Victory For Shirley Sherrod

[Synthaholic]

Defamation Suit Against Blogger Breitbart Survives Motion to Dismiss



U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued a series of orders this morning denying motions to dismiss or relocate former U.S. Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod's defamation lawsuit against conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart.


Leon denied Breitbart's initial motion to dismiss as well as a special motion to dismiss under Washington's new statute barring strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs. Leon did not publish a written opinion along with his orders.


Sherrod is suing Breitbart, Breitbart’s colleague Larry O’Connor and an unnamed defendant over the release of a video clip and accompanying text on Breitbart’s Web site claiming the video offered proof that Sherrod, who is black, discriminated against white farmers. Sherrod, in her complaint, argues Breitbart made defamatory accusations of racism based on a “deceptively edited” clip that was taken out of context.


Breitbart and O’Connor had argued that they were engaging in protected speech under the First Amendment when they posted the clip and comments online. They also argued that if the case is not dismissed, it should be moved to U.S. District Court for Central California because it’s where Breitbart and O’Connor live and work on the Web-based businesses in question.


Leon heard oral arguments on July 19.
​

*snip*

 

[driveby]

zero fucks given ....

 

[DiAnna]

Good. I hope she takes him to the cleaners for what he did to her. Maybe the prick will think twice before slandering someone else with doctored "evidence."

 

[frazzledgear]

Defamation Suit Against Blogger Breitbart Survives Motion to Dismiss



U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued a series of orders this morning denying motions to dismiss or relocate former U.S. Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod's defamation lawsuit against conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart.


Leon denied Breitbart's initial motion to dismiss as well as a special motion to dismiss under Washington's new statute barring strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs. Leon did not publish a written opinion along with his orders.


Sherrod is suing Breitbart, Breitbart’s colleague Larry O’Connor and an unnamed defendant over the release of a video clip and accompanying text on Breitbart’s Web site claiming the video offered proof that Sherrod, who is black, discriminated against white farmers. Sherrod, in her complaint, argues Breitbart made defamatory accusations of racism based on a “deceptively edited” clip that was taken out of context.


Breitbart and O’Connor had argued that they were engaging in protected speech under the First Amendment when they posted the clip and comments online. They also argued that if the case is not dismissed, it should be moved to U.S. District Court for Central California because it’s where Breitbart and O’Connor live and work on the Web-based businesses in question.


Leon heard oral arguments on July 19.
​

*snip*

I doubt she wins this. To prove defamation, she has to prove he was targeting HER and intended to defame HER. But when the media went after Sherrod HE responded within two days insisting the target of this clip was actually the audience who were NAACP members caught on film applauding the idea of using the power of government to cheat poor whites. He was trying to prove his previous point that the NAACP was a pack of hypocrite racists themselves even while falsely accusing the Tea Party of racism with no evidence -and he used this clip to back that up. Actually the FULL text of what he wrote with this clip distinctly pointed out the audience reaction to hearing Sherrod discussing discriminating against white farmers. I know because I went to his site and saw it for myself when this story broke -his text made it obvious he was commenting on the audience reaction upon hearing Sherrod make racist comments. So I find it pretty HYPOCRITICAL that Sherrod had to use a DECEPTIVELY edited version of Breitbart's text in order to pretend he was targeting HER and not his real target of the NAACP.

Breitbart will be able to show how quickly he stepped forward to insist this was not about Sherrod but about the NAACP audience -and whether you think he should have included more of her speech or not, the part he used clearly shows a racist audience responding in a positive manner to the racist comments and racist idea of government cheating poor whites. This will be his defense if it goes to trial and unfortunately for Sherrod -he has lots of his own televised interviews that started after this story broke discussing who his target had been here along with the articles he had been writing about the racism of the NAACP at this time. NOT articles about racist government officials.

Defamation is hard to prove because Sherrod actually said these words. Her defense of using the entire speech to exonerate herself in public cleared her name and set the record straight about her -but sure doesn't clear that racist NAACP audience who clearly like the idea of government servants discriminating against poor whites. No one is obligated to make her case for her and public figures have their words taken out of context all the time -and deliberately so -and they go out and set the record straight, not always as successfully as Sherrod was able to do. But her words were used to show what was going on in the audience as part of Breitbart's critique and claim the NAACP was a hypocritical and racist organization accusing others of racism without foundation. Sherrod was given all her back pay offered her identical job back or her choice of several others for even more money. It just as quickly became public knowledge there was more to her speech to explain these words in context so her reputation didn't even suffer but for a matter of hours.

