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: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Careful what you wish for.
If Sherrod sues Breitbart, this will finally open the door for others that have been victimized by the likes of Jackson and Sharpton.

Maybe that's what Andrew Breitbart has been counting on all along?




posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 

And this would be a bad thing why?



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 



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


His website clip included the part where she talks about redemption and her change of heart. So, she has no ground to sue Breitbart.

Why wasn't there calls for Rush to sue CNN and MSNBC when they repeated made up quotes and claimed Rush said them? Where was the calls for legal action when MSNBC and the rest of the media smeared Americans as racist and edited footage of a black man with a gun so they could claim it was white racists?


This whole thing is just so amazingly hypocritical.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Careful what you wish for.
If Sherrod sues Breitbart, this will finally open the door for others that have been victimized by the likes of Jackson and Sharpton.

Maybe that's what Andrew Breitbart has been counting on all along?

Yes, this could be a great way to start the "conversation on race." Obama doesn't want it now, he would defer it to a time where he could push things further in favor of favored minority groups. If we have the conversation now, it could blow up affirmative action.

Let's talk!



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Hudson
 

I've been clearly stating I believe she has a case against the MSM, Fox in particular based on the viciousness and defamation that was far greater on their part.

As for him having the entire clip on his website...I think he'll have to prove that in court, if it were to even have any bearing on the case, which I doubt,

What the courts will most likely be looking at are his written words about the tape and her, which clearly imply that he didn't watch to the end. Or if he did watch to the end and still wrote those words, he was even more irresponsible to have made the statements he did. They'll also probably take a look at his actions once it was revealed that there was more to the tape. His lack of both apology and retraction or correction will probably have a bearing.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hudson

His website clip included the part where she talks about redemption and her change of heart. So, she has no ground to sue Breitbart.


BULL!

She has all the ground in the world due to the libelous text at the beginning of the video. That is all she needs.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


well thats because you have this vendetta against FOX for some reason, its apparent in much of your posts......

The problem is, that she was already having it out for FOX, BEFORE they even aired the TAPE, which was AFTER she got fired........so i fail to see how any of this can come to fruition on her part....



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

The problem is, that she was already having it out for FOX, BEFORE they even aired the TAPE, which was AFTER she got fired........so i fail to see how any of this can come to fruition on her part....



You better check that. I watched Bill Oreally play the tape and then ask her to step down. To be fair he has even come back and said he was wrong for asking her to lose her job for what he aired. So FOX does not agree with you.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 

Prove it. Prove that I have a "vendetta" against Fox.

Hundreds of my posts condemn any MSM outlet, both written or televised or on the radio, both online and printed, that do not check their sources and their facts. If you can't see that there is a huge issue with this problem or don't have the skills and knowledge to discern the differences, I can't do a thing about it.

Please see these thread, and particularly, please read the timeline referred to in the Glen Beck flip-flopping thread. That timeline covers ALL the MSM that gave this story wings.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Other than the Ann Coulter video, I believe that is the extent of my posting threads about Fox.

[edit on 8/2/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adevoc Satanae

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

The problem is, that she was already having it out for FOX, BEFORE they even aired the TAPE, which was AFTER she got fired........so i fail to see how any of this can come to fruition on her part....



You better check that. I watched Bill Oreally play the tape and then ask her to step down. To be fair he has even come back and said he was wrong for asking her to lose her job for what he aired. So FOX does not agree with you.


Adevoc Satanae, ManBehindTheMask is right.

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.)

SeaWind



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SeaWind
 


You also might benefit from taking a look at the timeline.

In addition, potential lawsuits against her employer and other media are still possibilities. This one in no way negates or precludes those options.

Also, you have only speculation and hearsay as to what was or was not said or how it was said in conversations between the two women about the Glen Beck show.

And finally, what the White House and her boss did or did not do is irrelevant to how anyone in the MSM reported or skewed this story in defamatory ways. ASSUMING that anyone saw it before commenting and then yourself commenting based on hearsay and viral rumor is irresponsible and does not excuse anyone.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeaWind
Adevoc Satanae, ManBehindTheMask is right.

