• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Sherrod to sue Breitbart over edited video

Waits to see how Fox/Amused/etc.. try and spin this to the evil liberal goes after those that report truth. :awe:
 
ayabe said:
Goddamn can't you take a break?
Click to expand...

A break form what?
The video was used to illustrate that members of the NAACP is racist yet they condemn the Tea Party as being racist.

Can the Tea Party sue liberal bloggers for posting pictures of "racist" signs out of context?
 
Patranus said:
A break form what?
The video was used to illustrate that members of the NAACP is racist yet they condemn the Tea Party as being racist.

Can the Tea Party sue liberal bloggers for posting pictures of "racist" signs out of context?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative blog and talk news personalities have a history of lying and grossly misrepresenting the truth to skew the public's view into their own warped reality. They need to start getting sued into the poor house because there needs to be consequences. Defamation of character and libel are things you can be sued for, and these assholes need to pay the fucking piper.
 
Excellent. Libel cases are almost impossible to win under US law, but she has a decent case. She wasn't a public figure (before) and in any event, if it gets to a jury it won't be a hard stretch to prove Breitbard acted with either reckless disregard for the truth or intentional malice.

Fox will spin it as either a politically motivated retaliation or as yet one more frivilous suit, but most likely Fox will bury it and ignore the story as much as possible.

BTW Patranus how can showing a photo of a publically displayed sign be taking it out of context? Because the audience is different? Because their feelings were hurt by republishing their public stupidity?
 
hmm while she has a case how was she damaged? within days she got to meet the president and was offered a higher paying job.

but fuck biabart (whatever his name is) needs a good smackdown.
 
This should be entertaining when it gets to court since the Media Matters spin will be meaningless and only the facts will be discussed. Wonder what will happen when it is shown that while Breitbart did not post the full 45 minute clip what he did post on his site was more than the little snippet that made all the initial news including some portions of the end part of her talk. To make it even more entertaining maybe Fox will introduce the entire tape of what was broadcast over their airwaves from 0800 that morning until late in the O'Reilly show that evening when it was first mentioned around 6 hours after Sherrod had been fired.
 
ayabe said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
How does she have a case? She made comments in front of an audience which were recorded and portions posted on-line. Out of context, absolutely. Disingenuous, yes. I'm not sure how this constitutes libel though. They were her own words taken out of context, not every third word spliced together to say something she never said.
 
hal2kilo said:
Should be Breitbart in title. Not sure how to edit it.
Click to expand...
Better way would be to go to the P&N main page and double-click anywhere on the white space of your thread (don't click on the hyperlink though). It should change to a textbox.
 
Patranus said:
People are also assuming that Breitbart ever had access to the original tape.
Click to expand...

Exactly. With ever increasing ways to distribute videos online about some kind of injustice or another ( police abuse, etc), I start taking the videos with a grain of salt.. especially if they start showing things that might be out of context or there is a convienent static, or what have you. Its a great tool if you used properly, but sadly, videos as 'evidence' in the court of public opinion usually just end up biting somebody in the ass espeically when its atered, edited, or incomplete.
 
jiggahertz said:
How does she have a case? She made comments in front of an audience which were recorded and portions posted on-line. Out of context, absolutely. Disingenuous, yes. I'm not sure how this constitutes libel though. They were her own words taken out of context, not every third word spliced together to say something she never said.
Click to expand...

What this man said.
 
jiggahertz said:
How does she have a case? She made comments in front of an audience which were recorded and portions posted on-line. Out of context, absolutely. Disingenuous, yes. I'm not sure how this constitutes libel though. They were her own words taken out of context, not every third word spliced together to say something she never said.
Click to expand...

Hell, there is some question to this being considered Libel. Just go look at the way Michael Moore splices words and text together in Bowling for Columbine. He is the greatest propagandist filmmaker since Lena Riefenstahl...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top