Sherrod's going to Sue Breitbart...

[MaggieMae]

It figures the lefties would be ALL FOR THIS.

They hate that FREE SPEECH stuff.

Now how did I know one of you would pop up with that "defense"?

 

[Stephanie]

Oh boy, now Maybe Palin can go after all the bloggers and even the Lamestream media for the damage they have caused her.

I say we go GET EM.

As well she should, if she feels damaged. This needs to stop.

July 24, 2010
Shirley Sherrod and Me
By VAN JONES

I UNDERSTAND how Shirley Sherrod, the Agriculture Department official who was forced to resign last week, must have felt.

Last year I, too, resigned from an administration job, after I uttered some ill-chosen words about the Republican Party and was accused — falsely — of signing my name to a petition being passed around by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Partisan Web sites and pundits pounced, and I, too, saw my name go from obscurity to national infamy within hours.

Our situations aren’t exactly the same. Ms. Sherrod’s comments, in which she, a black woman, appeared to admit to racial discrimination against a white couple, were taken far out of context, while I truly did use a vulgarity.

But the way we were treated is strikingly similar, and it reveals a lot about the venal nature of Washington politics in the Internet era. In my case, the media rushed to judgment so quickly that I was never able to make clear that the group put my name on its Web site without my permission. The group finally admitted that it never had my signature, but by then it was too late.

Fortunately, Ms. Sherrod has been offered a new job. But our stories offer cautionary tales to anyone interested in taking a job in national politics.

Life inside the Beltway has become a combination of speed chess and Mortal Kombat: one wrong move can mean political death. In the era of YouTube, Twitter and 24-hour cable news, nobody is safe. Even the lowliest staff member knows that an errant comment could wind up online, making her name synonymous with scandal.

The result is that people at all levels of government are becoming overly cautious, unwilling to venture new opinions or even live regular lives for fear of seeing even the most innocuous comment or photograph used against them, all while trying to protect and improve the country. The victims aren’t just government employees — the public as well is hurt. The imperative to immediately and constantly churn out news on even the most minor bit of controversy leads news organizations, and partisans posing as news organizations, to cross the line from responsible reporting to dangerous rumor-mongering.

More ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/opinion/25jones.html

omg, give me a friggen hankie.
the poor wittle VICTIM, a radical American hating avowed commie 9/11 truther.
and you post this CRAP from him.

 

[boedicca]

It figures the lefties would be ALL FOR THIS.

They hate that FREE SPEECH stuff.

You consider posting a video edited out of context is FREE SPEECH?

Yes. The Media and Individuals do this all of the time. Free Speech entails being able to quote whatever one wishes. If it's misleading, then others are free to expose and contradict it.

Context IS in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Sherry]

Oh boy, now Maybe Palin can go after all the bloggers and even the Lamestream media for the damage they have caused her.

I say we go GET EM.

As well she should, if she feels damaged. This needs to stop.

July 24, 2010
Shirley Sherrod and Me
By VAN JONES

I UNDERSTAND how Shirley Sherrod, the Agriculture Department official who was forced to resign last week, must have felt.

Last year I, too, resigned from an administration job, after I uttered some ill-chosen words about the Republican Party and was accused — falsely — of signing my name to a petition being passed around by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Partisan Web sites and pundits pounced, and I, too, saw my name go from obscurity to national infamy within hours.

Our situations aren’t exactly the same. Ms. Sherrod’s comments, in which she, a black woman, appeared to admit to racial discrimination against a white couple, were taken far out of context, while I truly did use a vulgarity.

But the way we were treated is strikingly similar, and it reveals a lot about the venal nature of Washington politics in the Internet era. In my case, the media rushed to judgment so quickly that I was never able to make clear that the group put my name on its Web site without my permission. The group finally admitted that it never had my signature, but by then it was too late.

Fortunately, Ms. Sherrod has been offered a new job. But our stories offer cautionary tales to anyone interested in taking a job in national politics.

Life inside the Beltway has become a combination of speed chess and Mortal Kombat: one wrong move can mean political death. In the era of YouTube, Twitter and 24-hour cable news, nobody is safe. Even the lowliest staff member knows that an errant comment could wind up online, making her name synonymous with scandal.

The result is that people at all levels of government are becoming overly cautious, unwilling to venture new opinions or even live regular lives for fear of seeing even the most innocuous comment or photograph used against them, all while trying to protect and improve the country. The victims aren’t just government employees — the public as well is hurt. The imperative to immediately and constantly churn out news on even the most minor bit of controversy leads news organizations, and partisans posing as news organizations, to cross the line from responsible reporting to dangerous rumor-mongering.

More ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/opinion/25jones.html

Van Jones is a real piece of work. There was more leveled against him, but he doesn't deny any of those allegations. He's always promoting the victim mentality.

This is exactly what happened to Ms. Sherrod. Andrew Breitbart, a prominent Internet conservative, promoted a misleadingly edited video of her speech; within hours, news outlets of all stripes were promoting it as truth. The White House and N.A.A.C.P. both overreacted, then back-pedaled with egg on their faces. But they are victims, too. The only real winners were Mr. Breitbart and his colleagues, whose Web hits probably numbered in the millions.

 

[Stephanie]

It figures the lefties would be ALL FOR THIS.

They hate that FREE SPEECH stuff.

Now how did I know one of you would pop up with that "defense"?

yeah I know the truth hurts sometimes.

 

[paperview]

It figures the lefties would be ALL FOR THIS.

They hate that FREE SPEECH stuff.

