Sherrod to sue Breitbart over edited video

[Narmer]

To those saying she has a legitimate case:

Would you apply the same standard to every other political (journalist, blogger, commentator) who took another person's comments out of context? Michael Moore comes to mind as somebody who has done just this for a living for years, yet it wasn't a big deal until this relatively minor incident.

Justice is blind...

 

[Patranus]

For those defending Breibart, it isn't just about the video. It's about his comments, which were blatant lies. If he just posted the video he would be in the clear, but his commentary should be the meat of her evidence against him.

What comments were those?

 

[xj0hnx]

Getting fired from your job is being damaged. Period. This is about more than just being financially damaged. Her character was impugned. That is damaging. The fact that she got her job back afterwards has no bearing on the case. Do you know what type of hell she probably went through (and will continue to go through)?

The damage portion of the case is the easy part. The hard part is... well... the rest.

Right, and Breitbart didn't fire her, and didn't edit out the part of the video were she tells how she learned racism is wrong ...I think you have a point in there somewhere, just can find it.

 

[nobodyknows]

to those saying she has a legitimate case:

Would you apply the same standard to every other political (journalist, blogger, commentator) who took another person's comments out of context? Michael moore comes to mind as somebody who has done just this for a living for years, yet it wasn't a big deal until this relatively minor incident.

qft

 

[Narmer]

What comments were those?

Go read the page where the videos were posted. He lied many times there.

 

[Craig234]

To those saying she has a legitimate case:

Would you apply the same standard to every other political (journalist, blogger, commentator) who took another person's comments out of context? Michael Moore comes to mind as somebody who has done just this for a living for years, yet it wasn't a big deal until this relatively minor incident.

For the first time I recall, PeshakJang has a point. I'm not saying she might not have a case, but it should be remembered that the press has a lot of leeway to get it wrong - with a high bar for malicious intent that *someone* (like the original editor) might be guilty of, but not necessarily those who passed it along. It's awfully hard to say the people who passed it along with malicious intent, when the people who support her - she was their employee - were fooled enough to act on the tape, too.

There's a reason for all this - we didn't need the Bush administration harassing and intimidating news outlets who put up attacks on administration officials, not all of which were accurate, using the courts to bankrupt them in legal affairs; we didn't want the media's hands tied too much in what they could say. Should Seymour Hersh be sued for reporting - presumably on legitimate inside info - that an Iraq attack was very likely? Should people who wrote attacks on Karl Rove for thins suspected but not proven be sued?

Public officials have extra latitude for the public to say bad things about them for good reason.

The normal response is for others to counter the lies with the truth.

She may have a case of this being an intentionally dishonest and malicious piece that justifies the rare lawsuit, but we should be careful about the protection of free speech.

 

[Vette73]

To those saying she has a legitimate case:

Would you apply the same standard to every other political (journalist, blogger, commentator) who took another person's comments out of context? Michael Moore comes to mind as somebody who has done just this for a living for years, yet it wasn't a big deal until this relatively minor incident.

Facepalm...

If you do not even know basic law then stop posting stupid comments.

Public figuires do not have the same privacy rights as private citizens that do not put themself in the publics eye. Once you go into movies, poltics, etc... you give up many of the rights that others who do not do as such still have.

 

[Amused]

Facepalm...

If you do not even know basic law then stop posting stupid comments.

Public figuires do not have the same privacy rights as private citizens that do not put themself in the publics eye. Once you go into movies, poltics, etc... you give up many of the rights that others who do not do as such still have.

Michael Moore often interviews individuals who are NOT in public life, then edits their remarks to make them look bad.

Wow, first time I'm agreeing with Craig, who admits Moore and many others in the press do this very thing.

Dude, you have to be pretty bad to make Craig look good.

 

[Amused]

BTW, has anyone given any thought to the First Amendment right of a journalist to protect the confidentiality of their source (right or wrong)?

Deepthroat ring any bells?

 

[Craig234]

BTW, has anyone given any thought to the First Amendment right of a journalist to protect the confidentiality of their source (right or wrong)?

Deepthroat ring any bells?

Many people have. It's a long-examined issue in the courts.

As I recall, in general there is no legal protection. If the government has a legitimate investigative inquiry into a criminal matter and needs the source, it can demand it, asking the reporter under oath. This is where you see the occasional reporter going to jail to protect their source.

However, there is some informal latitude - the public tends to side with the reporters who are informing them and not the side being exposed.

