an idiot I see...

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

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:34:22 -0400, BAR wrote:

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.

You are a stupid idiot, which is not a fresh pronouncement.

She was found to be anything but racist but you're too much of an ass
to listen to the whole story since it doesn't support your simple
conclusion.

All these years of wisely ignoring you and I wasted my time reading
your predictable drivel.

My bad.

Any organization that promotes one race over another race is a racist
organization. If it is fair to have an NAACP then it is fair to have an
NAAAP, NAAEP, .... What is the criteria for creating a race based
organization?

The members of the Congressional Black Caucus are racist. Membership in
that organization has nothing to do with the constituency of the member
but the race of the member himself. Are we not a representative
republic?

What will be the excuse of the people in the world when poverty still
exists once the people of the world have truly jumped into the melting
pot. Will the distinctions be the varying shades of browness?

I guess your father was never lynched by an angry mob. MORON

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

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

Business expense. Same as your Walmart printer and chair.

jps wrote in
:

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

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.

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.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer. Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable. Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets off.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:32:49 -0400, 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's a difference between editing for brevity and editing for
effect. There's a further difference between reasonable
representation and outright malice.

Anyone viewing the end product couldn't help but find Breitbart guilty
of willful misrepresentation to harm Ms. Sherrod's reputation.