Sherrod files suit against Breitbart

[jillian]

If we were to follow Libel and Slander Law's to the Letter, most of our Judge's and Politician's would be in jail with the Media, and our Educator's, leaving Nobody to run the Asylum. We all know that won't happen. That said, you all are looking at the incident from a partisan perspective.

different standard for private people and public figures.

for a discussion on that issue, see NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). it's pretty clear. there are also limited public figure exceptions. sherrod didn't fit into one. when you disparage someone in their trade or profession, that is libel per se.

as for judges, there is no such thing as defamation in the context of a law suit. you can say what you want, limited only by frivolous behavior which may be sanctioned.

 

[Sheldon]

Shirley Sherrod Files Suit Against Andrew Breitbart - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Does she really have a case?

Imo, no.

You have to prove damages in a defamation suit. She seems to be arguing that the damage here is her difficulty in finding employment. But that would be a hard thing to really prove, right? For one reason, considering the current job market maybe employers aren't really looking for her skill-set right now. Or maybe she just hasn't applied to the right places yet. I think those would be things she'd have to prove aren't reasonable.

Not to mention that she turned down the offer to be re-instated to her old job. That could throw a wrench in her argument.

And if she's considered a public figure then she'd also have to prove the the defamation was done with malicious intent. Which actually may not be too hard to prove in this case. But there is the possibility that the Brietbart people didn't know about the full video--doubtful, but possible. How would she prove malicious intent?

 

[Ravi]

I'm not really sure that matters at all considering the fact that Fox already won the right to lie on the news. And I'm still not convinced that what he did was technically a lie, regardless of how obviously misleading it was. And if it's technically not a lie, it really can't be slander (or defamation), can it?

Yeah, judging from the result...the NAACP condemning her and the government forcing her to retire I'd say it was defamation of character. She didn't imagine those results, they were real.

If you're saying she'd have a better case against them then I agree.

If you're blaming their uninformed overreaction on an internet blog, I disagree.

He either defamed her or he didn't. Words have consequences.

 

[manifold]

Yeah, judging from the result...the NAACP condemning her and the government forcing her to retire I'd say it was defamation of character. She didn't imagine those results, they were real.

If you're saying she'd have a better case against them then I agree.

If you're blaming their uninformed overreaction on an internet blog, I disagree.

He either defamed her or he didn't. Words have consequences.

With all due respect Ravi, you appear to be contradicting yourself.

First you say she was defamed, based on the fact that she was condemned and forced to retire. This of course implies that had she not been condemned by the NAACP and not forced to retire, then it wouldn't be defamation. And now you say he either defamed her, or he didn't. So is the defamation dependent upon the reactions of the NAACP and the government, or is it not?

 

[DiveCon]

Ravi,

Perhaps you are unclear about the facts, so I'll cut you some slack and educate you.

Breitbart posted portions of the video. But what he posted was not altered. Therefore, it was not 'false'.

Right...but his commentary was false and led those viewing the video to believe what he was telling them to believe and not what was really happening.

^^^ that lie right there

 

[DiveCon]

Yeah, judging from the result...the NAACP condemning her and the government forcing her to retire I'd say it was defamation of character. She didn't imagine those results, they were real.

If you're saying she'd have a better case against them then I agree.

If you're blaming their uninformed overreaction on an internet blog, I disagree.

He either defamed her or he didn't. Words have consequences.

he didnt defame her

 

[Ravi]

If you're saying she'd have a better case against them then I agree.

If you're blaming their uninformed overreaction on an internet blog, I disagree.

He either defamed her or he didn't. Words have consequences.

With all due respect Ravi, you appear to be contradicting yourself.

First you say she was defamed, based on the fact that she was condemned and forced to retire. This of course implies that had she not been condemned by the NAACP and not forced to retire, then it wouldn't be defamation. And now you say he either defamed her, or he didn't. So is the defamation dependent upon the reactions of the NAACP and the government, or is it not?

Legally, I believe it is.

 

[manifold]

Question for law buffs...

Has anyone ever successfully sued someone for libel based solely on the defendant printing a direct quote from the plaintiff, taken 'out of context'? IMO, that's perfectly analogous to what Breitbart did.

 

[Ravi]

Ravi,

Perhaps you are unclear about the facts, so I'll cut you some slack and educate you.

Breitbart posted portions of the video. But what he posted was not altered. Therefore, it was not 'false'.

Right...but his commentary was false and led those viewing the video to believe what he was telling them to believe and not what was really happening.

^^^ that lie right there

How is that a lie? His commentary made everything a "scandal" without it no comment would be raised.

 

[Ravi]

Question for law buffs...

Has anyone ever successfully sued someone for libel based solely on the defendant printing a direct quote from the plaintiff, taken 'out of context'? IMO, that's perfectly analogous to what Breitbart did.

But that isn't what he did...he made false editorial comments that led people to believe she was a racist.

