Breibart Sued

[Madeline]

This is why the case interests me, Mini. If Breibart knew/should have know the edting altered Sherrod's message 180 degrees, is that slander? I can't even tell if it'd be slander or libel -- imagery under the law is sorta new to me.

I wonder if Sarah Palin can sue over all of the edited interviews Katie Couric and others produced to trash her?

I mean Sherrod was a public figure giving a speech in public. Does she have protection yet Sarah Palin does not?

Is this another case of the left trying to have it both ways?

I dun think merely giving a speech in public makes anyone a public figure, mudwhistle. Most people have done so, I would think.

 

[Mini 14]

I dun think merely giving a speech in public makes anyone a public figure, mudwhistle. Most people have done so, I would think.

But she's a public servant.

We pay her salary.

Which makes her a public figure.

 

[midcan5]

Hopefully this will go forward and temper the idiocy of those like Breitbart who purposely hurt another for political reasons or personal stupidity. Curious that the righties never mention personal responsibility when they defend a_holes like Breitbart. It is simply another reason to dislike the right wing in this nation today, they lie, defend the lie, and then go on to the next lie. No wonder they fail so miserably in power.

"Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper." Defamation, Libel and Slander Law

 

[mudwhistle]

This is why the case interests me, Mini. If Breibart knew/should have know the edting altered Sherrod's message 180 degrees, is that slander? I can't even tell if it'd be slander or libel -- imagery under the law is sorta new to me.

I wonder if Sarah Palin can sue over all of the edited interviews Katie Couric and others produced to trash her?

I mean Sherrod was a public figure giving a speech in public. Does she have protection yet Sarah Palin does not?

Is this another case of the left trying to have it both ways?

I dun think merely giving a speech in public makes anyone a public figure, mudwhistle. Most people have done so, I would think.

Yes it does. Guess that's something that they'd have to decide in court.

But once she started going out in public she loses some of her privacy. It was her choice.

Seems like her whole predicament was her choice.

 

[Mini 14]

I've got to run out for a few, but let me add one thing:

I'm VERY sympathetic to Mrs. Sherrod's case. I tend to believe her story that she learned her lesson about racism, and has grown from the experience, and I also believe Breitbart handled it poorly (he has yet to apologize to her). What she thought "back then" is different from what she thinks today. However she got here, she arrived, and for me, that's all that matters about her racism now.

That said, I don't see where Breitbart broke any laws (highly unethical, yes, but not illegal), but I DO see where the USDA and NAACP *may* have.

Yet she doesn't name the most obvious targets?

She got bad advice on this one, because Breitbart is who he is by drawing attention, and she just gave him the greatest stage he has had in years.

 

[Madeline]

Have a nice morning, Mini.

I'm not sure if she has a suit either, though obviously some lawyer somewhere does. For me, the first question is, can you libel/slander someone with a heavily edited video of them speaking?

 

[Madeline]

I wonder if Sarah Palin can sue over all of the edited interviews Katie Couric and others produced to trash her?

I mean Sherrod was a public figure giving a speech in public. Does she have protection yet Sarah Palin does not?

Is this another case of the left trying to have it both ways?

I dun think merely giving a speech in public makes anyone a public figure, mudwhistle. Most people have done so, I would think.

Yes it does. Guess that's something that they'd have to decide in court.

But once she started going out in public she loses some of her privacy. It was her choice.

Seems like her whole predicament was her choice.

Well, just leaving your house dun make anyone a "public figure", mudwhistle. But I'll agree, it might could be an issue. Seems less important to me in this case, though, as I can't see her suit progressing without proof Breibart acted with malice or malicious disregard for the truth.

In short, the same standard for both private and public people would seem to me to apply here.

 

[mudwhistle]

Have a nice morning, Mini.

I'm not sure if she has a suit either, though obviously some lawyer somewhere does. For me, the first question is, can you libel/slander someone with a heavily edited video of them speaking?

The Couric interview was heavily edited.

The Sherrod speech wasn't heavily edited. They just took a sound-bite from it.

 

[DiveCon]

Hopefully this will go forward and temper the idiocy of those like Breitbart who purposely hurt another for political reasons or personal stupidity. Curious that the righties never mention personal responsibility when they defend a_holes like Breitbart. It is simply another reason to dislike the right wing in this nation today, they lie, defend the lie, and then go on to the next lie. No wonder they fail so miserably in power.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

you have any proof to back up that utter nonsense?

 

[mudwhistle]

I dun think merely giving a speech in public makes anyone a public figure, mudwhistle. Most people have done so, I would think.

Yes it does. Guess that's something that they'd have to decide in court.

But once she started going out in public she loses some of her privacy. It was her choice.

Seems like her whole predicament was her choice.

