It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ousted USDA employee Shirley Sherrod says she will sue blogger Andrew Breitbart

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Ousted USDA employee Shirley Sherrod says she will sue blogger Andrew Breitbart


www.msnbc.msn.com


SAN DIEGO — Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted a video edited in a way that made her appear racist.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Good. I hope this goes to trial and makes headline news to exactly the degree his false story did.


Sherrod said she had not received an apology from Breitbart and no longer wanted one. "He had to know that he was targeting me," she said.

Breitbart did not immediately respond to a call or e-mails seeking comment. He has said he posted the portion of the speech where she expresses reservations about helping the white farmer to prove that racism exists in the NAACP, which had just demanded that the tea party movement renounce any bigoted elements. Some members of the NAACP audience appeared to approve when Sherrod described her reluctance to help the farmer.


Edit to fix typo...foes to goes ... lol!

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 7/29/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Can you sue someone for posting your own video as part of their argument?

This will be one to watch for sure.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by zroth
 

Hmmm...not sure. Good question though...or part of one, eh?

I'm no lawyer (clearly) but I'm pretty sure she might have libel, slander, and defamation of character...if any and all of those aren't already related.

I can't believe he hasn't apologized yet. Neither has she accepted the offer of a new job.


[edit on 7/29/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by zroth

Can you sue someone for posting your own video as part of their argument?

This will be one to watch for sure.



If the video was purposely edited in a manner to cause defamation to the person in question, I don't see why not.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Good. I hope she sues him into oblivion. We are far to lax with our concept of "free speech." That does not give one the right to publicly slander an innocent citizen as a racist. What the scum and snake oil salesman Briebart did was little different than a drive by shooting. He should also be prosecuted under hate crime laws. The fact is, he singled her out because she was black and he was trying to find a scapegoat to fit his scare that the NAACP is a racist organization.

He is the worst of humanity. His primary product is hate. His kind sat at the right hand of Hitler and other ethnic cleansers. He even exploits it for his own profit. And the weak minded viewers of FOX News lap it up like gospel.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaploink
 


I would agree if it was modified. As I understand it, the portion of the video used was not edited. The before and after simply were not included and that is where the context resided.

The bloggerknew that the average American would jump to conclusions and I don't think that is a crime.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I know how much we all love Media Matters, but here's a story from them on the lawsuit in case you're interested...

Legal Experts: Sherrod Lawsuit Against Breitbart Has Merit



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


So first the government, now Andy, who's next? Maybe the White House dog.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MermaidWatcher
 

Sorry? First the government what?

Do you think the lawsuit has merit? That there might be some dangers here?

I ♥ dogs...they better lay off the dog!



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
Good. I hope she sues him into oblivion.


What's that gonna accomplish? Money isn't going to do a thing. If she wants to prove a point, sue for a dollar.


Originally posted by pajoly
We are far to lax with our concept of "free speech."


Really? What are your views on the Stolen Valor act? What about the Wellsburo Church freakshow?


Originally posted by pajoly
That does not give one the right to publicly slander an innocent citizen as a racist. What the scum and snake oil salesman Briebart did was little different than a drive by shooting.





Originally posted by pajoly
He should also be prosecuted under hate crime laws.


Why? Simply because the woman is black? What if she was white?


Originally posted by pajoly
He is the worst of humanity. His primary product is hate. His kind sat at the right hand of Hitler and other ethnic cleansers. He even exploits it for his own profit. And the weak minded viewers of FOX News lap it up like gospel.


Jeebus, you do love to exaggerate, don't you? This retard should be busted for slander, and you're comparing him to someone engaged in ethnic cleansing.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I think people better be careful of what they wish for.

If the lawsuit is allowed through, that will mean that intent is no longer needed in courts (very dangerous), as intent in this case would be impossible to prove.

Edit, because it should be asked and answered.

Why is there no intent? Well, because he stated that the video was to show NAACP as hypocrites about racism. Is it true, who knows, but how can you prove that that wasn't his intent?

And intent is one of the most important aspects of law.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by peck420]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by pajoly
 


"That does not give one the right to publicly slander an innocent citizen as a racist. "

By her own admission, she was guilty of racism. What no one has asked yet, is how may other white people did she discriminate against over the years before she got "enlightenment"??? Why is she a member of a group that has this on their mission statement:

www.federationsoutherncoop.com...

