| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
"nom=de=plume" wrote in
: wrote in message ... jps wrote in : On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote: jps wrote in m: 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. Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes directly from the comforts of a barcalounger. He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully edited tape and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew full well there was more to the story. It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls, it's the whole package of mischaracterization and libel. I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the fact that I am a real live lawyer with a degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years ago. You should be able to tell I'm a lawyer from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he intended to libel her or not simply doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first place. Bar exam question: What are the elements of libel? Answer: 1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another; 2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; 3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and 4.Damage to the plaintiff. If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else matters. So, tell me, where is the "false statement?" "Look what I found... proof that Sherrod is a racist. Here... distribute this." Try going to law school instead of copying and pasting, and pretending you know what you're talking about. You feel into my trap. The comment about being a racist is clearly his opinion and opinion is not considered a statement of fact, especially when the person expressing the opinion has no special knowledge of the facts. No different than libs saying "Bush is a murderer" Not to mention the fact that even with the full video now public, there are plenty of people out there who think Sherrod is a racist. You just can't get over the fact the being a conservative a-hole is not against the law. "Slanting the news...It's not just for liberals anymore!" |
|
#83
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 07:25:00 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in : wrote in message ... jps wrote in : On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote: jps wrote in om: 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. Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes directly from the comforts of a barcalounger. He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully edited tape and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew full well there was more to the story. It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls, it's the whole package of mischaracterization and libel. I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the fact that I am a real live lawyer with a degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years ago. You should be able to tell I'm a lawyer from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he intended to libel her or not simply doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first place. Bar exam question: What are the elements of libel? Answer: 1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another; 2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; 3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and 4.Damage to the plaintiff. If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else matters. So, tell me, where is the "false statement?" "Look what I found... proof that Sherrod is a racist. Here... distribute this." Try going to law school instead of copying and pasting, and pretending you know what you're talking about. You feel into my trap. The comment about being a racist is clearly his opinion and opinion is not considered a statement of fact, especially when the person expressing the opinion has no special knowledge of the facts. No different than libs saying "Bush is a murderer" Not to mention the fact that even with the full video now public, there are plenty of people out there who think Sherrod is a racist. You just can't get over the fact the being a conservative a-hole is not against the law. "Slanting the news...It's not just for liberals anymore!" So you political ax is sharpened by the likes of Breitbart. Thanks for exposing yourself. |
|
#84
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... jps wrote in : On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote: jps wrote in m: 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. Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes directly from the comforts of a barcalounger. He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully edited tape and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew full well there was more to the story. It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls, it's the whole package of mischaracterization and libel. I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the fact that I am a real live lawyer with a degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years ago. You should be able to tell I'm a lawyer from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he intended to libel her or not simply doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first place. Bar exam question: What are the elements of libel? Answer: 1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another; 2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; 3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and 4.Damage to the plaintiff. If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else matters. So, tell me, where is the "false statement?" "Look what I found... proof that Sherrod is a racist. Here... distribute this." Try going to law school instead of copying and pasting, and pretending you know what you're talking about. Delicious! One faux lawyer arguing law with another faux lawyer. Pass the popcorn please. |
|
#85
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
"jps" wrote in message
... On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 07:25:00 +0000 (UTC), wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in : wrote in message ... jps wrote in : On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote: jps wrote in news:fs0556hdbf63vpsh4hefqnbudfbbr43v2j@4ax. com: 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. Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes directly from the comforts of a barcalounger. He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully edited tape and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew full well there was more to the story. It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls, it's the whole package of mischaracterization and libel. I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the fact that I am a real live lawyer with a degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years ago. You should be able to tell I'm a lawyer from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he intended to libel her or not simply doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first place. Bar exam question: What are the elements of libel? Answer: 1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another; 2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; 3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and 4.Damage to the plaintiff. If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else matters. So, tell me, where is the "false statement?" "Look what I found... proof that Sherrod is a racist. Here... distribute this." Try going to law school instead of copying and pasting, and pretending you know what you're talking about. You feel into my trap. The comment about being a racist is clearly his opinion and opinion is not considered a statement of fact, especially when the person expressing the opinion has no special knowledge of the facts. No different than libs saying "Bush is a murderer" Not to mention the fact that even with the full video now public, there are plenty of people out there who think Sherrod is a racist. You just can't get over the fact the being a conservative a-hole is not against the law. "Slanting the news...It's not just for liberals anymore!" So you political ax is sharpened by the likes of Breitbart. Thanks for exposing yourself. Now we have 3 pseudo lawyers beating on each other. More popcorn please. |
|
#86