Well, just leaving your house dun make anyone a "public figure", mudwhistle. But I'll agree, it might could be an issue. Seems less important to me in this case, though, as I can't see her suit progressing without proof Breibart acted with malice or malicious disregard for the truth.

In short, the same standard for both private and public people would seem to me to apply here.

We're not talking someone who left their house. We're talking about someone who gave a speech at an event. Try to minimize it all you want. She was a public figure, maybe not a national figure, but a public figure, which was her choice.

 

[Madeline]

Yes it does. Guess that's something that they'd have to decide in court.

But once she started going out in public she loses some of her privacy. It was her choice.

Seems like her whole predicament was her choice.

Well, just leaving your house dun make anyone a "public figure", mudwhistle. But I'll agree, it might could be an issue. Seems less important to me in this case, though, as I can't see her suit progressing without proof Breibart acted with malice or malicious disregard for the truth.

In short, the same standard for both private and public people would seem to me to apply here.

We're not talking someone who left their house. We're talking about someone who gave a speech at an event. Try to minimize it all you want. She was a public figure, maybe not a national figure, but a public figure, which was her choice.

I'm not especially trying to minimize, mudwhistle. As I said, I dun think this will be a deciding factor in this particular case -- yet another way this suit is unique (at least as far as I know).

 

[mudwhistle]

Well, just leaving your house dun make anyone a "public figure", mudwhistle. But I'll agree, it might could be an issue. Seems less important to me in this case, though, as I can't see her suit progressing without proof Breibart acted with malice or malicious disregard for the truth.

In short, the same standard for both private and public people would seem to me to apply here.

We're not talking someone who left their house. We're talking about someone who gave a speech at an event. Try to minimize it all you want. She was a public figure, maybe not a national figure, but a public figure, which was her choice.

I'm not especially trying to minimize, mudwhistle. As I said, I dun think this will be a deciding factor in this particular case -- yet another way this suit is unique (at least as far as I know).

The only thing that's unique about it is a woman that was martyred by her own party wants to sue a conservative that pisses them off.

If they get a settlement they'll figure they won and it will be plastered all over the news.

 

[Madeline]

We're not talking someone who left their house. We're talking about someone who gave a speech at an event. Try to minimize it all you want. She was a public figure, maybe not a national figure, but a public figure, which was her choice.

I'm not especially trying to minimize, mudwhistle. As I said, I dun think this will be a deciding factor in this particular case -- yet another way this suit is unique (at least as far as I know).

The only thing that's unique about it is a woman that was martyred by her own party wants to sue a conservative that pisses them off.

If they get a settlement they'll figure they won and it will be plastered all over the news.

Meh, I dun care so much about the bad motives Sherrod may have had in bringing suit....it's the law that interests me.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm not especially trying to minimize, mudwhistle. As I said, I dun think this will be a deciding factor in this particular case -- yet another way this suit is unique (at least as far as I know).

The only thing that's unique about it is a woman that was martyred by her own party wants to sue a conservative that pisses them off.

If they get a settlement they'll figure they won and it will be plastered all over the news.

Meh, I dun care so much about the bad motives Sherrod may have had in bringing suit....it's the law that interests me.

She has to prove damages.

Her actions blasted a few gaping holes in that.

 

[Defiant1]

Maybe she will settle for 40 acres and a mule.

 

[Sallow]

Lawsuit Over Video

Andrew Breitbart, the owner of several conservative Web sites, was served at the conference on Saturday with a lawsuit filed by Shirley Sherrod, the former Agriculture Department employee who lost her job last year over a video that Mr. Brietbart posted at his site biggovernment.com.

The video was selectively edited so that it appeared Ms. Sherrod was confessing she had discriminated against a farmer because he was white. In the suit, which was filed in Washington on Friday, Ms. Sherrod says the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work.

Mr. Breitbart said in a statement that he “categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/politics/13cpac.html?_r=1

Los Angeles, CA, February 12, 2011 – Breitbart.com LLC announced today that its Chairman and CEO Andrew Breitbart and the head of Breitbart.tv, Larry O’Connor, have been sued in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by a central figure in the Pigford “back-door” reparations case. The Pigford case involves over $2.5 billion in US taxpayer money and constitutes one of the biggest cases of corruption and politically-motivated fraud in the history of the United States. Mr. Breitbart and Breitbart.tv have been investigating and reporting on the Pigford case since late summer 2010.

Andrew Breitbart said, in response to being sued, “I find it extremely telling that this lawsuit was brought almost seven months after the alleged incidents that caused a national media frenzy occurred. It is no coincidence that this lawsuit was filed one day after I held a press conference revealing audio proof of orchestrated and systemic Pigford fraud. I can promise you this: neither I, nor my journalistic websites, will or can be silenced by the institutional Left, which is obviously funding this lawsuit. I welcome the judicial discovery process, including finding out which groups are doing so.”

