Sherrod's going to Sue Breitbart...

[rightwinger]

It's not defamation to post or quote somebody's verbatim statements.

Lets let a jury decide. Its not just the outtake of what she said but the context it was put in. She was defined as a racist and the clip was presented to make the case she was a racist

The jury can also look at intent and whether he intended to inflict harm on her. Damages could get nasty here

Perhaps.

However wouldn't actual harm have to be proven first?

Again, actual harm may not have been that bad in monetary damages. She was humiliated in front of the whole country, forced to resign, labeled a racist. Whats the dollar value on that?

Punative damages could get nasty. But of course that scum Breitbart will never pay a cent

 

[jillian]

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?

you don't think there's a value to being publicly humiliated?

you know, this woman's father was murdered by kkk'ers... i could make an argument that the psychological damagefrom this case alone had a value. that said, even if the monetary value isn't large, making this would keep breitbart from doing this to someone else.

oh... and most lawyers (not all, of course) wouldn't take a frivolous case for 15 minutes of fame... because if you're going to be famous as a lawyer, you want a case that makes you look good.

 

[asterism]

Lets let a jury decide. Its not just the outtake of what she said but the context it was put in. She was defined as a racist and the clip was presented to make the case she was a racist

The jury can also look at intent and whether he intended to inflict harm on her. Damages could get nasty here

Perhaps.

However wouldn't actual harm have to be proven first?

I am sure they could prove the media going after trying to ruin her name, harmed her.

How?

She got offered a promotion and now has a book deal in the works.

I don't see the harm, as defined by a court of law.

 

[rightwinger]

It's not defamation to post or quote somebody's verbatim statements.

Lets let a jury decide. Its not just the outtake of what she said but the context it was put in. She was defined as a racist and the clip was presented to make the case she was a racist

The jury can also look at intent and whether he intended to inflict harm on her. Damages could get nasty here

Then she'd better be prepared for the same treatment in return. She is on record of accusing Fox News and the GOP of being RACIST without any proof.

We're not racist...you are racist!

Let Fox News defend itself. They played the clip nonstop under the banner "NAACP is Racist, here is proof"

 

[konradv]

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]

He probably can't. He's a public figure.

 

[boedicca]

Under our current REGIME, race baiters and hustlers are rewarded - so there are most likely plenty of shysters who would take Sherrod's case for both the fame and the inevitable settlement with the USDA (she's already won that lottery once in the past).

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Brietbarts lie cause emotional suffering and Sherrod to lose her job, she should sue so maybe these damn distorting, lying Republictards and Teabaggers will stop twisting facts to damage and destroy people for political gain.

 

[Luissa]

Perhaps.

However wouldn't actual harm have to be proven first?

I am sure they could prove the media going after trying to ruin her name, harmed her.

How?

She got offered a promotion and now has a book deal in the works.

I don't see the harm, as defined by a court of law.

emotional damages, and I think Rightwingers post answered the question very well.
If Tom Cruise can get money out of tabloid that claimed he was gay, I am sure this lady has a chance when be called a racist by the media, then forced to resign.

 

[boedicca]

She was offered another job withing a very short amount of time. Her economic damages are nil. For any humiliation she may have felt, she has also been cried up as a heroine on the Left.

And do you really want to set a precedent of liability for posting clips and quotes of a larger event?

 

[Luissa]

Under our current REGIME, race baiters and hustlers are rewarded - so there are most likely plenty of shysters who would take Sherrod's case for both the fame and the inevitable settlement with the USDA (she's already won that lottery once in the past).

What does her winning the lottery have to do with anything?
And I just love how you guys continue to try make her out to be the bad guy.


I also love how you used a word that sometimes is used when referring to a jewish lawyer.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

She was offered another job withing a very short amount of time. Her economic damages are nil. For any humiliation she may have felt, she has also been cried up as a heroine on the Left.

And do you really want to set a precedent of liability for posting clips and quotes of a larger event?

Intentional posting hearsay and lies is libel and slander and thats exactly what Briebart did, he slandered Sherrod and the monkeys at Foxnews should be sued also for fanning the flames.

 

[asterism]

you don't think there's a value to being publicly humiliated?

I don't think there is a precedent to award damages without any monetary harm. Joe the Plumber and all that.

you know, this woman's father was murdered by kkk'ers... i could make an argument that the psychological damage alone had a value.

