Sherrod files suit against Breitbart

[Cuyo]

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.

Olberman?

Limbaugh?

Matthews?

Beck?

Breitbart broke no law.

No, nobody said he did. He's allegedly guilty of a tort (libel), not a law. And she doesn't have to prove that it cost her anything; There are 2 types of monetary damages in tort cases, actual damages and punitive.

There are certain laws that protect journalists from libel claims when it involves people in the public eye, eg celebrities and politicians, but I don't think it will extend to someone like Sherrod. Goldcatt could tell you better.

My guess is out of court settlement.

 

[Cuyo]

You know Dive, that's actually a great point (yeah I just threw up in my mouth )

I never read the articles Breitbart wrote, but I did see the video. And the audience clearly cheers when she says she didn't help the guy because he was white, and at that point they had no reason to assume she would go on to 'redeem' herself so to speak.

If you watch the entire video, not Brietbart's edited clip, you would see that she alludes to her awakening in advance...so yes, they had every reason to know that she would "redeem" herself.

You never watched it did you? Which makes your commentary on the topic very amusing. But then again, you are an opinionated ignoramus.

Breibart didnt edit anything
he was given clips, he posted what he was given

It won't be just the clips submitted at discovery/trial, it will be the clips in the context of his brand of commentary that accompanied them, which I haven't read. But judging from the reaction it garnered, his presentation was likely libelous.

 

[Mini 14]

My guess is out of court settlement.

A settlement is the only option that isn't on the table.

Why would he give up what could be the best opportunity he'll ever be presented to promote his business and himself?

Breitbart cannot lose here, unless he settles. That is the ONLY way I can think of that he will lose more than he will gain.

He wants it to go to court, and if it does, he is going to turn it into a circus (who wouldn't?). Regardless of the Judge's decision at that point, he wins big.

 

[Cuyo]

My guess is out of court settlement.

A settlement is the only option that isn't on the table.

Why would he give up what could be the best opportunity he'll ever be presented to promote his business and himself?

Breitbart cannot lose here, unless he settles. That is the ONLY way I can think of that he will lose more than he will gain.

He wants it to go to court, and if it does, he is going to turn it into a circus (who wouldn't?). Regardless of the Judge's decision at that point, he wins big.

You think he can't lose because you don't have much of a grasp on the legal system, evidenced by the fact that you keep saying he committed no crime.

However he likes to present himself for the cameras, with all the chest beating and wise guy antics, he's very aware he could lose. I doubt this will go to trial.

edit: I see what you're saying, my bad.

 

[R.D.]

Obama offered her a job and she turned it down.

Yep...

She later received numerous apologies from the administration, including from President Barack Obama, and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asked her to return. She declined the offer, but she said at the time she might do some contract work with the department......

"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 said. "I'm just trying to survive." CLICK


To believe the ruse you have to overlook the obvious

 

[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 .

Yes. they. did.

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

Case in point...you were fooled by it. She was telling the audience that she overcame her feelings that white people looked down on her and realized that it was her job to help all...and that she eventually befriended the farmer. And the audience was applauding her for arriving at her conclusion and empathizing with her.

Im not sure they knew the moral of the story before she told the story,

 

[DiveCon]

If you watch the entire video, not Brietbart's edited clip, you would see that she alludes to her awakening in advance...so yes, they had every reason to know that she would "redeem" herself.

You never watched it did you? Which makes your commentary on the topic very amusing. But then again, you are an opinionated ignoramus.

Breibart didnt edit anything
he was given clips, he posted what he was given

It won't be just the clips submitted at discovery/trial, it will be the clips in the context of his brand of commentary that accompanied them, which I haven't read. But judging from the reaction it garnered, his presentation was likely libelous.

they are posted in this thread, before YOU posted
READ EM then get back to me

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Case in point...you were fooled by it. She was telling the audience that she overcame her feelings that white people looked down on her and realized that it was her job to help all...and that she eventually befriended the farmer. And the audience was applauding her for arriving at her conclusion and empathizing with her.

Im not sure they knew the moral of the story before she told the story,

I think it would take some mind-reading either way. Maybe some in the audience knew where she was headed, and others didn't.

But when I...made the commitment years ago I didn't know how -- I didn't...I prayed about it that night and as our house filled with people I was back in one of the bedrooms praying and asking God to show me what I could do. I didn't have -- the path wasn't laid out that night. I just made the decision that I would stay and work. And -- And over the years things just happened.

And young people: I just want you to know that when you're true to what God wants you to do the path just opens up -- and things just come to you, you know. God is good -- I can tell you that.

When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people -- and to black people only. But, you know, God will show you things and He'll put things in your path so that -- that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people, you know.

(Video starts here) The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he -- he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing. But he had come to me for help. What he didn't know -- while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me -- was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him. (This is where the audience empathizes or laughs or whatever)

American Rhetoric: Shirley Sherrod - Speech at the Georgia NAACP 20th Freedom Fund Banquet

About halfway down the page, so this was pretty deep into her speech.