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.


Hey, sue them too but Brightbeirt was the one that posted a video that clearly stated in big bold white letters that she had acted in a racially motivated manner in her capacity at the USDA and then showed the story. She was not working for the USDA when it happened so that is a blatant lie.


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


You do know he was on the radio already saying she was a racist before he "took his time to look at all the facts" so how funny is that?


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


BULL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe you need to contact O'really and tell him to stop apologizing for calling for her to be removed from her position after he first showed it - you know - when she still had the job. Why would he apologize for something you claim did not happen?



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


Not ironically Beck got exactly what he wanted out of it - one side on the radio and another on tv, selling two flavors of crap to the same sheep.


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


Such as? She was offered an even better job and it was not by Glenn Beck.


When the entire video was shown, O'Reilly was one of the first to apologize publicly.


Really? What for?



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.)

SeaWind




Bull! That is a complete fabrication. Bill sat right there and looked into the camera and demanded she be removed from her post.



P.S. Let me help you out here. Here is a Fox News Article about a racist at the USDA from July 20.

When was she fired?

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Adevoc Satanae]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Adevoc Satanae
 


Actually no he wasnt on the radio that day saying she was a racist, I know because i listen to his show daily while at my desk and seeing my clients......nice try tho.....



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Actually no he wasnt on the radio that day saying she was a racist, I know because i listen to his show daily while at my desk and seeing my clients......nice try tho.....




So you claim she was fired before anyone, even fox news said anything about it and when I show you that you are full of crap you just ignore all that and respond that you heard it and it did not happen? Well, I heard it and it did. So far your track record for accuracy on this sucks.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Just some additional information and another story by AP.

Sherrod Attorney: Breitbart Suit Seeks To Be Deterrent

AP: Sherrod to sue Andrew Breitbart



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


He lied. It's libel.

We shall see what happens.

He said something that wasn't true. That doesn't mean he lied. Lying is intentionally telling an untruth, and that's what we're arguing about here.

Intent is a necessary part of defamation, and it will have to be shown.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Expertlaw

Also

"Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is 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. It is usually, but not always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant)." Wiki



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


From your same wikipedia link en.wikipedia.org...:

Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)
Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice).[18]

Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.


I think Shirley Sherrod was a public official. Therefore the public figure doctrine would apply.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
From the OP article:

"Obama has acknowledged that people in his administration overreacted without having full information, and says part of the blame lies with a media culture that seeks conflict but not all the facts."



www.msnbc.msn.com...

I do believe we have found the heart of the matter, right here in this snippet.

We have Obama BLAMING the media, the same media we keep hearing reports/soundbytes on Obama wanting to curtail.

Yet Shirley says she does NOT blame the media.

This is a case to watch, for many deeper reasons than racism, which is the soundbyte reason only.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by oniongrass
 

That's a stretch. But, I'm sure this will be addressed in the lawsuit.

 

reply to post by hotbakedtater
 



Obama has acknowledged that people in his administration overreacted without having full information, and says part of the blame lies with a media culture that seeks conflict but not all the facts.

Yes, he made this statement, but he did not blame the media per se or any specific media but the media culture. The viral media culture. He's not wrong. It's a problem. And Sherrod's lawsuit has the potential to bring much needed focus on this.

People in the administration and working for the administration admitted that they were influenced by media reports, perhaps wrongly assuming that the media had vetted the story and then also not vetting the story itself.



Sherrod said her faulty firing should not be blamed on all media.

She said not all media. She is already suing Breitbart (who is technically media). Legal experts have advised that she may have further lawsuits against other media outlets as well, however, to my knowledge, it has not been confirmed or denied whether she is considering additional or extended lawsuits.

That being said, she is not happy with Fox News, as she has publicly stated on record quite a few times, and appears to assign them their share of blame.

Totally agree it's a case to watch.

[edit on 8/3/2010 by ~Lucidity]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join