On Thursday, February 10, 2011, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., Mr. Breitbart held a national press conference at which he, Huffington Post blogger Lee Stranahan, and black farmer Eddie Slaughter presented compelling evidence for, and Representatives Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Steve King (R-IA) specifically called for, Congressional investigation into the Pigford case.

» Andrew Breitbart on Pigford Lawsuit: ‘Bring It On’ - Big Government

The Sherrod lawsuit (which I assume is predicated on slander and invasion of privacy) should be interesting. I only know of the Pigford issue in passing, but what sort of fool would file if they could not prove their allegations?

Interesting stuff...Breibart seems to think he can defend on First Amendment grounds, but there is no First Amendment right to commit slander, libel, etc.

Whaca think?

Excellent!

 

[Madeline]

The only thing that's unique about it is a woman that was martyred by her own party wants to sue a conservative that pisses them off.

If they get a settlement they'll figure they won and it will be plastered all over the news.

Meh, I dun care so much about the bad motives Sherrod may have had in bringing suit....it's the law that interests me.

She has to prove damages.

Her actions blasted a few gaping holes in that.

Ya, I agree. Generally, the law only recognizes economic loss in such cases -- no "mental distress" etc. I suppose her lawyer could try to argue she has fewer opportunities at USDA, blah, blah, blah, but damages seems to me the soft spot in this suit.

It'll likely get dismissed, I suppose, which is a shame...I would have liked to see the case unfold.

 

[The Infidel]

DiveCon wrote:

a lot of people file stupid law suits

Well, like I said, I really dun know a whole lot about the Pigford dispute. But donca think Sherrod has a case, Divey?

I can tell ya this... Do your homework on the Pigford case. Its a scandal that should be front page news.

We all know why it is'nt though


Oh, and Andrew didnt slander anyone. The facts will show it.

 

[rightwinger]

I wish Ms Sherrod well

Let Breitbart testify under oath

 

[rightwinger]

Lawsuit Over Video

Andrew Breitbart, the owner of several conservative Web sites, was served at the conference on Saturday with a lawsuit filed by Shirley Sherrod, the former Agriculture Department employee who lost her job last year over a video that Mr. Brietbart posted at his site biggovernment.com.

The video was selectively edited so that it appeared Ms. Sherrod was confessing she had discriminated against a farmer because he was white. In the suit, which was filed in Washington on Friday, Ms. Sherrod says the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work.

Mr. Breitbart said in a statement that he “categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/politics/13cpac.html?_r=1

Los Angeles, CA, February 12, 2011 – Breitbart.com LLC announced today that its Chairman and CEO Andrew Breitbart and the head of Breitbart.tv, Larry O’Connor, have been sued in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by a central figure in the Pigford “back-door” reparations case. The Pigford case involves over $2.5 billion in US taxpayer money and constitutes one of the biggest cases of corruption and politically-motivated fraud in the history of the United States. Mr. Breitbart and Breitbart.tv have been investigating and reporting on the Pigford case since late summer 2010.

Andrew Breitbart said, in response to being sued, “I find it extremely telling that this lawsuit was brought almost seven months after the alleged incidents that caused a national media frenzy occurred. It is no coincidence that this lawsuit was filed one day after I held a press conference revealing audio proof of orchestrated and systemic Pigford fraud. I can promise you this: neither I, nor my journalistic websites, will or can be silenced by the institutional Left, which is obviously funding this lawsuit. I welcome the judicial discovery process, including finding out which groups are doing so.”

On Thursday, February 10, 2011, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., Mr. Breitbart held a national press conference at which he, Huffington Post blogger Lee Stranahan, and black farmer Eddie Slaughter presented compelling evidence for, and Representatives Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Steve King (R-IA) specifically called for, Congressional investigation into the Pigford case.

» Andrew Breitbart on Pigford Lawsuit: ‘Bring It On’ - Big Government

The Sherrod lawsuit (which I assume is predicated on slander and invasion of privacy) should be interesting. I only know of the Pigford issue in passing, but what sort of fool would file if they could not prove their allegations?

Interesting stuff...Breibart seems to think he can defend on First Amendment grounds, but there is no First Amendment right to commit slander, libel, etc.

Whaca think?

I think you can sue anyone for anything. It doesn't mean you're right.

She's just looking for cash. Hoping he'll settle out of court. Maybe she saw the movie "The Social Network". The people that sued the founder of Facebook got $65 million.

She has no damages because Obama offered her another job after she resigned, and she turned it down. These facts will have alot of weight in any court proceedings. Ms Sherrod resigned and wouldn't accept a higher paying job that was offered to her. It seems the NAACP and other Liberals overreacted. Its an example of Liberals turning on themselves. Seems they and others that harassed Ms Sherrod are the ones she needs to sue. But instead she wants to sue a Conservative.

What makes you think she had no damages?

The extent of damages are up for the Jury to decide.