Sherrod to sue Breitbart over edited video

[nobodyknows]

I don't see what she expects to get? Everyone keeps saying that it was a "heavily edited" clip, but it wasn't "edited", it was just taken out of context and if we start suing every politcal hack who takes things out of context our courts will soon be plugged.

I think I read that Briebart recieved the clip they way he posted it so where's the case??

 

[woolfe9999]

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.

I think this analysis is basically correct - it depends on how it was originally presented on his website.

I remain a bit confused about how an edited version of her speech got out though. I keep hearing conflicting things about whether it was Breitbart who was responsible for the editing or not.

- wolf

 

[BoomerD]

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.

From what I've seen about this, I agree. IF she has any damages from this incident, it's due to being fired without a proper investigation by the "powers that be."

Videos are cut & spliced for sound bites all the time. Media uses sound bites totally out of context on a regular basis. NO ONE should react to a sound bite without having all the pertinant information first.

 

[nobodyknows]

Waits to see how Fox/Amused/etc.. try and spin this to the evil liberal goes after those that report truth. :awe:

No spin needed, lets juust give this lady some more rope!!!

 

[classy]

She has a solid case for libel. The reason, she suffered financial and character harm because the blogger posted a excerpt from the video to accuse the person as being racist. When you post or write something that brings into question a person's character you do tread into possible libel territory. Most of the time its a bunch of facts or statements that can be left up to folks to make up their own mind. But in this case the blogger stated an accusation of racism and presented a video to back up his claim. Well it was false and his big problem is it was an edited video to convey a supposed fact. He'll try to settle out of court.

 

[classy]

The video will be his big problem. Because if her attorneys can reasonably show the video was edited for the malicious intent to sully this womans character he will lose. The reason most of libel cases fail is because you have to prove their intent was to harm a persons character which even in this case will be hard to do. Much of this will revolve around the video and if the edited clip was done to be malicous.

 

[daishi5]

I think this analysis is basically correct - it depends on how it was originally presented on his website.

I remain a bit confused about how an edited version of her speech got out though. I keep hearing conflicting things about whether it was Breitbart who was responsible for the editing or not.

- wolf

I have not payed enough attention to this, but from what other people here have described, the original posting was a focus on the response of the NAACP crowd to her story, not her or her story. In my mind, that ruins the "intentional" part of the argument. I also believe that Breitbart posted the edited video, but the video contained her entire story, the bad and the good redemption at the end. So, while it may have been edited, it would not appear to have been edited to change or omit the important parts of the story that exonerate her, but edited for brevity.

But, these are all second hand accounts, so I am really just guessing based on other peoples accounts.

 

[Fern]

She has a solid case for libel. The reason, she suffered financial and character harm because the blogger posted a excerpt from the video to accuse the person as being racist.
-snip-

Looks to me like you're 'making up' facts.

Breitbart posted it, not because of her, but because of the NAACP. She was ancillary.

----------------------

I don't see how she has a case, at least not from what I've read about it. But I haven't actually seen Breitbart's site and do agree with daishi5's remarks.

----------------------

If she wins, I wonder what type of precedent this might set. If as Breitbart claims, he received the video from another source, did not edit it, did not host it for any purpose directed at Sherrod, did not have any commentary directed at her and still loses what will be the effect on sites hosting video from others?

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

I have not payed enough attention to this, but from what other people here have described, the original posting was a focus on the response of the NAACP crowd to her story, not her or her story. In my mind, that ruins the "intentional" part of the argument. I also believe that Breitbart posted the edited video, but the video contained her entire story, the bad and the good redemption at the end. So, while it may have been edited, it would not appear to have been edited to change or omit the important parts of the story that exonerate her, but edited for brevity.

But, these are all second hand accounts, so I am really just guessing based on other peoples accounts.

If this version of the facts is correct, she does not have a case and presumably will lose.

- wolf

 

[Vette73]

I have not payed enough attention to this, but from what other people here have described, the original posting was a focus on the response of the NAACP crowd to her story, not her or her story. In my mind, that ruins the "intentional" part of the argument. I also believe that Breitbart posted the edited video, but the video contained her entire story, the bad and the good redemption at the end. So, while it may have been edited, it would not appear to have been edited to change or omit the important parts of the story that exonerate her, but edited for brevity.

But, these are all second hand accounts, so I am really just guessing based on other peoples accounts.

Here it is...

http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/


"In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient..."

then later...

"We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions."

Sorry but he called her out by name and also said she was doing this under the duites as a Fed Employee, which in this case she was reciting a story WELL before she worked for the Fed Gov.

So yea she has a good case.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I have not payed enough attention to this, but from what other people here have described, the original posting was a focus on the response of the NAACP crowd to her story, not her or her story. In my mind, that ruins the "intentional" part of the argument. I also believe that Breitbart posted the edited video, but the video contained her entire story, the bad and the good redemption at the end. So, while it may have been edited, it would not appear to have been edited to change or omit the important parts of the story that exonerate her, but edited for brevity.

But, these are all second hand accounts, so I am really just guessing based on other peoples accounts.

so why comment at all if you have no clue?? seems to me like you should stfu........especially if you have no clue..

