Sherrod files suit against Breitbart

[DiveCon]

Right...but his commentary was false and led those viewing the video to believe what he was telling them to believe and not what was really happening.

I'm not aware of any false commentary, but I admit I've not researched it thoroughly either. But I do pay attention a little, and considering that I'm hearing it from you for the first time, well...

Typically, spin = misleading
but spin <> false.

Are you suffering from early onset dementia...I seem to recall you participating in some of the Sherrod threads in the past.

no, that would be you telling lies about what was and wasnt posted

 

[Mini 14]

If you watch the entire video, not Brietbart's edited clip, you would see that she alludes to her awakening in advance...so yes, they had every reason to know that she would "redeem" herself.

You never watched it did you? Which makes your commentary on the topic very amusing. But then again, you are an opinionated ignoramus.

Breitbart claims he did not have the entire video, only those portions that he posted.

He maintained that position the first time the full video surfaced, a few days after he had posted the excerpts on his site.

Then he should not have posted it with his comments, should he have? He is what passes for critical thought in wingnutland?

Using your logic, everyone at USMB is liable as well (except for those who post the entire articles, which the site does not allow).

 

[Ravi]

You know Dive, that's actually a great point (yeah I just threw up in my mouth )

I never read the articles Breitbart wrote, but I did see the video. And the audience clearly cheers when she says she didn't help the guy because he was white, and at that point they had no reason to assume she would go on to 'redeem' herself so to speak.

If you watch the entire video, not Brietbart's edited clip, you would see that she alludes to her awakening in advance...so yes, they had every reason to know that she would "redeem" herself.

You never watched it did you? Which makes your commentary on the topic very amusing. But then again, you are an opinionated ignoramus.

Actually I did watch it asshat.

And no, they did not know it was coming before they cheered her dissing the white farmer. Fact, not opinion.

You and fact have never met.

Here's what she said before she told her story about the white farmer:

When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people -- and to black people only. But, you know, God will show you things and He'll put things in your path so that -- that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people, you know.

Now go ahead and pull a Tank and tell us that black people are too stupid to get the point of her upcoming story.

 

[manifold]

Ravi,

Let's do something new and dial this discussion back and start over. I admit that I came out of the gate unnecessarily antagonistic, out of habit I suppose, and for that I apologize.

The truth is, philosophically I agree with you completely. What Breitbart did was sleezy and IMO not 'really' anything like what the Daily Show does. But in neither case is it 'satire' as you alluded. Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin is satire. Stephen Colbert doing a conservative pundit is satire. The Daily Show stringing together several clips of Fox News is not satire. It's comedy, but not all comedy is satire. I'm going to make the bold assumption that you understand this, but regardless, it's beside the point.

It is my strong contention that if Sherrod wins this case, it will be used as precedent in the future for lawsuits against The Daily Show and other shows like it. I really don't think slander laws differentiate between clips edited for comedy and clips edited for political spin. And furthermore, I think it would be dangerous to try. If she wins, it will be a blow to free speech and IMO that's never a good thing.

You're welcome, as always, to disagree with me.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not aware of any false commentary, but I admit I've not researched it thoroughly either. But I do pay attention a little, and considering that I'm hearing it from you for the first time, well...

Typically, spin = misleading
but spin <> false.

Are you suffering from early onset dementia...I seem to recall you participating in some of the Sherrod threads in the past.

no, that would be you telling lies about what was and wasnt posted

What lies are you talking about, dcon?

 

[R.D.]

Case in point...you were fooled by it. She was telling the audience that she overcame her feelings that white people looked down on her and realized that it was her job to help all...and that she eventually befriended the farmer. And the audience was applauding her for arriving at her conclusion and empathizing with her.

After the laughter and applause at her trashing the white guy.

I wasn't fooled then and not now. But keep trying, you might eventually stumble on the truth of the matter.

 

[Ravi]

Ravi,

Let's do something new and dial this discussion back and start over. I admit that I came out of the gate unnecessarily antagonistic, out of habit I suppose, and for that I apologize.

