Breibart Sued

[Madeline]

Lawsuit Over Video

Andrew Breitbart, the owner of several conservative Web sites, was served at the 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/politics/13cpac.html?_r=1

Los Angeles, CA, February 12, 2011 – Breitbart.com LLC announced today that its Chairman and CEO Andrew Breitbart and the head of Breitbart.tv, Larry O’Connor, have been sued in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by a central figure in the Pigford “back-door” reparations case. The Pigford case involves over $2.5 billion in US taxpayer money and constitutes one of the biggest cases of corruption and politically-motivated fraud in the history of the United States. Mr. Breitbart and Breitbart.tv have been investigating and reporting on the Pigford case since late summer 2010.

Andrew Breitbart said, in response to being sued, “I find it extremely telling that this lawsuit was brought almost seven months after the alleged incidents that caused a national media frenzy occurred. It is no coincidence that this lawsuit was filed one day after I held a press conference revealing audio proof of orchestrated and systemic Pigford fraud. I can promise you this: neither I, nor my journalistic websites, will or can be silenced by the institutional Left, which is obviously funding this lawsuit. I welcome the judicial discovery process, including finding out which groups are doing so.”

On Thursday, February 10, 2011, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., Mr. Breitbart held a national press conference at which he, Huffington Post blogger Lee Stranahan, and black farmer Eddie Slaughter presented compelling evidence for, and Representatives Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Steve King (R-IA) specifically called for, Congressional investigation into the Pigford case.

» Andrew Breitbart on Pigford Lawsuit: ‘Bring It On’ - Big Government

The Sherrod lawsuit (which I assume is predicated on slander and invasion of privacy) should be interesting. I only know of the Pigford issue in passing, but what sort of fool would file if they could not prove their allegations?

Interesting stuff...Breibart seems to think he can defend on First Amendment grounds, but there is no First Amendment right to commit slander, libel, etc.

Whaca think?

 

[DiveCon]

Lawsuit Over Video

Andrew Breitbart, the owner of several conservative Web sites, was served at the 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/politics/13cpac.html?_r=1

Los Angeles, CA, February 12, 2011 – Breitbart.com LLC announced today that its Chairman and CEO Andrew Breitbart and the head of Breitbart.tv, Larry O’Connor, have been sued in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by a central figure in the Pigford “back-door” reparations case. The Pigford case involves over $2.5 billion in US taxpayer money and constitutes one of the biggest cases of corruption and politically-motivated fraud in the history of the United States. Mr. Breitbart and Breitbart.tv have been investigating and reporting on the Pigford case since late summer 2010.

Andrew Breitbart said, in response to being sued, “I find it extremely telling that this lawsuit was brought almost seven months after the alleged incidents that caused a national media frenzy occurred. It is no coincidence that this lawsuit was filed one day after I held a press conference revealing audio proof of orchestrated and systemic Pigford fraud. I can promise you this: neither I, nor my journalistic websites, will or can be silenced by the institutional Left, which is obviously funding this lawsuit. I welcome the judicial discovery process, including finding out which groups are doing so.”

On Thursday, February 10, 2011, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., Mr. Breitbart held a national press conference at which he, Huffington Post blogger Lee Stranahan, and black farmer Eddie Slaughter presented compelling evidence for, and Representatives Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Steve King (R-IA) specifically called for, Congressional investigation into the Pigford case.

» Andrew Breitbart on Pigford Lawsuit: ‘Bring It On’ - Big Government

The Sherrod lawsuit (which I assume is predicated on slander and invasion of privacy) should be interesting. I only know of the Pigford issue in passing, but what sort of fool would file if they could not prove their allegations?

Interesting stuff...Breibart seems to think he can defend on First Amendment grounds, but there is no First Amendment right to commit slander, libel, etc.

Whaca think?

a lot of people file stupid law suits

 

[Madeline]

DiveCon wrote:

a lot of people file stupid law suits

Well, like I said, I really dun know a whole lot about the Pigford dispute. But donca think Sherrod has a case, Divey?