In order to win a defamation suit, one has to first prove they suffered very real FINANCIAL DAMAGE or LASTING damage to their reputation, not FLEETING damage to her reputation that was soon corrected. Truthfully I don't see any financial damages here. Lawsuits aren't about whether she liked what happened or not -but whether she suffered REAL and LINGERING damages from it and I don't see those damages.

Breitbart isn't responsible for the failure of OTHER media outlets to not do their job of knowing her entire speech before demanding she be fired -but at no time did HE demand she be fired nor was she his target.

I consider this inept reporting since even though the text is about the audience reaction to her comments, other media outlets TOTALLY ignored the clearly RACIST reactions in the audience -and focused solely on Sherrod's words without bothering to properly investigate any further before jumping on the bandwagon of demanding she be fired. If Sherrod gets an award for this, then Bush ought to sue Obama's former Green Jobs czar Van Jones who accused Bush of carrying out 9/11 and had far, far less to back that up. Instead he got a job with Obama until people became aware of his radical, anti-American beliefs!

Andrew Breitbart: Video Was Meant to Target the NAACP, Not Shirley Sherrod - Political Hotsheet - CBS News Target was NAACP audience, not Sherrod. "When the NAACP is going to charge the Tea Party of racism, I'm going to show you the other side."

Viral Videos: Shirley Sherrod Flap Highlights Growing Political Trend - ABC News Breitbart makes it clear who he was targeting with this clip 24 hours after the story broke and Sherrod fired -that his target was the NAACP audience and NOT Sherrod -specifically in response to THIS by the NAACP: NAACP Passes Tea Party Racism Resolution - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Sherrod's suit means Breitbart gets another shot at making sure people understand the underlying ROT, HYPOCRISY and REAL RACISM of the NAACP which is undeserving of being taken seriously on any political issue whatsoever. This is the same organization that invited Al Gore to speak when he was running for President where he told one lie after another about his own DISGUSTING RACIST FATHER -claiming his RACIST father who tried to block passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with a filibuster along with half the other Democrat Senators -actually lost his bid for re-election because of his SUPPORT for that act. It was a STUNNING and BREATH TAKING lie that should have caused that audience -who knew good and well what his father was -to walk out. Instead they applauded that LYING S.O.B. ASSHOLE. At the point I lost all respect for the NAACP as the CORRUPT organization it really is that only exists for the sole purpose of supporting lying ass dishonest Democrats no matter what FILTH came out of their mouths.

 

[Rozman]

Good. I hope she takes him to the cleaners for what he did to her. Maybe the prick will think twice before slandering someone else with doctored "evidence."

She did admit that she discriminated against white people....This video led us to believe she did this recently...She freely admitted she did it.And she's an angel in all of this.

The point of the video was she was by her own admission a racist.
Where was she the victim in this except that the Obama administration admitted they jumped the gun and fired her.

 

[whitehall]

Survives "motion to dismiss"? That's the best ya got? What a pathetic bunch.

 

[blastoff]

LOL...like motions to dismiss are soooooo rare in such cases.

 

[rightwinger]

I hope she owns his ass when this is all done

 

[manifold]

I hope she owns his ass when this is all done

I guess by now you're used the disappointment of dashed hopes.

 

[Si modo]

I hope she wastes a lot of money on attorneys' fees.

 

[Stephanie]

good gawd, ANYONE give a shit about this.

I hope she wins too, Then WE CAN start going after EVERY media personality, like Chrissy Matthews, Rachel Maddcow (oh wait, she is already being sued), Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, David Letterman, etc etc

yeehaww

we be having some fun now.

 

[tinydancer]

oh this is gonna get good

Brietbart has to be doing cartwheels right now. Maybe via the back door the whole Sherrod story of scamming the hell out of the government will be revealed.

I am so looking forward to this.

 

[Avatar4321]

So because it survived a motion for summary judgment, it's victory?

You do realize that it's not really tough to beat a motion for summary judgment don't you?

 

[Qball]

This is a victory? "Total bullshit lawsuit hasn't gone away yet" doesn't sound like a victory.

 

[manifold]

By definition, it's a victory. That is a fact. However, to my ears it rings hollow.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[tinydancer]

We must stop the white man and his Uncle Toms from stealing our elections. We must not be afraid to vote black.

And we must not be afraid to turn a black out who votes against our interest. We've got to stay tough.

Charles Sherrod, Shirley's husband

January 30, 2010 University of Virginia

I wonder how they really feel about non blacks when Shirley and Charlie are talking in private?

 

[Truthmatters]

I hope she ends up owning his media holdings

 

[Dot Com]

I hope she owns his ass when this is all done

I guess by now you're used the disappointment of dashed hopes.

what your problem asswipe