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in : wrote in message ... jps wrote in : On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote: jps wrote in om: 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. Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes directly from the comforts of a barcalounger. He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully edited tape and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew full well there was more to the story. It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls, it's the whole package of mischaracterization and libel. I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the fact that I am a real live lawyer with a degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years ago. You should be able to tell I'm a lawyer from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he intended to libel her or not simply doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first place. Bar exam question: What are the elements of libel? Answer: 1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another; 2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; 3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and 4.Damage to the plaintiff. If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else matters. So, tell me, where is the "false statement?" "Look what I found... proof that Sherrod is a racist. Here... distribute this." Try going to law school instead of copying and pasting, and pretending you know what you're talking about. You feel into my trap. The comment about being a racist is clearly his opinion and opinion is not considered a statement of fact, especially when the person expressing the opinion has no special knowledge of the facts. No different than libs saying "Bush is a murderer" Not to mention the fact that even with the full video now public, there are plenty of people out there who think Sherrod is a racist. You just can't get over the fact the being a conservative a-hole is not against the law. "Slanting the news...It's not just for liberals anymore!" Big difference. Bush is a public figure. She wasn't. Thinking someone is a racist is hugely different that "proving it" with made up or hashed together stuff. Here's an example. Breithart said all these words, but obviously to promote this as the truth would likely be actionable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHN_I...ayer_embedded#! |
|
#87
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
"Harry" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... jps wrote in : On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote: jps wrote in om: 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. Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes directly from the comforts of a barcalounger. He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully edited tape and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew full well there was more to the story. It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls, it's the whole package of mischaracterization and libel. I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the fact that I am a real live lawyer with a degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years ago. You should be able to tell I'm a lawyer from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he intended to libel her or not simply doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first place. Bar exam question: What are the elements of libel? Answer: 1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another; 2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; 3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and 4.Damage to the plaintiff. If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else matters. So, tell me, where is the "false statement?" "Look what I found... proof that Sherrod is a racist. Here... distribute this." Try going to law school instead of copying and pasting, and pretending you know what you're talking about. Delicious! One faux lawyer arguing law with another faux lawyer. Pass the popcorn please. In your case, a moron of one! |
|
#88
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
"jps" wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:34:05 +0000 (UTC), wrote: jps wrote in m: On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote: jps wrote in m: 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. Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes directly from the comforts of a barcalounger. He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully edited tape and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew full well there was more to the story. It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls, it's the whole package of mischaracterization and libel. I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the fact that I am a real live lawyer with a degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years ago. You should be able to tell I'm a lawyer from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he intended to libel her or not simply doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first place. Bar exam question: What are the elements of libel? Answer: 1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another; 2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; 3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and 4.Damage to the plaintiff. If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else matters. So, tell me, where is the "false statement?" Please tell us what type of law you've practiced for the past 30 years? Real estate? I can answer that: zero type of law. |
|
#89
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... "Harry" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... jps wrote in : On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote: jps wrote in news:fs0556hdbf63vpsh4hefqnbudfbbr43v2j@4ax. com: 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. Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes directly from the comforts of a barcalounger. He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully edited tape and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew full well there was more to the story. It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls, it's the whole package of mischaracterization and libel. I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the fact that I am a real live lawyer with a degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years ago. You should be able to tell I'm a lawyer from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he intended to libel her or not simply doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first place. Bar exam question: What are the elements of libel? Answer: 1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another; 2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; 3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and 4.Damage to the plaintiff. If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else matters. So, tell me, where is the "false statement?" "Look what I found... proof that Sherrod is a racist. Here... distribute this." Try going to law school instead of copying and pasting, and pretending you know what you're talking about. Delicious! One faux lawyer arguing law with another faux lawyer. Pass the popcorn please. In your case, a moron of one! Hey. You won't catch me pretending to be a lawyer. I have standards to live up to. |
|
#90
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
"Harry" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... jps wrote in : On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote: jps wrote in news:fs0556hdbf63vpsh4hefqnbudfbbr43v2j@4ax .com: 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. Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes directly from the comforts of a barcalounger. He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully edited tape and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew full well there was more to the story. It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls, it's the whole package of mischaracterization and libel. I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the fact that I am a real live lawyer with a degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years ago. You should be able to tell I'm a lawyer from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he intended to libel her or not simply doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first place. Bar exam question: What are the elements of libel? Answer: 1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another; 2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; 3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and 4.Damage to the plaintiff. If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else matters. So, tell me, where is the "false statement?" "Look what I found... proof that Sherrod is a racist. Here... distribute this." Try going to law school instead of copying and pasting, and pretending you know what you're talking about. Delicious! One faux lawyer arguing law with another faux lawyer. Pass the popcorn please. In your case, a moron of one! Hey. You won't catch me pretending to be a lawyer. I have standards to live up to. Being a moron is a pretty low standard. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Harvey S. Mars should be sued by Karin Kaufman's eventual guardian (OT) | Electronics | |||
Linear Mode
