| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
She who laughs last...
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 |
She who laughs last...
In article , 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. |
She who laughs last...
On 2/13/11 3:56 PM, BAR 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. Bat**** Breitbart took an existing video, which is available, and edited to make Ms. Sherrod look like a racist. The altered video is also available. All Ms. Sherrod has to do is provide evidence the alterations were made under Breitbart's direction. Not difficult. Breitbart is the racist. Naturally, you support him. The suit was filed in Washington, D.C. |
She who laughs last...
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. |
She who laughs last...
In article ,
says... In article , 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. |
She who laughs last...
On 2/13/11 6:13 PM, Gene wrote:
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.... This really isn't an example of yelling "Fire" but of Libel. If his editing did change the tone or meaning of her comments he probably will be found guilty of Libel, and she would be compensated for all of her damages and pain and suffering. As you suggested, from what I read at the time, it looks like she has one hell of a case. |
She who laughs last...
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , 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. |
She who laughs last...
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net 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. |
She who laughs last...
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. |
She who laughs last...
In article , atrueboater1
@hotmail.com says... On 2/13/11 6:13 PM, Gene wrote: 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.... This really isn't an example of yelling "Fire" but of Libel. If his editing did change the tone or meaning of her comments he probably will be found guilty of Libel, and she would be compensated for all of her damages and pain and suffering. As you suggested, from what I read at the time, it looks like she has one hell of a case. Editorial/journalistic license. The media does this all the time. Each and every story will now be devoid of video and audio. If any editing is done then the person who believes they have been caste in a bad light will sue. |
She who laughs last...
In article , 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. |
She who laughs last...
On 2/13/11 7:14 PM, BAR wrote:
In , atrueboater1 @hotmail.com says... On 2/13/11 6:13 PM, Gene wrote: 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.... This really isn't an example of yelling "Fire" but of Libel. If his editing did change the tone or meaning of her comments he probably will be found guilty of Libel, and she would be compensated for all of her damages and pain and suffering. As you suggested, from what I read at the time, it looks like she has one hell of a case. Editorial/journalistic license. The media does this all the time. Bertie-Birther has the "equivalence disease." |
She who laughs last...
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 who laughs last...
In article ,
says... 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. Where is the original video? |
She who laughs last...
On 2/13/11 7:49 PM, BAR wrote:
In , says... 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. Where is the original video? Under lock and key, one hopes. I've seen copies of both on various sites. I'm sure a high school grad like you can find it, if you are that interested. |
She who laughs last...
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says... 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. Where is the original video? Under lock and key, one hopes. I've seen copies of both on various sites. I'm sure a high school grad like you can find it, if you are that interested. So it doesn?t exist. |
She who laughs last...
On 2/13/11 7:14 PM, BAR wrote:
In , atrueboater1 @hotmail.com says... On 2/13/11 6:13 PM, Gene wrote: 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.... This really isn't an example of yelling "Fire" but of Libel. If his editing did change the tone or meaning of her comments he probably will be found guilty of Libel, and she would be compensated for all of her damages and pain and suffering. As you suggested, from what I read at the time, it looks like she has one hell of a case. Editorial/journalistic license. The media does this all the time. Each and every story will now be devoid of video and audio. If any editing is done then the person who believes they have been caste in a bad light will sue. It doesn't matter what the person thinks, it has to do with what a reasonable man (and the jury) thinks. |
She who laughs last...
On 2/13/11 7:58 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleDuWdnbRBg84r4cXQnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... 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. Where is the original video? Under lock and key, one hopes. I've seen copies of both on various sites. I'm sure a high school grad like you can find it, if you are that interested. So it doesn?t exist. You're still the dumb****. |
She who laughs last...
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:20:49 -0500, Harryk
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. |
She who laughs last...
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. |
She who laughs last...
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. |
She who laughs last...
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? |
She who laughs last...
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. |
She who laughs last...
|
She who laughs last...
|
She who laughs last...
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. |
She who laughs last...
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. |
She who laughs last...
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 |
She who laughs last...
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. |
She who laughs last...
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:09:58 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article , payer3389 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. Have you ever noticed how most (not all, mind you) liberals resort to name-calling and personal insults when they see they're on the losing end of a discussion? Just an observation, mind you. |
She who laughs last...
