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

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ~Lucidity

 

He lied. It's libel.

We shall see what happens.

What did he lie about?

reply to post by peck420

I see. That clarifies it more about intent.

I wonder if she might not be planning to sue her employer. Seems she has a huge case there too. Maybe it's why she's not accepting a job right off? That could be viewed as appeasement or a deal to not sue, you know?

And this has been so focused on Breitbart, but what about the rest of the MSM who ran with this (slander and libel and defamation)?

Are they somehow more protected? Or does it just lead back to Breitbart...they STILL have an obligation to ensure the facts. And they sure as hell did their part to sully her name.

Were their apologies and retractions enough?

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
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]

So she hasn't mitigated damages. She has a legal duty to mitigate damages to the extent she can.

Even if she wins a judgment, and I don't see why she should, the judgment should be zero because she did not mitigate damages.

There is a BIG difference from showing a video CLIP and an edited video. The original video in question was a CLIP.

The other side of the media shows clips constantly without showing the entire video to gain a proper sense of context. Breitbart just used the progressive tactic.

Again a clip not an edit.

Originally posted by TheFinalTruth14

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ~Lucidity

 

He lied. It's libel.

We shall see what happens.

What did he lie about?

He didn't lie. What he did is no worse than what we do on this board and many others every day. Take a quote, without complete context, and present it.

I'm scared if she wins though -- a precedent to shut down all internet chat boards.

reply to post by oniongrass


As far as the job goes? We don't even know if she's suing yet, but wouldn't whatever settlement there might be just take that into account. Would a person who got treated that way by an employer be expected to go back to work for said employer before a lawsuit simply to mitigate damages? If conditions were such that this would be uncomfortable or might even affect her ability to sue?

Again, I'm not a lawyer...are you? lol

A lawyer might get a good laugh out of me trying to understand this.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I really hope she does sue her employer, maybe that will calm some of the knee-jerk reactions that are becoming so comeplace.

As for Breitbart ,and the other bloggers out there, I think there should definitely be some level of responsibility required when posting on the internet.

It is the ultimate public place!

Originally posted by oniongrass

Originally posted by TheFinalTruth14

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ~Lucidity

 

He lied. It's libel.

We shall see what happens.

What did he lie about?

He didn't lie. What he did is no worse than what we do on this board and many others every day. Take a quote, without complete context, and present it.

I'm scared if she wins though -- a precedent to shut down all internet chat boards.

I guess that link about the merit of this lawsuit might answer questions like these. I haven't had a chance to read it all yet.

His profession is to do this. There's a huge difference between what he does and what we do. Aside from this, we really should be careful too, BOTH as writers and as readers, particularly with the concerns you raise about shutting down boards, which, as stated above, I highly doubt will happen.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by oniongrass

 

As far as the job goes? We don't even know if she's suing yet, but wouldn't whatever settlement there might be just take that into account. Would a person who got treated that way by an employer be expected to go back to work for said employer before a lawsuit simply to mitigate damages? If conditions were such that this would be uncomfortable or might even affect her ability to sue?...

Well I don't know about the "comfort" thing -- but yes you are expected to mitigate, even if it would affect your ability to sue. Otherwise the requirement would have no meaning.

Well, I just read the enitre media matters article, and so far all it tells me is that Sherrod will have a case "if" she can prove Breitbart's intent.

"Most certainly she does have a case," said Attorney Deborah Drooz of Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Schreck in Los Angeles, which has handled such cases for Martha Stewart and Aretha Franklin. "What Mr. Breitbart did was to create the false appearance that Ms. Sherrod was a racist. He used that to further his conservative agenda. He deprived the viewer of the ability to decide for himself what Ms. Sherrod said."

(Bold by me - they would have to prove that was his intent)

He also noted that Breitbart's known conservative bent could prove he might have had a motive to discredit Sherrod. "The fact of his political leanings is some evidence that he was out to get her."

(Bold by me )

Source - Media Matters Article

This could be very bad!

If they can prove his "intent" based on his "political leanings" that would make any and all registered political party members potential victims of lawsuits later.

Imagine that, suing someone for libel becasue their "intent" is their registration card to, say, the Tea Parties.

God, I hope this never comes to Canada.

Lucidity, note that the legal experts are fishing for intent before the case even starts .

both edits because I apparently can not type today .
[edit on 29-7-2010 by peck420]



[edit on 29-7-2010 by peck420]

Sorry, double post.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by peck420]

reply to post by peck420

Hmm...just read it too...

"He deprived the viewer of the ability to decide for himself what Ms. Sherrod said."

Whether he had the entire tape or just a portion of it will be a huge issue here.

If he had the entire tape, intent would probably certainly be easier to prove? If not....