 

[Zedtom]

Breitbart and Sherrod are now household names and they have each become minor celebrities. Everyone has their opinions and the courts will have to sort out all the details. One thing will stick after all the dust settles:

The NAACP got played and they will never recover from this. They might as well change their name, reorganize and try to regain some respect.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I don't see what she expects to get? Everyone keeps saying that it was a "heavily edited" clip, but it wasn't "edited", it was just taken out of context and if we start suing every politcal hack who takes things out of context our courts will soon be plugged.

I think I read that Briebart recieved the clip they way he posted it so where's the case??

For those that are ignorant.....
Briebart should have left well enough alone....
Briebart knew this video was about her and he chose to screw the pooch...so he loses!!

 

[classy]

Looks to me like you're 'making up' facts.

Breitbart posted it, not because of her, but because of the NAACP. She was ancillary.

----------------------

I don't see how she has a case, at least not from what I've read about it. But I haven't actually seen Breitbart's site and do agree with daishi5's remarks.

----------------------

If she wins, I wonder what type of precedent this might set. If as Breitbart claims, he received the video from another source, did not edit it, did not host it for any purpose directed at Sherrod, did not have any commentary directed at her and still loses what will be the effect on sites hosting video from others?

Fern

Law.com dictionary

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1153

Portion of Libel Definition

1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages.


Statement
The NAACP is racist and I have proof, see the video.

Was is true? No. Was the video a fact that backed up the claim? No.
Was Sherrod damaged by this? Yes

It will be a tough case, but make no mistake, she has a very winnable case.
************************************************************
Here are some of Andrew B's original words from his article

In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient and in another clip from the same event a perfect rationalization for why the Tea Party needs to exist.

We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.

He directly attacks Sherrod, but now we know all this trumped up stuff was a big fat lie. So all this he was just after the NAACP ain't gonna fly.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Looks to me like you're 'making up' facts.

Breitbart posted it, not because of her, but because of the NAACP. She was ancillary.

----------------------

I don't see how she has a case, at least not from what I've read about it. But I haven't actually seen Breitbart's site and do agree with daishi5's remarks.

----------------------

If she wins, I wonder what type of precedent this might set. If as Breitbart claims, he received the video from another source, did not edit it, did not host it for any purpose directed at Sherrod, did not have any commentary directed at her and still loses what will be the effect on sites hosting video from others?

Fern

your reaching....

 

[xj0hnx]

hmm while she has a case how was she damaged?

She has a solid case for libel.

She doesn't have a case against Breitbart, she has one against whoever fired her without checking the details. The clip, which was editted, showed both her "racist" speech, AND her continuation that it was wrong of her, it's the USDA that jumped the gun, and fired her without looking into the story.

 

[xj0hnx]

He directly attacks Sherrod, but now we know all this trumped up stuff was a big fat lie. So all this he was just after the NAACP ain't gonna fly.

He may have attacked her past statements, but the fact is he showed the part of the video were she reflected on how wrong it was of her. IF he had shown just her racist story she might have a case, right now she needs to sue the USDA if she is going to sue anyone.

 

[Fern]

Here are some of Andrew B's original words from his article

In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient and in another clip from the same event a perfect rationalization for why the Tea Party needs to exist.

We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.

He directly attacks Sherrod, but now we know all this trumped up stuff was a big fat lie. So all this he was just after the NAACP ain't gonna fly.

Classy,

Would you please identify the remarks made by Breitbart above that are "untrue" (as required by the law you quoted)

I'm not sure I see any.

I do not see him stating that she has repented from her racist views, but I do not know if that ommission is sufficient to cause him any trouble.

But other than that question about the ommission, I see him saying nothing that Ms Sherrod hasn't already admited to on the video and in subsequent statement.

Fern

 

[Narmer]

I hope he loses. Slandering private citizens for politican purposes is just wrong.

 

[waggy]

She doesn't have a case against Breitbart, she has one against whoever fired her without checking the details. The clip, which was editted, showed both her "racist" speech, AND her continuation that it was wrong of her, it's the USDA that jumped the gun, and fired her without looking into the story.

I agree the USDA should be the target. but again she needs to show damages. what were they? within 3 days she was offered a job. one that was better and higher pay. she got to meet the president of the US and is now well known.

But sueing the USDA wouldnt be good. it could leave the Whitehouse looking foolish. well worse then they do now.

 

[OCGuy]

Good luck with that.

 

[xj0hnx]

I agree the USDA should be the target. but again she needs to show damages. what were they? within 3 days she was offered a job. one that was better and higher pay. she got to meet the president of the US and is now well known.

Yea, she really got hurt Even if she could prove damages, she was damaged by the USDA, not Breibart.

But sueing the USDA wouldnt be good. it could leave the Whitehouse looking foolish. well worse then they do now.

And? They need to look foolish if they did something foolish. Suing Breitbart, and not the USDA is nothing but partisan bullshit.

 

[UberNeuman]

Great. Time to bring some of these pussy loud mouths to accountability...

Brwrongbart is going to get fucked...

 

[Throckmorton]

Yea, she really got hurt Even if she could prove damages, she was damaged by the USDA, not Breibart.



And? They need to look foolish if they did something foolish. Suing Breitbart, and not the USDA is nothing but partisan bullshit.

The USDA and Obama didn't slander her, Breitbart did.

 

[Nemesis 1]

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.

Exactly. I took the liberty of coping that orginal topic here . So as to show prove that not everyone has a problem with comprehension. As the OPs topic header was way off from what I viewed in said video.