Sherrod's going to Sue Breitbart...

[Shogun]

What will she sue for?

Defamation of character? Yeah, how often are THOSE suits won...lol That damn pesky first ammendment gets in the way, doesn't it?.... Doh!

What are her damages? She was offered a new position by the 0bama folks who forced her resignation...

What a waste of the court's time and resources....

not really. she's not a public figure... or wasn't until that piece of trash lied about her.

i can tell you i'd take the case in a new york minute.

nothing frivolous about it.

Oh, I'm sure any lawyer would take it for name recognition and some 15+ minutes of fame...

What are her damages that can be demonstrated?

Defamation per se

All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. "Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things":[5]

* Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
* Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
* Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
* Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude) [6][7]
United States defamation law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SNAP!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Didn't you leftwing idiots bitch and moan and say that a US court of law stated that Fox News could lie? Well if that's true then Sherrod hasn't a leg to stand on.

 

[paperview]

The most obvious claims would be false light and defamation.
The Restatement Second defines the tort of false light:

652E. Publicity Placing Person in False Light
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if
(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.
​

 

[Stephanie]

except she's a sweetheart....

and you're a nasty loon.

so, answer your own question, dear... do you strive hard to be a nasty piece of work, or does it come natural [sic]?

LOL, leave it to my friend jilly to donate to the circle jerkoff.

should everyone just sit back and allow a nutbar like you to spew?

perhaps you might want to find a board of like-minded people if that's what you're looking for.

or feel free to slink away with your racist tail between your legs since you've just been made to look pretty pathetic.

whatever suits.

awwww, jilly dear. you are becoming more SHRILL and hateful with each passing year.
and when you take over this board, I'll consider leaving cause it wouldn't be any fun anymore.

 

[jillian]

Didn't you leftwing idiots bitch and moan and say that a US court of law stated that Fox News could lie? Well if that's true then Sherrod hasn't a leg to stand on.

please tell me you're not really that stupid.

 

[paperview]

The above, and this from Jonathon Turley:

"...Of course, if Sherrod were to sue, she would likely make it past initial motions to dismiss and could secure embarrassing discovery in the case, including possible internal emails and communications on the purpose of the editing and release of the video.


False light is attractive because the actual material shown can be true but still be misleading and the basis for liability. The potential for damages under either claim would be modest. She was quickly rehabilitated publicly after the editing was made public. She is now viewed by conservatives and liberals as a victim of a smear campaign. She was also quickly offered a better job.


For Breitbart the greatest threat is not the ultimate damages but the costs and discovery involved in the litigation. Sherrod could seek emails and communications revealing his motivation and knowledge before posting the video. Breitbart has often been accused of serving as a conduit for conservative interests. However, it will be interesting to see if media groups will view efforts to seize such material as threatening to press rights and interests."

 

[jillian]

LOL, leave it to my friend jilly to donate to the circle jerkoff.

should everyone just sit back and allow a nutbar like you to spew?

perhaps you might want to find a board of like-minded people if that's what you're looking for.

or feel free to slink away with your racist tail between your legs since you've just been made to look pretty pathetic.

whatever suits.

awwww, jilly dear. you are becoming more SHRILL and hateful with each passing year.
and when you take over this board, I'll consider leaving cause it wouldn't be any fun anymore.

poor steffie.

you know, friends don't let friends post drunk.

but i guess in your mind it's 5 o'clock somewhere, eh?

 

[asterism]

The most obvious claims would be false light and defamation.
The Restatement Second defines the tort of false light:

652E. Publicity Placing Person in False Light
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if
(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.
​

Interesting.

Can Joe the Plumber sue?

 

[paperview]

Didn't you leftwing idiots bitch and moan and say that a US court of law stated that Fox News could lie? Well if that's true then Sherrod hasn't a leg to stand on.

Wow.

Can you get a little more idiotic than that?

 

[mal]

Sherrod's going to Sue Breitbart...

Who is Sue Breitbart? Is that Andy's wife?

And why is she going to her?

I knew it would be you toxi.0...



peace...

 

[jillian]

Interesting.

Can Joe the Plumber sue?

for what? people thinking he's stupid?

 

[rightwinger]

If Breitbart didn't do anything wrong, I'm sure he has nothing to worry about

 

[Stephanie]

should everyone just sit back and allow a nutbar like you to spew?

perhaps you might want to find a board of like-minded people if that's what you're looking for.

or feel free to slink away with your racist tail between your legs since you've just been made to look pretty pathetic.

whatever suits.

awwww, jilly dear. you are becoming more SHRILL and hateful with each passing year.
and when you take over this board, I'll consider leaving cause it wouldn't be any fun anymore.

poor steffie.

you know, friends don't let friends post drunk.

but i guess in your mind it's 5 o'clock somewhere, eh?

no jilly dear. it's poor poor you.
but carry on if you must.

 

[paperview]

The most obvious claims would be false light and defamation.
The Restatement Second defines the tort of false light:

652E. Publicity Placing Person in False Light
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if
(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.
​

Interesting.

Can Joe the Plumber sue?

I dunno. Start a thread about it.

 

[asterism]

The above, and this from Jonathon Turley:

For Breitbart the greatest threat is not the ultimate damages but the costs and discovery involved in the litigation. Sherrod could seek emails and communications revealing his motivation and knowledge before posting the video. Breitbart has often been accused of serving as a conduit for conservative interests. However, it will be interesting to see if media groups will view efforts to seize such material as threatening to press rights and interests."

That will be an interesting path.

I wonder if Ezra Klein has his lawyers on the phone right now trying to figure out how that's going to affect him with regard to his Journolist rants.

 

[jillian]

awwww, jilly dear. you are becoming more SHRILL and hateful with each passing year.
and when you take over this board, I'll consider leaving cause it wouldn't be any fun anymore.

poor steffie.

you know, friends don't let friends post drunk.

but i guess in your mind it's 5 o'clock somewhere, eh?

no jilly dear. it's poor poor you.
but carry on if you must.

 

[jillian]

The above, and this from Jonathon Turley:

For Breitbart the greatest threat is not the ultimate damages but the costs and discovery involved in the litigation. Sherrod could seek emails and communications revealing his motivation and knowledge before posting the video. Breitbart has often been accused of serving as a conduit for conservative interests. However, it will be interesting to see if media groups will view efforts to seize such material as threatening to press rights and interests."

That will be an interesting path.

I wonder if Ezra Klein has his lawyers on the phone right now trying to figure out how that's going to affect him with regard to his Journolist rants.

you just going to run around trolling?

or do you have something to counter jonathan turley?

you know, given that your legal expertise must at least equal his if you're so smug.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Actual damages may not be that high

Punative damages could get hefty

 

[Stephanie]

I hope she does sue, she will open up one big can of worms.

it should be fun.

 

[jillian]

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.

Actual damages may not be that high

Punative damages could get hefty

yeah, but the rightwingnuts will raise money for his defense.