 

[DiveCon]

DiveCon wrote:

a lot of people file stupid law suits

Well, like I said, I really dun know a whole lot about the Pigford dispute. But donca think Sherrod has a case, Divey?

gonna be hard for her to prove damages when she ended up with an even better job than she had before

 

[Madeline]

DiveCon wrote:

a lot of people file stupid law suits

Well, like I said, I really dun know a whole lot about the Pigford dispute. But donca think Sherrod has a case, Divey?

gonna be hard for her to prove damages when she ended up with an even better job than she had before

True, that.

 

[Mini 14]

I think she will end up regretting that she filed suit, at least against Breitbart.

Her claim is against the USDA and the NAACP, not Breitbart. Breitbart didn't fire her, the USDA did, under great pressure and with the applause of the NAACP. And the video was her, her own words, which she never has denied saying. Breitbart now admits that the segment he posted (he claims he didn't have the full video) was "out of context" with the full version, but nonetheless, it is her words and her words only. She said it, and she doesn't deny it. Did he do it with malice? He said, she said.....

It is telling that she isn't suing the USDA, nor the NAACP (who DEMANDED her firing), they are not named in the suit. Only Breitbart and people associated with his companies.

Breitbart is licking his chops. She has opened the door, and win or lose, he is going to win.

Its going to be a circus, with plenty of shit to go around for everyone!

 

[DiveCon]

I think she will end up regretting that she filed suit, at least against Breitbart.

Her claim is against the USDA and the NAACP, not Breitbart. Breitbart didn't fire her, the USDA did, under great pressure and with the applause of the NAACP. And the video was her, her own words, which she never has denied saying. Breitbart now admits that the segment he posted (he claims he didn't have the full video) was "out of context" with the full version, but nonetheless, it is her words and her words only. She said it, and she doesn't deny it. Did he do it with malice? He said, she said.....

It is telling that she isn't suing the USDA, nor the NAACP (who DEMANDED her firing), they are not named in the suit. Only Breitbart and people associated with his companies.

Breitbart is licking his chops. She has opened the door, and win or lose, he is going to win.

Its going to be a circus, with plenty of shit to go around for everyone!

and if he has a smart lawyer, he will get a change of venue
DC is hostile to anyone not democrat

 

[Mini 14]

and if he has a smart lawyer, he will get a change of venue
DC is hostile to anyone not democrat

Like him or hate him, he's a smart guy who gets sued every day of the week. He has excellent lawyers, and they will take full advantage of this opportunity.

I don't think her case has merit, but that's my opinion. I won't be shocked if she wins a judgement against Brietbart.

But Breitbart will be the big winner in this when all is said and done. I guarantee you she will be on his Christmas card list until he is dead and gone, regardless of the outcome of her suit.

They didn't think this all the way through.

 

[Madeline]

I think she will end up regretting that she filed suit, at least against Breitbart.

Her claim is against the USDA and the NAACP, not Breitbart. Breitbart didn't fire her, the USDA did, under great pressure and with the applause of the NAACP. And the video was her, her own words, which she never has denied saying. Breitbart now admits that the segment he posted (he claims he didn't have the full video) was "out of context" with the full version, but nonetheless, it is her words and her words only. She said it, and she doesn't deny it. Did he do it with malice? He said, she said.....

It is telling that she isn't suing the USDA, nor the NAACP (who DEMANDED her firing), they are not named in the suit. Only Breitbart and people associated with his companies.

Breitbart is licking his chops. She has opened the door, and win or lose, he is going to win.

Its going to be a circus, with plenty of shit to go around for everyone!

Unless I'm mistaken, the USDA would have had a "thou shalt not bring disrepute on this employer" clause for Sherrod. Whether it would completely insulate them, who knows?

I dunno why she should sue the NAACP -- they were hardly alone in calling for her head.