The truth is, philosophically I agree with you completely. What Breitbart did was sleezy and IMO not 'really' anything like what the Daily Show does. But in neither case is it 'satire' as you alluded. Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin is satire. Stephen Colbert doing a conservative pundit is satire. The Daily Show stringing together several clips of Fox News is not satire. It's comedy, but not all comedy is satire. I'm going to make the bold assumption that you understand this, but regardless, it's beside the point.

It is my strong contention that if Sherrod wins this case, it will be used as precedent in the future for lawsuits against The Daily Show and other shows like it. I really don't think slander laws differentiate between clips edited for comedy and clips edited for political spin. And furthermore, I think it would be dangerous to try. If she wins, it will be a blow to free speech and IMO that's never a good thing.

You're welcome, as always, to disagree with me.

Ah, but it wasn't political spin...it was subjective editing or commentary to defame someone or use someone as a tool to defame others. And why exactly would you want news sites to be excused from defamation laws? How else do you keep the media honest.

There really is a huge difference between Comedy Central and FAUX News. Or Drudge. Or Brietbart.

I suppose the real determination will be: Is Breitbart a news site or a commentary site? IIRC he/it claimed to be a news site.

 

[Ravi]

Case in point...you were fooled by it. She was telling the audience that she overcame her feelings that white people looked down on her and realized that it was her job to help all...and that she eventually befriended the farmer. And the audience was applauding her for arriving at her conclusion and empathizing with her.

After the laughter and applause at her trashing the white guy.

I wasn't fooled then and not now. But keep trying, you might eventually stumble on the truth of the matter.

It was actually empathy with her religious values and ability to see beyond her nose.

Dismissed.

btw, does R.D. stand for Real Dumb?

 

[R.D.]

Case in point...you were fooled by it. She was telling the audience that she overcame her feelings that white people looked down on her and realized that it was her job to help all...and that she eventually befriended the farmer. And the audience was applauding her for arriving at her conclusion and empathizing with her.

After the laughter and applause at her trashing the white guy.

I wasn't fooled then and not now. But keep trying, you might eventually stumble on the truth of the matter.

It was actually empathy with her religious values and ability to see beyond her nose.

Dismissed.

btw, does R.D. stand for Real Dumb?

Tool.

They laughed and cheered her ugly bigot story then they ohh and ahh'd her brave act of contrition. A crowd with no standards is an easy crowd

Oh, btw, ouch?

 

[Intense]

Shirley Sherrod Files Suit Against Andrew Breitbart - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Does she really have a case?

Not if We Honor Free Speech. She probably has a case against her former/current Employer though. I think she drank too much of the Kool-Aid to even know who actually hurt her, even when or why. Sad.

 

[jillian]

Shirley Sherrod Files Suit Against Andrew Breitbart - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Does she really have a case?

Not if We Honor Free Speech. She probably has a case against her former/current Employer though. I think she drank too much of the Kool-Aid to even know who actually hurt her, even when or why. Sad.

free speech is limited by libel and slander laws.

it's not sad at all.. i hope she owns the lying piece of trash.

 

[manifold]

I suppose the real determination will be: Is Breitbart a news site or a commentary site? IIRC he/it claimed to be a news site.

I'm not really sure that matters at all considering the fact that Fox already won the right to lie on the news. And I'm still not convinced that what he did was technically a lie, regardless of how obviously misleading it was. And if it's technically not a lie, it really can't be slander (or defamation), can it?

 

[manifold]

Shirley Sherrod Files Suit Against Andrew Breitbart - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Does she really have a case?

Not if We Honor Free Speech. She probably has a case against her former/current Employer though. I think she drank too much of the Kool-Aid to even know who actually hurt her, even when or why. Sad.

free speech is limited by libel and slander laws.

it's not sad at all.. i hope she owns the lying piece of trash.

Don't let your emotions cloud your objectivity or anything.

 

[Intense]

Ravi,

Let's do something new and dial this discussion back and start over. I admit that I came out of the gate unnecessarily antagonistic, out of habit I suppose, and for that I apologize.

