14 Comments

Any competant lawyer would tell her she would be insane to do this. Brietbart probably doesn’t want to be sued, but he would probably love to depose her, Ben Jealous of the NAACP, and Vilsack. Not to mention that they might enjoy exploring about the very fishy settlement where she and her husband got a payout for supposed discrimination. You can read a very interesting article on that, here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/real_sherrod_story_still_untol.html

http://www.theonion.com/articles/sherrod-to-sue-breitbart,17826/

Didn’t she call Breitbart a racist? Seems he might have a defamation suit there.

jack

she said worse than that. she said that brietbart wanted to reinstate slavery.

btw, great onion link.

She was not a public figure.
He spread falsehoods about her.
He knew he was spreading falsehoods about her.
People believed his falsehoods.
Because her employer believed the falsehoods, she was fired.
She lost her job.
She lost her job in a very bad economy.

If this happened to you, you would be very angry.
If this happened to you, you would seek redress under the law.
If this happened to you, you would be justified in bringing a lawsuit.

Why is it a matter of personal responsibility for her to just accept her firing and go away?
Why is it not a matter of personal responsibility for this guy to accept the legal consequences for spreading falsehoods about her?

She was not a public figure.
Reasonable people would disagree with you on that.

He spread falsehoods about her.
He did? Which ones? Be specific please.

He knew he was spreading falsehoods about her.
Ummmm….. no.

People believed his falsehoods.
What falsehoods?

Because her employer believed the falsehoods, she was fired.
That is the fault of the employer, not Breitbart.

If this happened to you, you would be very angry.
If this happened to you, you would seek redress under the law.
If this happened to you, you would be justified in bringing a lawsuit.
So you believe that people should be sued for telling the truth?

Interesting.

Why is it a matter of personal responsibility for her to just accept her firing and go away?
No one said it was. She doesn’t have to go away if she chooses not to. That choice has nothing to do with the relevance or appropriateness of a lawsuit.

Why is it not a matter of personal responsibility for this guy to accept the legal consequences for spreading falsehoods about her?
I am assuming that you mean Breitbart. There is a hole in your theory. Brietbart never spread any “falsehoods” about her. She, on the other hand, is now claiming that he is a racist.

Why are you willing to demand one standard in her case, and not apply the same standart to her false accusations?

I think Sherrod has a colorable claim, if you’ll pardon the expression. Arguably, by posting a heavily edited video without troubling to inquire into the missing context, Breitbart met the “reckless disregard” threshold — IIRC, that’s what’s required under Sullivan.

What happened to Sherrod was very ugly, and if this website — which I admire — is going to be about the abuse of the legal system, and not just a generally reactionary hangout, then I would like to see someone acknowledge that ugliness. There is no point in pretending that *every* plaintiff’s suit is baseless.

Arguably, by posting a heavily edited video without troubling to inquire into the missing context, …..

I am sorry, but what exactly did Breitbart do that was wrong?

The original post he made said that the video showed a speaker at the NAACP National Convention admitting to racist actions and the crowd approving of those actions.

Sherrod admitted her actions were racist (as she defines racism, not as the world defines racism.)

If we say that Breitbart was wrong in saying that Sherrod committed racist actions, does that mean actions – even actions that the person admits were wrong – can never be cited? If it is wrong to say that Sherrod was called out for her actions (and the crowd’s reaction) where is the outrage for her accusations that Breitbart is a racist?

What makes the lawsuit laughable is the double standard.

It would be a reasonable lawsuit if he, for instance, edited the clip by cutting out a word or two, that can change the whole meaning. To take a section out of context is normal political behavior. I doubt any lawsuit will ever be actually filed against Breitbart.

I am sorry, but what exactly did Breitbart do that was wrong?

Posted a heavily edited video without troubling to inquire into the missing context

Posted a heavily edited video without troubling to inquire into the missing context

The “context” was a speech given at the National NAACP Convention. That context was noted in Breitbart’s original posting on the issue.

The original post talked about the acceptance within the crowd of Sherrod’s acts dealing with a farmer that she admitted were racist.

Breitbart’s point was to focus on the racism and the acceptance of racist acts within the NAACP. His focus was not on Sherrod.

The video was an accurate representation of the reaction of the crowd.

So I ask again, what did Breitbart do that was wrong? If you think that putting forth an accurate representation of the reaction within the crowd was wrong, I am going to disagree with you.

I thought the video was just a clip of a longer video. When you say “heavily edited” it says to me things like cutting out words or phrases in the middle to change the meaning.

First, i am sticking with my original comment. She would be insane to sue.

Gitar

Anarchy! Cats and Dogs living together! We are agreeing again!

Paul

> She was not a public figure.

Oh yes she was. She was a public official. That’s the term they used in NYT v. Sullivan.

> He spread falsehoods about her.

What falsehood? He correctly revealed that she was a racist. He also revealed that she discriminated. He even suggested that she changed her mind later. The only part missing that mattered was she later more or less corrected her prior racist action. But that doesn’t make the other parts a lie.

> He knew he was spreading falsehoods about her.

Presuming that you can answer my last question, I suppose you can explain how exactly you know this?

> Because her employer believed the falsehoods, she was fired.

Without asking for her side?

> She lost her job.

And got offered a new one right away. So what exactly were her damages?

Anderson

> Arguably, by posting a heavily edited video

Except it wasn’t “heavily edited.” It was edited twice, cutting out what was before and what was after. By the way, have you seen the full video. Before you answer, I will point out that the version the NAACP released is not the full video. There are clear edits in that.

So in fact in accusing Brietbart of defamation, you have defamed him.

> without troubling to inquire into the missing context,

Actually he said he sought the whole video and the NAACP wouldn’t give it to him.

Bill

> I thought the video was just a clip of a longer video. When you say “heavily edited” it says to me things like cutting out words or phrases in the middle to change the meaning.

What you thought was right. It is just a portion of the speech, unedited. Its amazing how the left apes each other’s talking point on a given issue. The only “editing” that occurred was not showing the whole speech, but just a few minutes of it. but the stretch they show is unedited.