 

[mudwhistle]

Lawsuit Over Video

Andrew Breitbart, the owner of several conservative Web sites, was served at the 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/politics/13cpac.html?_r=1

Los Angeles, CA, February 12, 2011 – Breitbart.com LLC announced today that its Chairman and CEO Andrew Breitbart and the head of Breitbart.tv, Larry O’Connor, have been sued in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by a central figure in the Pigford “back-door” reparations case. The Pigford case involves over $2.5 billion in US taxpayer money and constitutes one of the biggest cases of corruption and politically-motivated fraud in the history of the United States. Mr. Breitbart and Breitbart.tv have been investigating and reporting on the Pigford case since late summer 2010.

Andrew Breitbart said, in response to being sued, “I find it extremely telling that this lawsuit was brought almost seven months after the alleged incidents that caused a national media frenzy occurred. It is no coincidence that this lawsuit was filed one day after I held a press conference revealing audio proof of orchestrated and systemic Pigford fraud. I can promise you this: neither I, nor my journalistic websites, will or can be silenced by the institutional Left, which is obviously funding this lawsuit. I welcome the judicial discovery process, including finding out which groups are doing so.”

On Thursday, February 10, 2011, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., Mr. Breitbart held a national press conference at which he, Huffington Post blogger Lee Stranahan, and black farmer Eddie Slaughter presented compelling evidence for, and Representatives Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Steve King (R-IA) specifically called for, Congressional investigation into the Pigford case.

» Andrew Breitbart on Pigford Lawsuit: ‘Bring It On’ - Big Government

The Sherrod lawsuit (which I assume is predicated on slander and invasion of privacy) should be interesting. I only know of the Pigford issue in passing, but what sort of fool would file if they could not prove their allegations?

Interesting stuff...Breibart seems to think he can defend on First Amendment grounds, but there is no First Amendment right to commit slander, libel, etc.

Whaca think?

I think you can sue anyone for anything. It doesn't mean you're right.

She's just looking for cash. Hoping he'll settle out of court. Maybe she saw the movie "The Social Network". The people that sued the founder of Facebook got $65 million.

She has no damages because Obama offered her another job after she resigned, and she turned it down. These facts will have alot of weight in any court proceedings. Ms Sherrod resigned and wouldn't accept a higher paying job that was offered to her. It seems the NAACP and other Liberals overreacted. Its an example of Liberals turning on themselves. Seems they and others that harassed Ms Sherrod are the ones she needs to sue. But instead she wants to sue a Conservative.

 

[Mini 14]

Unless I'm mistaken, the USDA would have had a "thou shalt not bring disrepute on this employer" clause for Sherrod. Whether it would completely insulate them, who knows?

I dunno why she should sue the NAACP -- they were hardly alone in calling for her head.

The NAACP was at the forefront though. I don't remember all of it, but I seem to recall that Breitbart had little comment outside of posting the video (I could well be wrong on that, selective memory and all). The video itself isn't actionable. It is what he said "around the video" that would give her a cause. I don't remember exactly what that was, but I seem to remember it wasn't much, if anything.

There is no question that her comments showed that she harbored some racism, only that the full context of her speech was not offered. "Learning your lesson" doesn't wipe away the things you did before.

Regardless, I assure you he doesn't care, other than I'm sure he is licking his chops to get this thing started. She opened the door for him, and he will take full advantage of the opportunity she created.

 

[Madeline]

This is why the case interests me, Mini. If Breibart knew/should have know the edting altered Sherrod's message 180 degrees, is that slander? I can't even tell if it'd be slander or libel -- imagery under the law is sorta new to me.

 

[Mini 14]

This is why the case interests me, Mini. If Breibart knew/should have know the edting altered Sherrod's message 180 degrees, is that slander? I can't even tell if it'd be slander or libel -- imagery under the law is sorta new to me.

That's what I mean about what he said "around the video."

The video itself is not libelous, it is her, her words, unedited.

Not showing the full context doesn't matter, that isn't an issue as it is protected by the 1st.

If he misrepresented what she said, now she has a claim. As I recall, there wasn't much else around the video, but like I said, my memory isn't good, and it is selective at times.

