Shirley Sherrod To Sue Andrew Breitbart

[Yrdawg]

"No one" wants to hear the truth, man...

When Josey Wales says I come here to live or die, our words will be words of life or death...it sounds real to me

But then I guess it's just a movie, a fake hero, ( no offense hog ) and a cool concept life that we are led to believe is much too hard to live....truth is not possible by hollywood standards, unless you are Josey Wales or the equivelant....regular mortals MUST comply or die

Wonder why hollywood and washington are bedmates ????

 

[Gus McCrae]

Breibart has said he was given the portion of the tape he played and he posted it. He did not edit or splice anything.

And the NAACP had the entire tape. It was a portion of her (Sherrod's) speech at the NAACP several years back. It was THEIR tape. So for them to say they were "snookered" is idiotic at best. Meaning that mean ole Briebart made us not look at our own materials before we decided to publicly humiliate someone. WHAT? How is that Briebart's fault?

Finally, Briebart didn't fire anyone. The AG Dept did, allegedly on orders from the WH. In order to get ANY damages from Briebart, Sherrod will have to prove malice on his part.

All he did was show a segment of tape he was given. The media themselves went viral with this, the NAACP bit down hard on their own tail, and the WH looked even dumber than the day before.

How now is Briebart responsible for anything negative to Sherrod? Did he make her say what she said?

1. Breibart didn't not fully vet the information before he reported it.
2. The damage wasn't the firing as much as the political fallout from the report.
3. It'll be for the court to decide if Breibart had malice.
4. It's not that Briebart made her say anything, it's that he put a shoddy product out that impacted Sherrods life in a negative way. The courts will decide if he did wrong.

I don't see the problem with her suing in this case.

 

[Gus McCrae]

Yes I did watch the whole video.
My question was. Does this mean she still doesn't like white people? It seems like a easy enough question.

Never know what's in anyone's heart. She also states that she ended up helping the farmer when she realized the error of her ways. That was the point of her telling the story to the crowd. It's an important point that was cut out of the video.

The real problem is that this whole thing was in response to the claims of racisim in the Tea Party. Controversy was used to address the original controversy and it seriously backfired.... Well I guess despite the egg on the face, nobody is talking about the original issue anymore.

 

[Hardballing]

1. Breibart didn't not fully vet the information before he reported it.
2. The damage wasn't the firing as much as the political fallout from the report.
3. It'll be for the court to decide if Breibart had malice.
4. It's not that Briebart made her say anything, it's that he put a shoddy product out that impacted Sherrods life in a negative way. The courts will decide if he did wrong.

I don't see the problem with her suing in this case.

Do a Google Search on Sullivan vs NYTimes (this is THE preimminent case on slander/libel establishing precedent on the matters we are discussing) and you'll immediately see the problems with your arguments above.

To save you some time, here ya go:

1) Briebart, on day two, issued a clarification of his posting. He does not have to "vet", it is without dispute Sherrod herself on tape, saying what she is saying. The only title or information that went with the original post was "this is a segment of NAACP speech by Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod".

2) Reporters are not responsible for the "fallout" from their report. He will not be held responsible that other outlets (and before you go off on Fox, they didn't even report ANYTHING until AFTER her firing) did with an internet posting. How can Briebart be held responsible for what NBC, CBS, CNN, and/or ABC do? Or what any other organization does based on what the former alphabet outlets have done with a tape fragment?

3) Correct. A court will decide malice or not. But the standard vis a vis Sullivan is HUGE for a plaintiff to prove. In order for her to prevail on that level/charge, she will have to prove that Briebart either edited the tape (he claims he did not) AND that he knew the information was false. In this case, he made no such claim as to validity other than "this is her and she said this" (my words). Further, as above, on day two, he added a clarification on his site as to what he received. That de facto would tend to disprove malice under the Sullivan precedent.

4) In order to prevail with this viewpoint, Bush could have sued Rather/CBS for the National Guard story in 2004. He did not and could not have prevailed. MANY have tried to sue, even for stories that later proved untrue, and lost. You have to prove that they knew it was untrue (and in this case, Sherrod IS saying what she said) AND that a LIE would cause her harm. Briebart simply put out a tape segment, labeled as such, and others ran with it before checking anything.

Based on other previous actions that week and before, of both the NAACP (the Tea Party racist hoopla) and WH (beer summit, black panther nolle prosse), when other media outlets went viral with the tape (again, what part of this was an official NAACP tape are you not getting?) neither organization wanted to hear the charge, the inevitable charge, of reverse racism. Neither organization vetted anything, despite the NAACP having the entire tape from years before Briebart got it.

Open mouth, insert foot, bite off at knee followed with NAACP publicly humiliating Sherrod and calling her a racist "not to be tolerated" and the Administration (again, allegedly eminating from WH) firing her for same issue.

If she was after anything other than political points imo she should sue the NAACP and the AgDept for libel. Those she probably could win, particularly against the NAACP. But against Briebart, want to bet that the suit never gets filed? And I'll double down with you that if it does, she loses.

As she should.

 

[Yrdawg]

theres a lot more

http://bayoushooter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40841