You consider posting a video edited out of context is FREE SPEECH?

Yes. The Media and Individuals do this all of the time. Free Speech entails being able to quote whatever one wishes. If it's misleading, then others are free to expose and contradict it.

Context IS in the eye of the beholder.

Defaming someone's character - a private citizen - with malice (and Breitbart certainly had that) is an absolutely valid case for a lawsuit.

Wonder if notsoBreitass will settle.

 

[Stephanie]

You consider posting a video edited out of context is FREE SPEECH?

Yes. The Media and Individuals do this all of the time. Free Speech entails being able to quote whatever one wishes. If it's misleading, then others are free to expose and contradict it.

Context IS in the eye of the beholder.

Defaming someone's character - a private citizen - with malice (and Breitbart certainly had that) is an absolutely valid case for a lawsuit.

Wonder if notsoBreitass will settle.

How the hell can you "defame" someone with THEIR OWN WORDS.
good gawd what a joke.

 

[paperview]

Yes. The Media and Individuals do this all of the time. Free Speech entails being able to quote whatever one wishes. If it's misleading, then others are free to expose and contradict it.

Context IS in the eye of the beholder.

Defaming someone's character - a private citizen - with malice (and Breitbart certainly had that) is an absolutely valid case for a lawsuit.

Wonder if notsoBreitass will settle.

How the hell can you "defame" someone with THEIR OWN WORDS.
good gawd what a joke.

He essentially called her a racist. Then took an out of context video and posted it to millions. That's defamation.

 

[Stephanie]

Defaming someone's character - a private citizen - with malice (and Breitbart certainly had that) is an absolutely valid case for a lawsuit.

Wonder if notsoBreitass will settle.

How the hell can you "defame" someone with THEIR OWN WORDS.
good gawd what a joke.

He essentially called her a racist. Then took an out of context video and posted it to millions. That's defamation.

that is a bold faced lie.
I hope he sues her for she said ABOUT HIM.

"He'd like to get us stuck back in the time of slavery"....Oh ok...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwNBySVh5vU]YouTube - Shirley Sherrod Goes After Breitbart on AC360[/ame]

 

[Sherry]

Defaming someone's character - a private citizen - with malice (and Breitbart certainly had that) is an absolutely valid case for a lawsuit.

Wonder if notsoBreitass will settle.

How the hell can you "defame" someone with THEIR OWN WORDS.
good gawd what a joke.

He essentially called her a racist. Then took an out of context video and posted it to millions. That's defamation.

It's wrong, but no different than NBC editing video of an armed black man at a TPM gathering, and claiming the group to be racists.

 

[paperview]

How the hell can you "defame" someone with THEIR OWN WORDS.
good gawd what a joke.

YOU said this steph:

rid the nation of BROWN PEOPLE.

Now. That's your own words there, isn't it?

I can even post the link here you said it.

 

[paperview]

that is a bold faced lie.
...

I can see why so many people have you on ignore.

 

[Stephanie]

The American people should SUE the Naacp for only "taking the word of a person" the black congresscritter and the media with no VIDEO PROOF, that he was called ugly names at the Tea Party and using that to pass some ignorant resulation condemn THE American people in the Tea Party.

 

[Luissa]

What are her damages? She was out of work for one day, received an apology from the President, and was offered a better job.

Of course, she also has a history of hustling the government for faux "pain and suffering" damages as a part of the race card industry.

They tried to ruin her life, and you guys are attacking her? It doesn't matter what she has done in her life, it doesn't change the lies they told her about her.

 

[Luissa]

Yes. The Media and Individuals do this all of the time. Free Speech entails being able to quote whatever one wishes. If it's misleading, then others are free to expose and contradict it.

Context IS in the eye of the beholder.

Defaming someone's character - a private citizen - with malice (and Breitbart certainly had that) is an absolutely valid case for a lawsuit.

Wonder if notsoBreitass will settle.

How the hell can you "defame" someone with THEIR OWN WORDS.
good gawd what a joke.

are you really that big of an idiot?

 

[Stephanie]

Defaming someone's character - a private citizen - with malice (and Breitbart certainly had that) is an absolutely valid case for a lawsuit.

Wonder if notsoBreitass will settle.

How the hell can you "defame" someone with THEIR OWN WORDS.
good gawd what a joke.

are you really that big of an idiot?

what? did you say something.
do you have to strive hard to be a nasty peice of work, or does it come natural?
just wondering.

 

[Luissa]

How the hell can you "defame" someone with THEIR OWN WORDS.
good gawd what a joke.

are you really that big of an idiot?

what? did you say something.

 

[Ravi]

Defaming someone's character - a private citizen - with malice (and Breitbart certainly had that) is an absolutely valid case for a lawsuit.

Wonder if notsoBreitass will settle.

How the hell can you "defame" someone with THEIR OWN WORDS.
good gawd what a joke.

He essentially called her a racist. Then took an out of context video and posted it to millions. That's defamation.

Not to mention that he claimed she was being a racist in her current job with the USDA.

 

[Stephanie]

are you really that big of an idiot?

what? did you say something.

yeah you are.

 

[paperview]

How the hell can you "defame" someone with THEIR OWN WORDS.
good gawd what a joke.

He essentially called her a racist. Then took an out of context video and posted it to millions. That's defamation.

Not to mention that he claimed she was being a racist in her current job with the USDA.

Yes. Lied as well.

All anyone has to do is look at his intro piece to his ...er, deliverance
of the out of context video.