|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
What a welcome piece of news... Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted a video edited in a way that made her appear racist. Sherrod was forced to resign last week as director of rural development in Georgia after Andrew Breitbart posted the edited video online. In the full video, Sherrod, who is black, spoke to a local NAACP group about racial reconciliation and overcoming her initial reluctance to help a white farmer. Speaking Thursday at the National Association of Black Journalists convention, Sherrod said she would definitely sue over the video that took her remarks out of context. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has since offered Sherrod a new job in the department. She has not decided whether to accept. Sherrod said she had not received an apology from Breitbart and no longer wanted one. "He had to know that he was targeting me," she said. The legal pole up Breitbart's ass will cause him discomfort. It's about time someone did to him what he's been doing to others. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
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. i dont think 1st amendment will enter into it. libel requires intent. breitbart's an idiot, but it probably wasnt his INTENT to libel her. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
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. Doubtful. This was likely a willful act designed to "ruin" her. That's not protected by the First. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... 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. i dont think 1st amendment will enter into it. libel requires intent. breitbart's an idiot, but it probably wasnt his INTENT to libel her. Ummm... he's stated as much. Think foot-mouth. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
"BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , says... What a welcome piece of news... [ SNIP ] The legal pole up Breitbart's ass will cause him discomfort. It's about time someone did to him what he's been doing to others. 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. You're deluded. Everyone involved has acknowledged she was forced to resign. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:22:10 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... What a welcome piece of news... [ SNIP ] The legal pole up Breitbart's ass will cause him discomfort. It's about time someone did to him what he's been doing to others. 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. Her only quarrel seems to be with the asshole who smeared her unfairly. 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. Breitbart has it coming. Perhaps it'll be a lesson to he and others who think they can smear people with impunity. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:20:02 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . 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. i dont think 1st amendment will enter into it. libel requires intent. breitbart's an idiot, but it probably wasnt his INTENT to libel her. Ummm... he's stated as much. Think foot-mouth. gee. it would be an early birthday present to me to see him get bitchslapped in court. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
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 |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
In article ,
says... On 7/30/10 10:48 AM, I am Tosk wrote: In , says... 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. 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... If you are not on meds for your obvious emotional disorders, you ought to be. Are you sure you don't want a referral to a mental health professional who can help you re-attach to reality? Spoofer alert! My young southern belle wife is a Dr. Dr. Dr. That's right, three doctorate degrees as chronicled right here on rec.boats. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
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. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:51:11 -0400, Harry ?
wrote: On 7/30/10 10:48 AM, I am Tosk wrote: In , says... 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. 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... If you are not on meds for your obvious emotional disorders, you ought to be. Are you sure you don't want a referral to a mental health professional who can help you re-attach to reality? He stopped listening when they discovered her story was about reconciliation. Precious minutes of life wasted even addressing his stupidity. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
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. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
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 |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
"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 |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
"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. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
"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. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
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. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
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. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
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. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
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. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
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? |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
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. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
"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 |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
"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. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
|
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
"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. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
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. |
Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com