On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 19:45:20 -0500, Harryk
wrote:

On 2/13/11 7:16 PM, BAR wrote:
In article4ZydnSScr7Eg7cXQnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 2/13/11 6:33 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

In om,
says...

In ,
says...


If they stick to their original story, as I heard it, Breitbart will
be convicted of yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.... and his
right of free speech defense won't hold water....

All you need is someone with a conscious and the rest of them are up on
a threat of a perjury charge. How many of your co-workers are you
willing to become a convicted felon for.


Looks like Krause wss right about you all along.
Wasn't sure until now.

I made no statement for or against anyone. I seek only fairness from all
and fairness for all.


Bull****, with a capital B.

Please provide the quote where I pushed Brietbart?s side or Sherrod?s
side.

I mad a statement about how too many witnesses can cause problems with
trying to keep a story straight.




The original unedited video is available, and the "slightly edited to
change the meaning" edited video of Breitbart is available. If a jury
sees the tapes, it will see what Ms. Sherrod said and what Breitbart, et
al, changed the tape to make it appear she was making a racist remark.

I would guess Breitbart will offer a settlement. I hope the woman
doesn't take it.

She refused to go back to her old job after Obama's folks screwed up
with their knee jerk reaction. Seems she's a person of substance and
conviction.

I'm guessing she won't unless it's a settlement that's targeted at the
kind of smear tactics Breitbart employs.

On 2/13/11 9:34 PM, jps wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:20:49 -0500,
wrote:

On 2/13/11 6:18 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 15:56:29 -0500, wrote:

In articleTOCdnflXi67X3sXQnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

Lawsuit Over Video

Andrew Breitbart, the owner of several conservative Web sites, was
served at the (CPAC)conference on Saturday with a lawsuit filed by
Shirley Sherrod, the former Agriculture Department employee who lost her
job last year over a video that Mr. Brietbart posted at his site
biggovernment.com.

The video was selectively edited so that it appeared Ms. Sherrod was
confessing she had discriminated against a farmer because he was white.
In the suit, which was filed in Washington on Friday, Ms. Sherrod says
the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing
her work.

Mr. Breitbart said in a statement that he ?categorically rejects the
transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech.?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us...cpac.html?_r=1

Just wait until discovery. It will be very interesting When Ms.
Sherrod?s co-workers, business associates, friends and acquaintances are
all called in to be deposed.

From what I heard immediately after the Breitbart "exposé,"
"co-workers, business associates, friends and acquaintances" were on
her side.

If they stick to their original story, as I heard it, Breitbart will
be convicted of yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.... and his
right of free speech defense won't hold water....

All you need is someone with a conscious and the rest of them are up on
a threat of a perjury charge. How many of your co-workers are you
willing to become a convicted felon for.


Oh, please. Breitbart is a scumbag. It's telling that you are sticking
up for him.

Bertie seems to be slipping ever further toward the edge of sanity.


That seems to be the fate of most of the right-wingers. It's Glenn
Beck-itis.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:33:56 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article , payer3389
says...

On 2/13/11 6:18 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 15:56:29 -0500, wrote:

In articleTOCdnflXi67X3sXQnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

Lawsuit Over Video

Andrew Breitbart, the owner of several conservative Web sites, was
served at the (CPAC)conference on Saturday with a lawsuit filed by
Shirley Sherrod, the former Agriculture Department employee who lost her
job last year over a video that Mr. Brietbart posted at his site
biggovernment.com.

The video was selectively edited so that it appeared Ms. Sherrod was
confessing she had discriminated against a farmer because he was white.
In the suit, which was filed in Washington on Friday, Ms. Sherrod says
the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing
her work.

Mr. Breitbart said in a statement that he ?categorically rejects the
transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech.?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us...cpac.html?_r=1

Just wait until discovery. It will be very interesting When Ms.
Sherrod?s co-workers, business associates, friends and acquaintances are
all called in to be deposed.

From what I heard immediately after the Breitbart "exposé,"
"co-workers, business associates, friends and acquaintances" were on
her side.

If they stick to their original story, as I heard it, Breitbart will
be convicted of yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.... and his
right of free speech defense won't hold water....

All you need is someone with a conscious and the rest of them are up on
a threat of a perjury charge. How many of your co-workers are you
willing to become a convicted felon for.


Oh, please. Breitbart is a scumbag. It's telling that you are sticking
up for him.

You don?t have to like him and I am not trying to make you like him.
But, racism is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural issue.

Sure is. And, who pray tell is mostly on the receiving end of racism
in this country? Whites or people of color?

O

..

You don?t have to like him and I am not trying to make you like him.
But, racism is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural issue.
Sure is. And, who pray tell is mostly on the receiving end of racism
in this country? Whites or people of color?
Yes, them.