The truth is, philosophically I agree with you completely. What Breitbart did was sleezy and IMO not 'really' anything like what the Daily Show does. But in neither case is it 'satire' as you alluded. Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin is satire. Stephen Colbert doing a conservative pundit is satire. The Daily Show stringing together several clips of Fox News is not satire. It's comedy, but not all comedy is satire. I'm going to make the bold assumption that you understand this, but regardless, it's beside the point.

It is my strong contention that if Sherrod wins this case, it will be used as precedent in the future for lawsuits against The Daily Show and other shows like it. I really don't think slander laws differentiate between clips edited for comedy and clips edited for political spin. And furthermore, I think it would be dangerous to try. If she wins, it will be a blow to free speech and IMO that's never a good thing.

You're welcome, as always, to disagree with me.

Ah, but it wasn't political spin...it was subjective editing or commentary to defame someone or use someone as a tool to defame others. And why exactly would you want news sites to be excused from defamation laws? How else do you keep the media honest.

There really is a huge difference between Comedy Central and FAUX News. Or Drudge. Or Brietbart.

I suppose the real determination will be: Is Breitbart a news site or a commentary site? IIRC he/it claimed to be a news site.

Ravi, if anyone is an authority on Political spin and subjective editing it is you. I don't see his editing that way at all. Happy Valentines Day!

 

[rdean]

here's the best part...

on monday, the former usda employee said she was "still reeling" from the incident and said it had prevented her from finding further work.

"i'm not employed and no one's offered me a job anywhere, so i don't know where to look at this point,'' she told the associated press in an interview. "i'm just trying to survive.''

boo ******* hoo!

The fact that she actually blames breitbart for her continued failure to secure employment just takes the ******* cake. I mean really? No, seriously... Really?

wait, i thought she was offered an even better job by obama and she turned it down

sherrod gets biggest 'i'm sorry' -- from obama - nypost.com

she was

my gawd!!!!

You posted a link!!!!

I take back everything i said!!!!

 

[Intense]

If we were to follow Libel and Slander Law's to the Letter, most of our Judge's and Politician's would be in jail with the Media, and our Educator's, leaving Nobody to run the Asylum. We all know that won't happen. That said, you all are looking at the incident from a partisan perspective.

 

[DiveCon]

here's the best part...

boo ******* hoo!

The fact that she actually blames breitbart for her continued failure to secure employment just takes the ******* cake. I mean really? No, seriously... Really?

wait, i thought she was offered an even better job by obama and she turned it down

sherrod gets biggest 'i'm sorry' -- from obama - nypost.com

she was

my gawd!!!!

You posted a link!!!!

I take back everything i said!!!!

like i said, moron, you arent worth the time

 

[Ravi]

I suppose the real determination will be: Is Breitbart a news site or a commentary site? IIRC he/it claimed to be a news site.

I'm not really sure that matters at all considering the fact that Fox already won the right to lie on the news. And I'm still not convinced that what he did was technically a lie, regardless of how obviously misleading it was. And if it's technically not a lie, it really can't be slander (or defamation), can it?

Yeah, judging from the result...the NAACP condemning her and the government forcing her to retire I'd say it was defamation of character. She didn't imagine those results, they were real.

 

[Ravi]

Are you suffering from early onset dementia...I seem to recall you participating in some of the Sherrod threads in the past.

no, that would be you telling lies about what was and wasnt posted

What lies are you talking about, dcon?

 

[manifold]

I suppose the real determination will be: Is Breitbart a news site or a commentary site? IIRC he/it claimed to be a news site.

I'm not really sure that matters at all considering the fact that Fox already won the right to lie on the news. And I'm still not convinced that what he did was technically a lie, regardless of how obviously misleading it was. And if it's technically not a lie, it really can't be slander (or defamation), can it?

Yeah, judging from the result...the NAACP condemning her and the government forcing her to retire I'd say it was defamation of character. She didn't imagine those results, they were real.

If you're saying she'd have a better case against them then I agree.

If you're blaming their uninformed overreaction on an internet blog, I disagree.