Sherrod to Breitbart: Consequences will never be the same
Ousted USDA employee Shirley Sherrod has announced that she will sue Andrew Breitbart.
I suppose this means we will have to redefine libel to include PUBLISHING INCOMPLETE VIDEO OF THINGS THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Tags: Andrew Breitbart, SHIRLEY SHERROD
(1 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5, rated)
Loading ...
Anyway,,,I doubt she’ll sue Breitbart.
After all, he can’t give her a job afterward.
Stoopid, malfunctioning, moronic, idiotic, frustrating and probably communist comment section….arrrrrrgh!!!!
Anyway,,,I doubt she’ll sue Breitbart. After all, he can’t give her a job afterward.
I love Tucker Carlson. (just a test to see why every one of my totally harmless yet pithy comments seem to ‘awaiting moderation’)
if you recall, breitbart edited the video to include title cards. on those title cards, which breitbart wrote, were complete lies.
try to be better than this.
In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient…
.
.
In 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. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t 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.
.
.
Sherrod’s racist tale is received…
What could be better?
The video misrepresented Sherrod’s speech: No argument here.
But if Breitbart’s telling the truth, and the video he received was edited prior to his receiving it, how is it his fault that a government agency then fired Sherrod without finding the full video?
you wrote “I suppose this means we will have to redefine libel to include PUBLISHING INCOMPLETE VIDEO OF THINGS THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.”
a libel suit has nothing to do with her getting fired. libel is defined as “the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image.”
the claim is in those title cards.
It seems like Brietbart has two applicable defenses (out of several) against charges of libel: “Fair comment on a matter of public interest” and “Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true.”
Thoughts?
Also: Seeing as proving harm is part of the libel equation, who fired her is important.
first of all, your continuing defense of breitbart on this issue does not make you look good. i don’t get why people (conservatives) won’t just admit defeat on this one – but hey, that’s me, i’m not blinded by partisanship. breitbart screwed up here. maybe it’s time to move on. nope, now you guys are clinging to the pathetic “it was the audience!” defense.
anyway, brad and angelina just successfully sued the news of the world for a story that claimed they were separating. they didn’t get fired from anything, but they argued the paper made “false and intrusive allegations”. in the title cards, breitbart makes similar allegations.
if breitbart makes the argument that he made these comments “in good faith”, i will personally laugh my butt off. his comments were made with nothing but malice. in fact, he was so eager to make them, he didn’t even do one second of due diligence to figure out if what he was publishing was really what was said.
but i’m not a lawyer, and he probably will “win”. but your post that he was just “publishing an incomplete video of something that actually happened” is b.s. and we both know it. there was more to it than that, you should at least admit it.
It’s going to be wildly entertaining watching Sherrod, a public figure, try to prove that Breitbart made the allegedly defamatory claim with actual malice.
On those title cards were her own words – how can you sue someone for playing a tape of you talking? At a public event? He did not edit or manipulate the tape in any way – he only failed to show the entire tape which did nothing to put her or her audience in any better light anyway. I hope Brietbart also has tape from every one of her public appearences since the incident – he may have his own little counter-suit.
you are completely wrong. i’m not gonna bother writing out why, just look at the title cards again and stop wasting my time.
What “title cards” are wrong. I just watched it again and I dont’ see it.
you’re talking about the “federal employee” one?
Even at the end of her long tale of “enlightenment” she still made comments that were tinged with racism but definitely class warfare.
It seems to me that because a blogger of announced political purpose (Breitbart) posts an incomplete video, and the object of that video is to show racism in the NAACP through the words of speaker in the video (Sherrod), it doesn’t follow that her boss’s (Obama) firing her is any way connected to Brietbart, since the rationale for forcing her resignation was that the story would appear on Beck( Sherrod’s own public statement). This strikes me as more than one nonsequitur.
The NAACP, Vilsack, and others made judgemental comments based on the incomplete video, and Vilsack(Obama) fired her for no reason other than political cowardice. It seems to me the legal action here is against her employer.
She was an “at will” employee. She can’t sue for job loss. “At will” = tough tootles. She can be asked to resign for chewing gum wrong.
If she sues, it will have to be because her reputation was ruined, and it wasn’t because she’s now getting paid to make speeches etc that she wouldn’t have before. She actually benefited from it.
Well, you have to do what you are good at and apparently Mrs. Sherrod is very good at suing people.
Oh, this should be fun. Go Shirley Go!! Let’s drag Vilsack and Obama through testimony under oath and see why Shirley was offered a job when she won her first lawsuit against the Dept. of Ag and now again when she ‘resigned’. Extortion anybody?