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.

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.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:35:03 -0400, BAR wrote:

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.

Bull****.

In article ,
says...
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.

Bull****.

Care to make a wager?

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.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:49:04 -0700, jps wrote:

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.
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.

Why would she necessarily win in DC?

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.

Again, the only winners will be the lawyers.

Lawyers always win. lol

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?

"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.

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?

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:47:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


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.

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be reimbursed? The
plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated %. Sorry if you don't
like it.



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?

The plumber doesn't get to break the toilet in the first place.

?? If the plumber breaks the toilet, and he has to replace it, that is a
business expense.