Sherrod's going to Sue Breitbart...

[Luissa]

Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.

Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:

* Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
* Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
* Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
* Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
Defamation, Libel and Slander Law

 

[Ravi]

Didn't she get some hate emails and phone calls as well?

 

[Luissa]

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.

She has actual proof they tried to smear her name, and it will be very easy to prove mental anguish.

 

[boedicca]

How is it an attack to quote somebody verbatim?

 

[Luissa]

How is it an attack to quote somebody verbatim?

He didn't quote her verbatim, he edited the video.

 

[Luissa]

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.

And Brietbart is the party at fault, he is the one who posted the video and claimed she was a racist. I do love how you guys continue to defend him, and some of you go even farther and attack her. She is the innocent party, and some continue to act like she is some how at fault.

 

[paperview]

How is it an attack to quote somebody verbatim?

I have a quote of Stephanie saying: "rid the nation of BROWN PEOPLE."

I have it. It's her own words. She said it.

Verbatim.

Now maybe you can use your imagination to see what the word we need here...hmmm...lets see if you can figure it out.

 

[jillian]

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?

I don't know... they're probably not extensive, but she only needs to prove a minimum amount of damage to possibly be entitled to punitive damages.

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...

well, you've seen people post the law as it exists. you saw jonathan turley's comments. there would be motions to dismiss, but i think she survives a 12(b)(6) motion. (that's a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action).

and yes, people get publicly humiliated, but a) she wasn't a public figure, so there's a lower threshold than if, say, someone says 'rush limbaugh is a big fat idiot'; b) it wasn't based on truth; it was based on doctoring the tape of the speech to intentionally make her look like she acted improperly. you can't hold people up to scorn and ridicule in their profession... that's a no-no.

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?

no... because the forced resignation was based on breitbart's lie. the damage would be in bringing up those issues again and falsely portraying her as what she isn't.

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

I think journalists have to fact-check. And in response to your question, it depends... did the journalist fabricate 'evidence' or did he or she a) think they were getting accurate information; or b) were they just inserting their own take? I think journalists shoudl fairly present their story. The problem is that breitbart isn't a journalist. He had no journalistic integrity. He not only didn't fact-check, but he doctoried the tapes... same as he did with the ACORN non-story.

Maybe you could give her a call...

lol..... i'm guessing she'll get someone far more famous than I am to do it for free.

 

[boedicca]

How is it an attack to quote somebody verbatim?

He didn't quote her verbatim, he edited the video.

They are verbatim clips from a longer video. He did not edit words out of sentences to change what she said. He included full "video" quotes of her exact comments.

News and commentary programs and websites do this on a constant basis. That's what reporters and commentators do - single out the bits they find news or comment worthy. We can debate and criticize whether or not such clips and quotes are representative of the whole - but that doesn't mean that using such quotes and clips is defamatory.

 

[Dr.House]

How is it an attack to quote somebody verbatim?

He didn't quote her verbatim, he edited the video.

How is an edited video considered an "attack"?

Out of context materials and quotes are released all the time to put people in a less than favorable light... What makes her case different? Was it because some 0bama official decided to use it to force her resignation? Did Brietbart force the "forcers" to have her resign?

Personally, I think she's playing her initial cards to see if Brietbart will cough up some sort of apology and/or some cash....

 

[boedicca]

I suspect she's feeding the hysteria in order to extract a bigger settlement from the USDA. She's greenmailed them in the past, and knows how to manipulate the system.

 

[Luissa]

How is it an attack to quote somebody verbatim?

He didn't quote her verbatim, he edited the video.

They are verbatim clips from a longer video. He did not edit words out of sentences to change what she said. He included full "video" quotes of her exact comments.

News and commentary programs and websites do this on a constant basis. That's what reporters and commentators do - single out the bits they find news or comment worthy. We can debate and criticize whether or not such clips and quotes are representative of the whole - but that doesn't mean that using such quotes and clips is defamatory.

He edited a video to make the claim she was a racist. He also claimed she discriminated against someone in her job, something that was also proven false. So you might want to check out Shogun's post.

 

[Ravi]

How is it an attack to quote somebody verbatim?

He didn't quote her verbatim, he edited the video.

How is an edited video considered an "attack"?

Out of context materials and quotes are released all the time to put people in a less than favorable light... What makes her case different? Was it because some 0bama official decided to use it to force her resignation? Did Brietbart force the "forcers" to have her resign?

Personally, I think she's playing her initial cards to see if Brietbart will cough up some sort of apology and/or some cash....

This is what makes it difference, Brietbart's claim:

Ms. Sherrod admits that in her federally appointed position, overseeing a billion dollars, she discriminates against people due to their race.

 

[boedicca]

Racism is in the eye of the beholder.

And she did in fact admit to discriminating against someone in her job - she said she did less than she could have. The fact that she later on made amends doesn't absolve her of her earlier bad behavior.

 

[maineman]

Racism is in the eye of the beholder.

And she did in fact admit to discriminating against someone in her job - she said she did less than she could have. The fact that she later on made amends doesn't absolve her of her earlier bad behavior.

making amends is not not an integral part of absolution?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Racism is in the eye of the beholder.

And she did in fact admit to discriminating against someone in her job - she said she did less than she could have. The fact that she later on made amends doesn't absolve her of her earlier bad behavior.

She didn't discriminate, did she not help the farmer save his farm?

 

[Coyote]

Racism is in the eye of the beholder.

And she did in fact admit to discriminating against someone in her job - she said she did less than she could have. The fact that she later on made amends doesn't absolve her of her earlier bad behavior.

She did not "admit that in her federally appointed position, overseeing a billion dollars, she discriminates against people due to their race.

 

[Luissa]

I suspect she's feeding the hysteria in order to extract a bigger settlement from the USDA. She's greenmailed them in the past, and knows how to manipulate the system.

Why do you continue to attack this woman? She did nothing wrong, but for some reason you keep trying to make her look like the villain.

And here is the answer to your other question.

n her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism?2010 - Big Government

* 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]
http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ods-going-to-sue-breitbart-4.html#post2558179


The white farmer has already come out saying she did not discriminate against him.

 

[Coyote]

Racism is in the eye of the beholder.

And she did in fact admit to discriminating against someone in her job - she said she did less than she could have. The fact that she later on made amends doesn't absolve her of her earlier bad behavior.

making amends is not not an integral part of absolution?

Not if your a liberal, like Sherrod or say, Byrd.

 

[Luissa]

Racism is in the eye of the beholder.

And she did in fact admit to discriminating against someone in her job - she said she did less than she could have. The fact that she later on made amends doesn't absolve her of her earlier bad behavior.

She wasn't in a federally appointed job when dealing with the farmer. And you might want to check out what the farmer has to say about the way she treated him. But please continue to make her look like the villain, while you let the real asshole off.