Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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....
Those are fine opinions counsellor, but you'll need to prove Brietbart's intention was to purposefully make HER look bad and was an "attack" on HER personally... He claims it wasn't about HER, but about the NAACP...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.
I disagree, as I imagine Brietbart's lawyer would as well... Breitbart didn't force her to resign...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.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?
Slipery slope indeed... Is an out of context video considered "fabricated evidence"?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.
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?
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.
Correction: While Ms. Sherrod made the remarks captured in the first video featured in this post while she held a federally appointed position, the story she tells refers to actions she took before she held that federal position. Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism?2010 - Big Government
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.
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?
Yes, it is.
But repentance and amends do not void out her original discrimination, which she herself admitted.
And her repentance is not quite as "pure" as has been represented. She just morphed from racial class warfare to economic class warfare - another way to hustle the system.
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.
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....
Where he went wrong was the context of how he did it. The "To prove the NAACP is a racist organization....here is an obvious racist speaking to them"
Then he proceeded to offer modified footage to prove his point. Deliberate misrepresentation to cause harm to the poor woman
I don't know, maybe because he lied, and didn't post verbatim quotes. But nice try!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.
Why do you continue to attack someone who is known as an opinion journalist for posting verbatim quotes and commenting on them?
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.
Yep, evevn Breitbart knows this.
Correction: While Ms. Sherrod made the remarks captured in the first video featured in this post while she held a federally appointed position, the story she tells refers to actions she took before she held that federal position. Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism?2010 - Big Government
I wonder why he had to post a correction?
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....
Where he went wrong was the context of how he did it. The "To prove the NAACP is a racist organization....here is an obvious racist speaking to them"
Then he proceeded to offer modified footage to prove his point. Deliberate misrepresentation to cause harm to the poor woman
Do you have a link to him saying Sherrod is "an obvious racist" or something of that nature? IOW, directed AT her and not the NAACP...
Was it to cause "harm to the poor woman" or to the NAACP?
It's an important distinction...
n this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient and in another clip from the same event a perfect rationalization for why the Tea Party needs to exist.
Where he went wrong was the context of how he did it. The "To prove the NAACP is a racist organization....here is an obvious racist speaking to them"
Then he proceeded to offer modified footage to prove his point. Deliberate misrepresentation to cause harm to the poor woman
Do you have a link to him saying Sherrod is "an obvious racist" or something of that nature? IOW, directed AT her and not the NAACP...
Was it to cause "harm to the poor woman" or to the NAACP?
It's an important distinction...
From the blog, the link is in a few of my above posts.
n this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient and in another clip from the same event a perfect rationalization for why the Tea Party needs to exist.
In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesnt do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from one of his own kind. She refers him to a white lawyer.
But "it's not about Sherrod" bwahahahaha!Do you have a link to him saying Sherrod is "an obvious racist" or something of that nature? IOW, directed AT her and not the NAACP...
Was it to cause "harm to the poor woman" or to the NAACP?
It's an important distinction...
From the blog, the link is in a few of my above posts.
also from the blog:
In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesnt do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from one of his own kind. She refers him to a white lawyer.
What are her damages? She was out of work for one day, received an apology from the President, and was offered a better job.
She did not "admit that in her federally appointed position, overseeing a billion dollars, she discriminates against people due to their race.
Yep, evevn Breitbart knows this.
Correction: While Ms. Sherrod made the remarks captured in the first video featured in this post while she held a federally appointed position, the story she tells refers to actions she took before she held that federal position. Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism?2010 - Big Government
I wonder why he had to post a correction?
The person who sent him the clips didn't provide a proper timeline. He has subsequently gotten access to the full tape and has more info. That's what happens with 24 hour news cycle.
When she made the remarks, she did work for the USDA. She showed very poor judgment as a government employee making such remarks to such an audience.
Palin is a public figure.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.
She'll never sue cause she knows she'd lose.
But "it's not about Sherrod" bwahahahaha!From the blog, the link is in a few of my above posts.
also from the blog:
In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesnt do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from one of his own kind. She refers him to a white lawyer.
You people are too much.
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?
What does that even mean?She showed very poor judgment as a government employee making such remarks to such an audience.
I was quoting Brietbart, not you...sensitive much?But "it's not about Sherrod" bwahahahaha!also from the blog:
You people are too much.
Liar...
I made no such claim... I said it would have to be proved that the intention was to harm HER personally... IMHO, the blog post, in it's entirety, reads as more of a tirade against the NAACP...
Go back to your helpdesk, ya fucking liar...