Getting the new job is going to hurt her as well (as y'all have pointed out). I don't see a whole lot of damages here, and the ones I do are primarily with the USDA, and then the NAACP.

But its a legal issue, and my opinion doesn't matter there, only the Judge's.

In any event, I just don't see anyone other than Breitbart being the big winner here, regardless of the Judge's decision.

 

[DiveCon]

This is why the case interests me, Mini. If Breibart knew/should have know the edting altered Sherrod's message 180 degrees, is that slander? I can't even tell if it'd be slander or libel -- imagery under the law is sorta new to me.

That's what I mean about what he said "around the video."

The video itself is not libelous, it is her, her words, unedited.

Not showing the full context doesn't matter, that isn't an issue as it is protected by the 1st.

If he misrepresented what she said, now she has a claim. As I recall, there wasn't much else around the video, but like I said, my memory isn't good, and it is selective at times.

Getting the new job is going to hurt her as well (as y'all have pointed out). I don't see a whole lot of damages here, and the ones I do are primarily with the USDA, and then the NAACP.

But its a legal issue, and my opinion doesn't matter there, only the Judge's.

In any event, I just don't see anyone other than Breitbart being the big winner here, regardless of the Judge's decision.

if i remember right, what was "around the video" basically had nothing to do with her, personally, but the NAACP

 

[Mini 14]

Let me add that by "unedited" I mean that he did not alter her words. According to him, he posted everything he had. That is going to be something she has to prove (that he had the full video, and edited it to intentionally give a different message) in order to win her suit.

 

[xotoxi]

I think she will end up regretting that she filed suit, at least against Breitbart.

Her claim is against the USDA and the NAACP, not Breitbart. Breitbart didn't fire her, the USDA did, under great pressure and with the applause of the NAACP. And the video was her, her own words, which she never has denied saying. Breitbart now admits that the segment he posted (he claims he didn't have the full video) was "out of context" with the full version, but nonetheless, it is her words and her words only. She said it, and she doesn't deny it. Did he do it with malice? He said, she said.....

It is telling that she isn't suing the USDA, nor the NAACP (who DEMANDED her firing), they are not named in the suit. Only Breitbart and people associated with his companies.

If I made up evidence that you were a pedophile, and posted it on the internet for all to see, and your employer fired you...would you sue them or me?

 

[Mini 14]

if i remember right, what was "around the video" basically had nothing to do with her, personally, but the NAACP

Yeah, that's the big question, and I honestly don't know exactly. But as I said, I don't remember much opinion or demand from Breitbart. I remember him "putting it out there" and then the furor came from everywhere else.

He was pretty quiet (silent, as I remember) once the NAACP began calling for her head, I do remember that.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is why the case interests me, Mini. If Breibart knew/should have know the edting altered Sherrod's message 180 degrees, is that slander? I can't even tell if it'd be slander or libel -- imagery under the law is sorta new to me.

I wonder if Sarah Palin can sue over all of the edited interviews Katie Couric and others produced to trash her?

I mean Sherrod was a public figure giving a speech in public. Does she have protection yet Sarah Palin does not?

Is this another case of the left trying to have it both ways?

 

[Mini 14]

If I made up evidence that you were a pedophile, and posted it on the internet for all to see, and your employer fired you...would you sue them or me?

My employer wouldn't listen to you. I'm self-employed

But if the NAACP used your "evidence" to campaign for my termination, I'd be suing them too. And every station that broadcast it, every network, the USDA, hell....I'd name obama personally too. I know how to sue!

Regardless, what evidence did Breitbart "make up?" She doesn't deny that that is her, and she said those things.

Context is protected by the 1st. It isn't ethical to take a quote out of context, but it certainly isn't illegal.

She's going to have to show intent, and that's going top be very hard, because what is "right" and what is "legal" are rarely the same thing.

 

[Madeline]

Let me add that by "unedited" I mean that he did not alter her words. According to him, he posted everything he had. That is going to be something she has to prove (that he had the full video, and edited it to intentionally give a different message) in order to win her suit.

O, I agree. If she can't show that, her suit is dead in the water.