On 2/14/11 10:10 AM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:09:58 -0500, 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. Have you ever noticed how most (not all, mind you) liberals resort to name-calling and personal insults when they see they're on the losing end of a discussion? Just an observation, mind you. Losing end of a discussion? Oh, I forgot...you support Breitbart, too. Goes along with your "fanship" of Glenn Beck, I guess. Asshole. Just an observation, mind you. |
She who laughs last...
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:55:10 -0500, Harryk
wrote: On 2/14/11 10:10 AM, John H wrote: On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:09:58 -0500, 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. Have you ever noticed how most (not all, mind you) liberals resort to name-calling and personal insults when they see they're on the losing end of a discussion? Just an observation, mind you. Losing end of a discussion? Oh, I forgot...you support Breitbart, too. Goes along with your "fanship" of Glenn Beck, I guess. Asshole. Just an observation, mind you. Losing end of a discussion? Herring is as dense as Bertie. Do they both think that Breitbart has the right to puposefully edit footage in a way that intends to destroy the credibility of a person with impunity based on the 1st Amendment? The first Amendment may give rights to free speech, it does not give rights to construct falsehoods that intend to destroy a person's credibility. This is going to cost him plenty, I would hope his freedom but probably just a ****load of money. Maybe she can shut him down like they shut the assholes down in Idaho. Bankruptcy tends to make these sorts of projects difficult to mount. |
She who laughs last...
"A.True.Boater" wrote in message
... 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. Why no mention of the turd that actually fired her. Seems like he might have jumped the gun a little. -- Ziggy® |
She who laughs last...
On 2/14/11 11:37 AM, jps wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:55:10 -0500, wrote: On 2/14/11 10:10 AM, John H wrote: On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:09:58 -0500, 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. Have you ever noticed how most (not all, mind you) liberals resort to name-calling and personal insults when they see they're on the losing end of a discussion? Just an observation, mind you. Losing end of a discussion? Oh, I forgot...you support Breitbart, too. Goes along with your "fanship" of Glenn Beck, I guess. Asshole. Just an observation, mind you. Losing end of a discussion? Herring is as dense as Bertie. Do they both think that Breitbart has the right to puposefully edit footage in a way that intends to destroy the credibility of a person with impunity based on the 1st Amendment? The first Amendment may give rights to free speech, it does not give rights to construct falsehoods that intend to destroy a person's credibility. This is going to cost him plenty, I would hope his freedom but probably just a ****load of money. Maybe she can shut him down like they shut the assholes down in Idaho. Bankruptcy tends to make these sorts of projects difficult to mount. Herring used to tout Glenn Beck here. Bertie is a birther. Sophisticates, both of them. |
She who laughs last...
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 13:20:03 -0500, Harryk wrote:
On 2/14/11 11:37 AM, jps wrote: On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:55:10 -0500, wrote: On 2/14/11 10:10 AM, John H wrote: On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:09:58 -0500, 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. Have you ever noticed how most (not all, mind you) liberals resort to name-calling and personal insults when they see they're on the losing end of a discussion? Just an observation, mind you. Losing end of a discussion? Oh, I forgot...you support Breitbart, too. Goes along with your "fanship" of Glenn Beck, I guess. Asshole. Just an observation, mind you. Losing end of a discussion? Herring is as dense as Bertie. Do they both think that Breitbart has the right to puposefully edit footage in a way that intends to destroy the credibility of a person with impunity based on the 1st Amendment? The first Amendment may give rights to free speech, it does not give rights to construct falsehoods that intend to destroy a person's credibility. This is going to cost him plenty, I would hope his freedom but probably just a ****load of money. Maybe she can shut him down like they shut the assholes down in Idaho. Bankruptcy tends to make these sorts of projects difficult to mount. Herring used to tout Glenn Beck here. Bertie is a birther. Sophisticates, both of them. Q.E.D. |
She who laughs last...
In article ,
says... 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 Care to wager on the outcome of the case? A direct wager, no intermediaries. |
She who laughs last...
|
She who laughs last...
On 2/14/11 6:09 PM, BAR wrote:
In , says... 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 Care to wager on the outcome of the case? A direct wager, no intermediaries. Sure, Bertie-Birther. I'll bet you a US dollar that Breitbart settles or loses in DC court. |
She who laughs last...
"BAR" wrote in message
.. . In article , says... 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. Why no mention of the turd that actually fired her. Seems like he might have jumped the gun a little. Everybody seems to have forgotten about that part. I recall that the big cheese himself may have taken part in making the decision to fire her -- Ziggy® |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:58 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com