I'm sure you think you could but without any credentials to practice before SCOTUS you actually couldn't. If you actually do have said credentials, what is stopping you?

that said, even if the monetary value isn't large, making this would keep breitbart from doing this to someone else.

Ah.

So this is just transferring emotion. Who fired Ms. Sherrod? Wouldn't they be liable?

oh... and most lawyers (not all, of course) wouldn't take a frivolous case for 15 minutes of fame... because if you're going to be famous as a lawyer, you want a case that makes you look good.

But there certainly are a few that would wholeheartedly do this correct? Where are they? Why aren't they taking this case?

 

[Luissa]

She was offered another job withing a very short amount of time. Her economic damages are nil. For any humiliation she may have felt, she has also been cried up as a heroine on the Left.

And do you really want to set a precedent of liability for posting clips and quotes of a larger event?

maybe we should set a precedent? There is already a problem with responsible journalism.

 

[asterism]

Let Fox News defend itself. They played the clip nonstop under the banner "NAACP is Racist, here is proof"

I'd like to see some evidence of that. When this whole thing went national I had CNN on one TV, FoxNews on the other, and DU on my computer.

Maybe I missed something.

 

[asterism]

Brietbarts lie cause emotional suffering and Sherrod to lose her job, she should sue so maybe these damn distorting, lying Republictards and Teabaggers will stop twisting facts to damage and destroy people for political gain.

She was offered a promotion. Saying "well I turned down more money because I was so distraught" won't exactly play well with a jury.

This really is going to be funny.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The Shirley Sherrod controversy proved one thing indeed, Republicans-conservatives and Teabaggers are race hustlers, even bigger race hustlers than those they accuse of being hustlers. Hustlers have money to give up so why not make them pay?

 

[asterism]

I am sure they could prove the media going after trying to ruin her name, harmed her.

How?

She got offered a promotion and now has a book deal in the works.

I don't see the harm, as defined by a court of law.

emotional damages, and I think Rightwingers post answered the question very well.
If Tom Cruise can get money out of tabloid that claimed he was gay, I am sure this lady has a chance when be called a racist by the media, then forced to resign.

Tom Cruise got a settlement because he had actual proof that his ability to further enrich himself was hampered by smears.

That said, he had enough money to pursue an active defense, something that Ms. Sherrod doesn't have.

I just wonder why she isn't suing the party at fault, the party that cause the actual damage.

 

[Dr.House]

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?

you don't think there's a value to being publicly humiliated?

Sure, but people are publically humiliated all the time... Are they all compensated for that...? Should they be?

What's the precedent of people suing for having their own comments published out of context?

I guess it's up to a court of law to determine whether anything applies in her case...

you know, this woman's father was murdered by kkk'ers... i could make an argument that the psychological damage alone had a value. that said, even if the monetary value isn't large, making this would keep breitbart from doing this to someone else.

An argument could be made that her forced resignation was the cause of her "psychological damage"... A defense lawyer certainly would bring that into play, as well as any discovery surrounding that... Whooo boy, wouldn't that be interesting?

So do you have a problem with only Breitbart or with any journalist who releases material of a dubious/questionable nature?

oh... and most lawyers (not all, of course) wouldn't take a frivolous case for 15 minutes of fame... because if you're going to be famous as a lawyer, you want a case that makes you look good.

Maybe you could give her a call...

 

[rightwinger]

Brietbarts lie cause emotional suffering and Sherrod to lose her job, she should sue so maybe these damn distorting, lying Republictards and Teabaggers will stop twisting facts to damage and destroy people for political gain.

She was offered a promotion. Saying "well I turned down more money because I was so distraught" won't exactly play well with a jury.

This really is going to be funny.

That was between her and her employer who was also at fault here. No reason Breitbart should get off the hook because her employer covered his ass.

If I were a lawyer, I would jump at this case. Intentional infliction of harm, fraud, defamation, slander

Of course Breitbart is scum and will never pay a cent

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Brietbarts lie cause emotional suffering and Sherrod to lose her job, she should sue so maybe these damn distorting, lying Republictards and Teabaggers will stop twisting facts to damage and destroy people for political gain.

She was offered a promotion. Saying "well I turned down more money because I was so distraught" won't exactly play well with a jury.

This really is going to be funny.

She was forced to resign after being slandered as a racist with lies and distortion by that ape Briebart. When fired people are offered their job back within the same company the work environment is *NEVER* the same because the trust is gone.