In article ,
says...

From what I heard immediately after the Breitbart "exposé,"
"co-workers, business associates, friends and acquaintances" were on
her side.

If they stick to their original story, as I heard it, Breitbart will
be convicted of yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.... and his
right of free speech defense won't hold water....

All you need is someone with a conscious and the rest of them are up on
a threat of a perjury charge. How many of your co-workers are you
willing to become a convicted felon for.


Oh, please. Breitbart is a scumbag. It's telling that you are sticking
up for him.

Bertie seems to be slipping ever further toward the edge of sanity.


Supporting the first amdendmenet is a problem for you?

In article , says...

O

.

You don?t have to like him and I am not trying to make you like him.
But, racism is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural issue.
Sure is. And, who pray tell is mostly on the receiving end of racism
in this country? Whites or people of color?
Yes, them.

All racism is bad. You cannot justify retribution for past racism by
committing racism now. The sins of the father shall not be visited upon
the son.

On 2/14/11 7:51 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

From what I heard immediately after the Breitbart "exposé,"
"co-workers, business associates, friends and acquaintances" were on
her side.

If they stick to their original story, as I heard it, Breitbart will
be convicted of yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.... and his
right of free speech defense won't hold water....

All you need is someone with a conscious and the rest of them are up on
a threat of a perjury charge. How many of your co-workers are you
willing to become a convicted felon for.


Oh, please. Breitbart is a scumbag. It's telling that you are sticking
up for him.

Bertie seems to be slipping ever further toward the edge of sanity.


Supporting the first amdendmenet is a problem for you?

So, you think there is a first amendment right to knowingly and
deliberately publish a falsified "news report" that destroys someone's
professional reputation without having to face the consequences?

Breitbart published that crap with malice aforethought. I hope the woman
gets a multi-million-dollar award or settlement out of his hide.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 2/14/11 7:51 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

From what I heard immediately after the Breitbart "exposé,"
"co-workers, business associates, friends and acquaintances" were on
her side.

If they stick to their original story, as I heard it, Breitbart will
be convicted of yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.... and his
right of free speech defense won't hold water....

All you need is someone with a conscious and the rest of them are up on
a threat of a perjury charge. How many of your co-workers are you
willing to become a convicted felon for.


Oh, please. Breitbart is a scumbag. It's telling that you are sticking
up for him.

Bertie seems to be slipping ever further toward the edge of sanity.


Supporting the first amdendmenet is a problem for you?

So, you think there is a first amendment right to knowingly and
deliberately publish a falsified "news report" that destroys someone's
professional reputation without having to face the consequences?

Breitbart published that crap with malice aforethought. I hope the woman
gets a multi-million-dollar award or settlement out of his hide.

The mainstream media does it all of the time.

On 2/14/11 8:09 AM, BAR wrote:
In articlehpKdndk0H9duusTQnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 2/14/11 7:51 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

From what I heard immediately after the Breitbart "exposé,"
"co-workers, business associates, friends and acquaintances" were on
her side.

If they stick to their original story, as I heard it, Breitbart will
be convicted of yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.... and his
right of free speech defense won't hold water....

All you need is someone with a conscious and the rest of them are up on
a threat of a perjury charge. How many of your co-workers are you
willing to become a convicted felon for.


Oh, please. Breitbart is a scumbag. It's telling that you are sticking
up for him.

Bertie seems to be slipping ever further toward the edge of sanity.


Supporting the first amdendmenet is a problem for you?

So, you think there is a first amendment right to knowingly and
deliberately publish a falsified "news report" that destroys someone's
professional reputation without having to face the consequences?

Breitbart published that crap with malice aforethought. I hope the woman
gets a multi-million-dollar award or settlement out of his hide.

The mainstream media does it all of the time.


Bertie-Birther: high school graduate and expert on first amendment and
libel laws.

snerk

On 2/14/11 8:09 AM, BAR wrote:
In articlehpKdndk0H9duusTQnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

Supporting the first amdendmenet is a problem for you?

So, you think there is a first amendment right to knowingly and
deliberately publish a falsified "news report" that destroys someone's
professional reputation without having to face the consequences?

Breitbart published that crap with malice aforethought. I hope the woman
gets a multi-million-dollar award or settlement out of his hide.

The mainstream media does it all of the time.

There is a difference between a news media making an editorial comment
and presenting news that would be considered libelous. It will be
interesting to see how this plays out, but if it is shown that the
publisher of the report was aware that the edited video did not
accurately reflect her comments and that the report was published with
malice intent, his defense time will have the their hands full to
minimize the damage.

I am all for news media being held accountable for libel. Every time I
read the tabloid headlines at the supermarket, I wish more people sued
their asses off.


Trust me, we will read more about this as it progresses.