Sherrod files suit against Breitbart

[manifold]

Does anyone have a link to Breitbart's alleged defamatory commentary?

 

[The Infidel]

I think the suit against Andrew, is just a deflection from the real story if ya ask me.

American Thinker Blog: Forty Acres & a Mule -- Sherrod Style?





This is just a red herring

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Brietbart considers his site to be a news site. Therefore, he is possibly guilty of defamation of character or slander.

The comedians do not consider their shows to be news.

You're welcome.

The Point was the audience reaction, they didn't know the story was a story of redemption .

 

[Ravi]

Brietbart considers his site to be a news site. Therefore, he is possibly guilty of defamation of character or slander.

The comedians do not consider their shows to be news.

You're welcome.

The Point was the audience reaction, they didn't know the story was a story of redemption .

Yes. they. did.

As I illustrated with her comment leading up to the story somewhere up the thread.

 

[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.

NO, HE DID NOT

you keep repeating that lie

There is no lie, except from you.

The commentary claims that Sherrod admitted to discriminating against people while in her federally appointed position. She did no such thing.

 

[Mini 14]

Here is what was posted at Breitbart:

Breitbart.tv » Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism

From the link:

Big Government has uncovered video from the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia showing a federal appointee describing her racist behavior toward a white farmer in need of assistance. The NAACP has yet to renounce her behavior.

Earlier in her speech, she talks about the inherent job security that comes with a government job: "Have you heard of anybody in the federal government losing their job?"

Where is the lie? What is false? Everything posted by Breitbart is factual. There is nothing in the commentary (all 3 sentences) that is speculation or even opinion. It is all fact. And the video is posted clearly as an excerpt.

She has no case.

And here is Breitbart's commentary, from his blog on the site:

http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/

Again, she has no case.

Unless we're tossing the 1st out in the name of political correctness......which wouldn't surprise me at all these days.

 

[Ravi]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...that's why he NOW has the big disclaimer on the video admitting she didn't do what he claimed she did.

 

[Ravi]

btw...it has nothing to do with the first amendment.

 

[Mini 14]

btw...it has nothing to do with the first amendment.

His blog has EVERYTHING to do with the 1st Amendment.

And I see no disclaimer?

What did he post that was false?

 

[Mini 14]

Looking at the timeline:

Breitbart publishes video at approximately 1530 hours, July 19, 2010.

NAACP renounces Sherrod's actions overnight, and has issued a formal statement to that extent by Todd Jealous, President of NAACP, before 0700 July 20, 2010.
USDA demands her resignation that same day.

NAACP renounces their condemnation of Sherrod overnight on July 21, 2010, and issues a formal statement early on the morning of July 22, 2010, again through Jealous.

Breitbart publishes "Update" line to video sometime after July 22, 2010, in which he points out that the NAACP did ultimately react, then reacted again.

 

[Ravi]

btw...it has nothing to do with the first amendment.

His blog has EVERYTHING to do with the 1st Amendment.

And I see no disclaimer?

What did he post that was false?

Watch the video at your link.

There is no first amendment right to defame people.

 

[Mini 14]

btw...it has nothing to do with the first amendment.

His blog has EVERYTHING to do with the 1st Amendment.

And I see no disclaimer?

What did he post that was false?

Watch the video at your link.

There is no first amendment right to defame people.

Uhm......that's HER in the video.

Are you suggesting that Breitbart is to blame for what she said about herself?

“I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farm land, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land, so I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do,” Sherrod said.

“I did enough,” she said.

Sherrod said the only reason she helped the man at all was because she knew that the federal or state department of agriculture had sent him to her and “he needed to go back and report that I had tried to help him.”

“So I took him to a white lawyer,” she said. “So I figured if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him.”

Sherrod then said it was “revealed” to her, though she did not explain how, that “it’s about the poor versus those who have.”

“It’s not so much about white — it is about white and black — but it’s not, you know,” she said, failing to finish the thought. “It opened my eyes, because I took him to one of his own.”

The video, a less than three-minute excerpt of Sherrod’s remarks, ends at that point.

 

[Ravi]

Please...try to focus here. We are discussing his commentary that introduces her speech. In it he claims she, in a federally appoint position, discriminated against people. She did no such thing as his disclaimer (the words in the little box admitting she did no such thing) shows.

 

[manifold]

If the commentary posted & linked is everything, then she definitely has no case.

I'll bet anybody who thinks otherwise whatever they're willing to lose.

 

[mudwhistle]

Here's the best part...

On Monday, the former USDA employee said she was "still reeling" from the incident and said it had prevented her from finding further work.

"I'm not employed and no one's offered me a job anywhere, so I don't know where to look at this point,'' she told the Associated Press in an interview. "I'm just trying to survive.''

Boo fucking hoo!

The fact that she actually blames Breitbart for her continued failure to secure employment just takes the fucking cake. I mean really? No, seriously... REALLY?

Obama offered her a job and she turned it down.

 

[mudwhistle]

btw...it has nothing to do with the first amendment.

His blog has EVERYTHING to do with the 1st Amendment.

And I see no disclaimer?

What did he post that was false?

Watch the video at your link.

There is no first amendment right to defame people.

Wish somebody would tell 60 Minutes that.

 

[editec]

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

Does she really have a case?

How can we really know if she has a good case?

If the editing of the tape was clearly designed to change the tenor of her actions, then yes, I'd say that she probably does.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

Does she really have a case?

How can we really know if she has a good case?

If the editing of the tape was clearly designed to change the tenor of her actions, then yes, I'd say that she probably does.

But if the damages she's claiming are of her own doing or somebody else then she doesn't have a case. Especially if the damages aren't real. She is lying about her plight. She has been offered jobs. She'll have to perjure herself to claim that she hasn't.

All the defense lawyers have to do is ask her "Didn't the Obama administration offer you a job?"

Then they can expose her admitted racism and corruption.

It's a slam-dunk case.

 

[manifold]

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

Does she really have a case?

How can we really know if she has a good case?

If the editing of the tape was clearly designed to change the tenor of her actions, then yes, I'd say that she probably does.

Are you aware of anyone ever being successfully sued for libel merely for taking a quote 'out of context'? If so, then I would agree with you. If not, then I have to disagree because as sleezy as it was, that's really all he did. And I've read his commentary and couldn't find one single 'lie'.

 

[Mini 14]

But if the damages she's claiming are of her own doing or somebody else then she doesn't have a case. Especially if the damages aren't real. She is lying about her plight. She has been offered jobs. She'll have to perjure herself to claim that she hasn't.

All the defense lawyers have to do is ask her "Didn't the Obama administration offer you a job?"

Then they can expose her admitted racism and corruption.

It's a slam-dunk case.

I don't think it gets that far.

I don't think the Judge will hear her case. Breitbart did nothing illegal, and using the Courts for an ulterior motive is sort of frowned-upon by Judges.

I think Breitbart is right when he says this isn't being driven by her. She is a puppet.

And I'm no longer convinced she is no longer racist. Her comments and actions since the video was posted aren't in line with someone who has "seen the error" of her ways.