Sherrod's going to Sue Breitbart...

[ConHog]

What are her damages?

He spread obvious lies with malicious intent. Is that not slander/libel?

Not unless she can prove he directly caused her to suffer damages.

 

[ConHog]

He spread obvious lies with malicious intent. Is that not slander/libel?

lies?

for it to be lies, he would have had to show her saying something she didn't say.



pssst: he didn't.

Oh I'm sorry I forgot, he just took things out of context to slander her and make it seem like she meant something she didn't

Such a huge difference you got there

But fine if it makes you feel better he was being completely dishonest and sought to wreck her reputation through the dishonesty. Is that still not libel/slander/defamation?

I'm still waiting for definitive proof that he either edited the tape himself or knew that it was edited. If the answer is no proof of either, than her case is dead in the water

 

[ConHog]

It figures the lefties would be ALL FOR THIS.

They hate that FREE SPEECH stuff.

So you think spreading lies should be covered under free speech?

Psst, lying IS covered by the First Amendment, so much so in fact that the Stolen Valor Act was just over turned.

 

[manifold]

He spread obvious lies with malicious intent. Is that not slander/libel?

lies?

for it to be lies, he would have had to show her saying something she didn't say.



pssst: he didn't.

Oh I'm sorry I forgot, he just took things out of context to slander her and make it seem like she meant something she didn't

Such a huge difference you got there

But fine if it makes you feel better he was being completely dishonest and sought to wreck her reputation through the dishonesty. Is that still not libel/slander/defamation?

I'm pretty sure it's not, no matter how much you'd like it to be in this case.

 

[Father Time]

lies?

for it to be lies, he would have had to show her saying something she didn't say.



pssst: he didn't.

Oh I'm sorry I forgot, he just took things out of context to slander her and make it seem like she meant something she didn't

Such a huge difference you got there

But fine if it makes you feel better he was being completely dishonest and sought to wreck her reputation through the dishonesty. Is that still not libel/slander/defamation?

I'm pretty sure it's not, no matter how much you'd like it to be in this case.

Well I don't know much about those laws but I thought it was.

 

[ConHog]

Oh I'm sorry I forgot, he just took things out of context to slander her and make it seem like she meant something she didn't

Such a huge difference you got there

But fine if it makes you feel better he was being completely dishonest and sought to wreck her reputation through the dishonesty. Is that still not libel/slander/defamation?

I'm pretty sure it's not, no matter how much you'd like it to be in this case.

Well I don't know much about those laws but I thought it was.

Here is precisely why she would NEVER win a case against Breibert

What Defenses Are Available To People Accused of Defamation?
A defendant who transmitted a message without awareness of its content may raise the defense of "innocent dissemination". For example, the post office is not liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is not aware of the contents of the letter.


Defamation, Libel and Slander Law

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh my, vote against a bill which violates your principles or more importantly the principles of your constituents? There's a concept Democrats don't seem to understand here lately.

WTF?

If business leaders would get off their asses and inject some of that $3 trillion they're sitting on back into the economy, more tax incentives to help the cash-strapped smaller businesses survive wouldn't be necessary.

The Government can NOT Create Economy Growing Jobs...

If they are Paying Salaries they are NOT Taking in Tax Revenue...

The Fed needs to get the FUCK out of our Pockets, let the Adjustment happen Naturally and let us get back to Honestly Creating Jobs...



peace...

The long term intent isn't just providing government jobs but to jump start the job climate. There are tens of thousands of jobs that private sector has provided only AFTER a government program was instituted.

 

[MaggieMae]

It figures the lefties would be ALL FOR THIS.

They hate that FREE SPEECH stuff.

So you think spreading lies should be covered under free speech?

In the USSC cases where they had to decide on "free speech," the high court breaks it down into these categories:

Defamation: The First Amendment does not protect defamation, or hurting another person's reputation by spreading falsehoods. Defamation using spoken words is slander; defamation using written words is libel. A person cannot prove defamation if the statements at issue are true.

Fighting words. Another type of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment are abusive and insulting comments delivered face-to-face to a specific individual.

Hate speech. Some legal scholars maintain that racial and ethnic slurs are a type of "fighting words." Though more controversial, the Court has defined "hate speech" as unprotected by the First Amendment if it has a direct tendency to cause acts of violence.

Speech that incites illegal action. The high court ruled in Schmuck v. United States that speech that creates a "clear and present danger" was not covered by First Amendment protection.

Source: The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution (Linda R. Monk)

 

[DiveCon]

It figures the lefties would be ALL FOR THIS.

They hate that FREE SPEECH stuff.

So you think spreading lies should be covered under free speech?

In the USSC cases where they had to decide on "free speech," the high court breaks it down into these categories:

Defamation: The First Amendment does not protect defamation, or hurting another person's reputation by spreading falsehoods. Defamation using spoken words is slander; defamation using written words is libel. A person cannot prove defamation if the statements at issue are true.

Fighting words. Another type of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment are abusive and insulting comments delivered face-to-face to a specific individual.

Hate speech. Some legal scholars maintain that racial and ethnic slurs are a type of "fighting words." Though more controversial, the Court has defined "hate speech" as unprotected by the First Amendment if it has a direct tendency to cause acts of violence.

Speech that incites illegal action. The high court ruled in Schmuck v. United States that speech that creates a "clear and present danger" was not covered by First Amendment protection.

Source: The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution (Linda R. Monk)

well, clearly the only one in play here would be defamation
correct?

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm pretty sure it's not, no matter how much you'd like it to be in this case.

Well I don't know much about those laws but I thought it was.

Here is precisely why she would NEVER win a case against Breibert

What Defenses Are Available To People Accused of Defamation?
A defendant who transmitted a message without awareness of its content may raise the defense of "innocent dissemination". For example, the post office is not liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is not aware of the contents of the letter.


Defamation, Libel and Slander Law

Whoa!! Bad example from your link. The post office is obviously unaware of the contents and therefore would never be a co-defendant in the first place. But from your link, there's proof that Mrs. Sherrod would indeed have a defamation cause of action.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;

2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);

3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and

4.Damage to the plaintiff.

 

[Father Time]

"the Court has defined "hate speech" as unprotected by the First Amendment"

Which court case was that?

 

[L.K.Eder]

sue breitbart, shitty name for a band.

 

[DiveCon]

"the Court has defined "hate speech" as unprotected by the First Amendment"

Which court case was that?

i dont know which case it was, but i remember there being one or two, actually

 

[ConHog]

Well I don't know much about those laws but I thought it was.

Here is precisely why she would NEVER win a case against Breibert

What Defenses Are Available To People Accused of Defamation?
A defendant who transmitted a message without awareness of its content may raise the defense of "innocent dissemination". For example, the post office is not liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is not aware of the contents of the letter.


Defamation, Libel and Slander Law

Whoa!! Bad example from your link. The post office is obviously unaware of the contents and therefore would never be a co-defendant in the first place. But from your link, there's proof that Mrs. Sherrod would indeed have a defamation cause of action.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;

2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);

3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and

4.Damage to the plaintiff.

What proof? Unless she can prove that Breibert KNEW that video was edited...