Signs aren't meant to be considered in any context they are a complete picture of whatever it is the person is trying to say.
How that compares with a deliberate attempt to slander someone by editing their comments to reflect the exact opposite of what they were trying to say is beyond me.
I think this is really going to depend on exactly how the original video was presented. Everything I have heard so far says that Breitbart posted all of her redemption story speech, including the important redemption part. Her speech was about how she thought it was a racial fight, and learned that she was wrong, that it was not about race. If that section was really included and always present with the rest of the video on the Breitbart site, I think he is perfectly in the clear. It also matters that the video was supposedly supposed to be about the reaction of the audience, and if Breitbart's site was put up with commentary to that end, and always had commentary to that end then that is even more on his side.
Taking those two very critical questions, did he include the whole "redemption story" and was it presented as a demonstration of the audience, would determine whether or not a court should find any merit in a claim that he intentionally edited to slander her. I don't know if he could be liable for an unintentional slandering of her, but if he included the whole story, I don't think he should be guilty of even unintentional harm because it was the officials failure to actually view what he presented that caused the harm, not his video.
Facebook
Twitter