We strive toward the development of self-supporting communities with programs that increase income and enhance other opportunities; and we strive to assist in land retention and development, especially for African Americans, but essentially for all family farmers.


Now imagine if that said "especially for White Americans". No one owes this woman any apology. She should have been fired and never allowed a position of authority again!.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 

Does intent really factor into it? I think the intent would be the words he used to describe the video, his opinions, and his allowing the story to go viral without attempting to correct it. Or at least it seems logical that would go toward intent. Clearly need to do some reading up on this.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


He lied. It's libel.

We shall see what happens.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
I think people better be careful of what they wish for.

If the lawsuit is allowed through, that will mean that intent is no longer needed in courts (very dangerous), as intent in this case would be impossible to prove.

Edit, because it should be asked and answered.

Why is there no intent? Well, because he stated that the video was to show NAACP as hypocrites about racism. Is it true, who knows, but how can you prove that that wasn't his intent?

And intent is one of the most important aspects of law.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by peck420]


Good point, Peck420. I don't think Sherrod has a good case (which doesn't mean she won't win). Breitbart posted a video someone sent him. The video was already edited by whoever sent it to him. (Which is why some think Breitbart was set up.)

Breitbart's mistake was posting a video without thoroughly vetting it. He should have asked to see the whole thing. Instead he trusted his source.

If Sherrod sues anyone, it should be whoever it was in the White House who jumped the gun. This WH person pressed to have Sherrod fired as a pre-emptive move.

Said person was afraid the video would end up on Glenn Beck! (If that shouldn't have us roaring with laughter!)

Fact of the matter is, NO ONE on Fox showed this video until AFTER Sherrod was fired.

Ironically, Glenn Beck (after seeing the EDITED video) said he did NOT believe that Sherrod should have been fired.

Have any of the Obama-ites acknowledged this? Of course not!

When the entire video was shown, O'Reilly was one of the first to apologize publicly. But he had an excellent excuse for jumping to conclusions. As he said, he ASSUMED that the White House had vetted the video before firing Sherrod and they actually knew what they were doing. NOT! (Always a bad assumption with this regime.)

Suing is what Sherrod does. She sued the government before and was awarded $300,000 for her trouble. What Sherrod is hoping to do is put a Conservative out of business.

SeaWind



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
This will be big because it is vital to the survival of mainstream media. MSM will hold hands with various lobbyists all the way to massive internet filtering and censorship. It has already begun.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
Good. I hope she sues him into oblivion. We are far to lax with our concept of "free speech." That does not give one the right to publicly slander an innocent citizen as a racist. What the scum and snake oil salesman Briebart did was little different than a drive by shooting. He should also be prosecuted under hate crime laws. The fact is, he singled her out because she was black and he was trying to find a scapegoat to fit his scare that the NAACP is a racist organization.

He is the worst of humanity. His primary product is hate. His kind sat at the right hand of Hitler and other ethnic cleansers. He even exploits it for his own profit. And the weak minded viewers of FOX News lap it up like gospel.



When Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton get the same punishments, then I'd be okay with it.

Let's see, it is okay to label whites as racists for anything, but now it will be illegal to label a black as racist? Interesting time we are living in.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Intent is huge.

Intent is what seperates murder 1 from manslaughter - intent is derived through premeditation.

Intent is what decides if the defendant was trying to hurt the plaintiff.

In libel and slander intent is one of the most fundamental neccesities. If I can prove that I had no intention of harming your business/name/etc. it makes it very hard for someone to sue me for damages.

Now, I personally think she should be looking at wrongful dismissal and, possibly (slim), libel against her boss', and the US government.

At least with those two bodies she can prove that they took action before investigation.

To sue the guy who made the video, after he "claimed" that it was to show NAACP hypocrisy, is going to be hard. And if it is allowed it could set a precedant for "no intent" lawsuits. Which, concievably, could make any of us targets for things we post on websites like this.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by srsly_you_guys
 

You may be right...however, I think a large purpose will be served if this reminds bloggers to be more serious about what write and rewrite and the consequences of not doing so. And I'm not at all sure the MSM will get very far with suppressing bloggers. It's a first amendment right at least. They've tried before and failed. It's a bunch of hot air as far as I can see.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join