Also there remains the question of whether he was set up. Ann Coulter is alluding to this, and I believe he may have too. Even if this were the case, he still had a responsibility to check the facts.

I ran across this quote on The Post's website. They said the MSM needs to, “Report! Return to hard reporting. Research that story and don't turn it in until your editor has approved that its solid. This goes for print, blogs, and broadcast.”

About time someone started taking this seriously again. And I'm hoping that a lawsuit like this will remind everyone, you know?

Then there's this about FoxNews:

"Another defamation veteran, Paul Kleven, a lawyer based in Berkeley, Calif., said such a claim could possibly be made more against Fox than Breitbart. Given Breitbart's history of doctoring videos, Fox should have suspected that a video he provided might have been doctored."

Doctored though? As someone mentioned this might be a sticking point, because that doesn't appear to be the case.

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

She will lose against any media, be it Breitbart or Fox or MSNBC. Taking her "out of context" is not altering the video. It's her own words and they will come back to haunt her.

Everyone seems to think if anything is shown on a news network, it is news. Commentary is an opinion, this is why newspapers have opinion pages. She was shown on commentary programming. There is a legal difference.

She has one hell of a lawsuit against her employer. Let's see if she sues them. She can even subpoena Prez Obama as he talked to her about her firing from his administration. Probably didn't think this one out, Barry. Every day she is off will be just back pay and then a punishment amount for being stupid.

She could even bring a personal suit against Dept. Of Agriculture Secretary and underlings for airing a personnel matter, which is against Federal law that the OPM cites all the time for "personnel matters" and "the privacy act".

After viewing the full video of the March NAACP meeting in which Ms. Sherrod was a guest speaker, and based off of everything I have read, posted and hear about here is my take on this:
She may have a case, and can bring one up in the civil law suit, however, I do not believe that she will win against Britebart, as there was no intention to slander her. In the uneditied video tape, after carefully reviewing it, I did not notice where she stated when this event happened, nor was the message strong to back that she came to any conclusions about healing the divisions between those who were black and white. In her speech, she did violate the Hatch act, and was primarily focused on helping those of african american descent, rather than joining all of the community togethers, looking at the lack of diversity and the number of african americans who were working under her. Britebart, did not send this to the media, rather he left it on the website, and it was we the people who viewed such. Even before it was aired on TV, she was fired in a very bad and inhumane way from her job, rather than allowing for an investigation to take effect, as the federal government was trying to prevent another scandel. The fact that she is pulling the racist card, vowing revenge, gives me pause to think that just maybe there is some truth there for her being slightly racist on her part. Even the NAACP, who had the full video tape, demanded her termination and turned on her, only after it started to come out, that all sides in the effort backed up and thought about what they just did. I was rather shocked that the NAACP did not review the video tape and only then after thinking on if it was really a case of racisim or not, release a statement. If she should sue anyone it should be the federal government and NAACP for failing to give her a fair hearing and doing a proper investigation, to include reviewing the full video. Though it does seem different and the question should be, who gave Britebart the video, cause based off of such, it would have to have been someone who was there, and chances are it would have been a person of a minority group.

She has a case against Breitbart, because Breitbart deprived the public of the ability to decide something?

Seems that's a theory under which the public would have a case against Breitbart. (But that would mean a criminal prosecution, and he did not commit a crime, so that's out the window too.)

Her case makes no sense to me. But there is a risk here. The risk is that she sues him, and he starts countersuing others, and there's a whole domino effect of people being afraid to offend any black person. That would hinder free speech.

Maybe this is the impetus for us to have that "conversation about race" that the lefties keep wanting. But it should be no-holds-barred, and the best end result would be the end of affirmative action. "End it, don't mend it!"

[edit on 29-7-2010 by LadySkadi]

Foxnews is reporting Breitbart was setup.

Someone sent him the doctored video, and he didn't check his facts before putting it up.

The story

Consider the source, of course...

reply to post by b.jim


fraud? LOL

WTF is wrong with you Anne Coulter?

A good reporter always checks his facts before sending. He probably just had a moment and then immediately uploaded it.

reply to post by b.jim


Yes, Ann Coulter started that last week, and I believe I saw a story on Breitbart saying the same. Others may have too that I haven't seen. Thanks for the link.

The thing is, whether he was set up or not, he didn't vet the story and was irresponsible and defamed her. That and I will say it took them long enough to dream this setup story up.

And he still hasn't apologized. That has nothing to do with being set up either. He is not the victim here.

[edit on 7/30/2010 by ~Lucidity]

reply to post by dragnet53

Exactly!!!

I posted a thread with her video in it last week. I think she set him up, and that's why she knows this This particular interview was downright creepy...the one where she said child porn to the interviewer so many times? Plus she was mega nervous.