So he either did it purposely with malicious intent to defame her/her audience/the NAACP, or he is a really stupid person that believes what is spoon fed to him.

 

[DiveCon]

Right...but his commentary was false and led those viewing the video to believe what he was telling them to believe and not what was really happening.

^^^ that lie right there

How is that a lie? His commentary made everything a "scandal" without it no comment would be raised.

he did no such thing
he pointed out the reactions of the people to her comments
nothing more

 

[DiveCon]

Question for law buffs...

Has anyone ever successfully sued someone for libel based solely on the defendant printing a direct quote from the plaintiff, taken 'out of context'? IMO, that's perfectly analogous to what Breitbart did.

But that isn't what he did...he made false editorial comments that led people to believe she was a racist.

So he either did it purposely with malicious intent to defame her/her audience/the NAACP, or he is a really stupid person that believes what is spoon fed to him.

NO, HE DID NOT

you keep repeating that lie

 

[manifold]

Question for law buffs...

Has anyone ever successfully sued someone for libel based solely on the defendant printing a direct quote from the plaintiff, taken 'out of context'? IMO, that's perfectly analogous to what Breitbart did.

But that isn't what he did...he made false editorial comments that led people to believe she was a racist.

So he either did it purposely with malicious intent to defame her/her audience/the NAACP, or he is a really stupid person that believes what is spoon fed to him.

I didn't read any of his commentary. If he did what you say, I might have to reconsider the merits of her case. But as I understand it, he is pleading ignorance which may just be his ace in the hole. Either way, it'll be interesting.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm having a hard time wrapping my brane around this.

The gov agency basically said--okay we fucked up, we shouldn't have fired you, come back and work for us. If she would've taken her old job, there would've been no damage from that shitty clip. But she rejected that offer.

The more I think about it, the more it seems like that kicks the legs out from under her case.

 

[Dr Grump]

^^^ that lie right there

How is that a lie? His commentary made everything a "scandal" without it no comment would be raised.

he did no such thing
he pointed out the reactions of the people to her comments
nothing more

Total, utter bullshit. I work in the media, and have seen many spurious deeds done over the years. He absolutely wanted it to be made out she was racist. And if he truly was ONLY going after peoples' reactions, then he would have done what anybody in the media should do, and told the WHOLE story. Not cherry pick. Not too sure how it works stateside, but down here repeating a libel is not a defense...

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm having a hard time wrapping my brane around this.

The gov agency basically said--okay we fucked up, we shouldn't have fired you, come back and work for us. If she would've taken her old job, there would've been no damage from that shitty clip. But she rejected that offer.

The more I think about it, the more it seems like that kicks the legs out from under her case.

Yeah, because you know what, it's really nice to know you work for a company or institution that checks facts before they FIRE you. It's really nice to know that the govt dept, instead of getting caught up in media hysteria, actually sat down with Sherrod and found out the full facts before firing her, right?

She should also sue the fricking govt dept...

 

[jillian]

I'm having a hard time wrapping my brane around this.

The gov agency basically said--okay we fucked up, we shouldn't have fired you, come back and work for us. If she would've taken her old job, there would've been no damage from that shitty clip. But she rejected that offer.

The more I think about it, the more it seems like that kicks the legs out from under her case.

i thought about that, too. but her feeling is that her reputation had been destroyed and that everything she would have done from then on would have been viewed through the prism of breitbart's lies. every decision she made would have been questioned as to whether it was "racist".

 

[manifold]

every decision she made would have been questioned as to whether it was "racist".

So she'd get to know what it feels like to be a republican (or even better, a tea bagger).

 

[Sheldon]

I'm having a hard time wrapping my brane around this.

The gov agency basically said--okay we fucked up, we shouldn't have fired you, come back and work for us. If she would've taken her old job, there would've been no damage from that shitty clip. But she rejected that offer.

The more I think about it, the more it seems like that kicks the legs out from under her case.

i thought about that, too. but her feeling is that her reputation had been destroyed and that everything she would have done from then on would have been viewed through the prism of breitbart's lies. every decision she made would have been questioned as to whether it was "racist".

That's not unreasonable. But them offering her the old job tells me two things--either they felt she had grown to where race no longer effects her decisions like she explained in the full video, or they were just covering their collective ass for a wrongful termination suit.

I just get touchy about these first amendment type cases, I guess.

 

[DiveCon]

How is that a lie? His commentary made everything a "scandal" without it no comment would be raised.

he did no such thing
he pointed out the reactions of the people to her comments
nothing more

Total, utter bullshit. I work in the media, and have seen many spurious deeds done over the years. He absolutely wanted it to be made out she was racist. And if he truly was ONLY going after peoples' reactions, then he would have done what anybody in the media should do, and told the WHOLE story. Not cherry pick. Not too sure how it works stateside, but down here repeating a libel is not a defense...

the facts are it is NOT bullshit
iu dont give a shit what you worked in
he did no such thing