There are also some limits generally followed on how long the reporter can be held in jail.

 

[Vette73]

Michael Moore often interviews individuals who are NOT in public life, then edits their remarks to make them look bad.

Wow, first time I'm agreeing with Craig, who admits Moore and many others in the press do this very thing.

Dude, you have to be pretty bad to make Craig look good.

OMG you really are an idiot. I covered that. If the person is interviewed by someone with a camera you will have a hard time suing when they post your comments with that video. i.e. you put yourself out in the publics view with permission.

In Sherrods case she was in a small private group setting giving a speach and only part of it was played. i.e. private person giving a speech to a private group.

If you can't tell the differance then just go back to sitting on your dumb butt colleting your trust fund and watching fox some more.

 

[HumblePie]

To those saying she has a legitimate case:

Would you apply the same standard to every other political (journalist, blogger, commentator) who took another person's comments out of context? Michael Moore comes to mind as somebody who has done just this for a living for years, yet it wasn't a big deal until this relatively minor incident.

Peshakjang,

As Marlin put it, the law applies differently to public figures. No one knew Sherrod before this all happened.

Also, while others pull things out of context, they use IMPLICATIONS and SUGGESTIONS and ALLUSIONS to make their point. Very rarely to they make bold faced statements of fact. Those that do and are wrong for defamation get slapped down hard. So yes, I have no problem with anyone else that does something this stupid getting slapped for it. Why? Because it happens.

Also, that is just strawman tactics. Just because someone else somewhere else got away with it does not have ANY relevancy upon this case. It is also up to the party being slandered to seek restitution. Cops do not go out and arrest people for it. It's a civil matter. So if Michael Moore actually commits slander, I have no problem with the party or parties he actually slandered to seek damages. However, I haven't actually seen him do that. He uses implications, with editing sometimes, to make his point. That is the difference.

Again, stop using strawman shit and face the facts. Breitbart FUCKED UP. Period. End of story. If it had been Olbermann, or Walter Cronckite or WHOMEVER else that did the same thing I would expect Mrs Sherrod to sue the shit out of them as they so rightly deserved.

 

[Amused]

OMG you really are an idiot. I covered that. If the person is interviewed by someone with a camera you will have a hard time suing when they post your comments with that video. i.e. you put yourself out in the publics view with permission.

In Sherrods case she was in a small private group setting giving a speach and only part of it was played. i.e. private person giving a speech to a private group.

If you can't tell the differance then just go back to sitting on your dumb butt colleting your trust fund and watching fox some more.

The NAACP is a "small private group?"

Funny, Obama's racist minister had clips of his sermons played, was that bad too?

She gave a public speech to a non-profit organization. The camera that taped her was obviously not hidden.

And please tell me, what is this "trust fund" you keep blabbering about?

 

[CallMeJoe]

What comments were those?

So after all your comments on the contents of the video you admit you have not seen the original Breitbart presentation?

I am shocked, I tell you, shocked...

 

[woolfe9999]

Does anyone have a link the original breitbart page where this appeared, and by that, I mean as it appeared in its original form? It strikes me that this is the only thing that is relevant here.

- wolf

 

[umbrella39]

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.

This.

 

[umbrella39]

your reaching....

What's new with the supposed voice of reason for the GOP? SSDD.

 

[Amused]

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.

And only a fool would believe the left wing is any better.

 

[Craig234]

And only a fool would believe the left wing is any better.

Actually, only a fool would be willfully ignorant and assume that the left is the same.

 

[JEDIYoda]

What's new with the supposed voice of reason for the GOP? SSDD.

I am a democrat......but yeah nothing is new with Fern being the supposed voice of the GOP...lolol

 

[classy]

The NAACP is a "small private group?"

Funny, Obama's racist minister had clips of his sermons played, was that bad too?

She gave a public speech to a non-profit organization. The camera that taped her was obviously not hidden.

And please tell me, what is this "trust fund" you keep blabbering about?

Do people here ever actually google facts? If you look at the definiton of libel you can see clearly she has enough to make a case. Everything you just posted was left open to interpretation. But in this case a statement of fact was made and evidence was presented as fact to back up that statement. Unfortunately it was false and someone was disgraced and fired because of it. The person responsible is Andy B. Will this go to trial? Yes. Will she win? I don't know. My guess is Breitbart will attempt to settle. Probably not for the fear of losing but to protect who actually edited that video. This is a classic Dan Rather type case.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Awesome, I hope Rush, Hannity, Levin and Beck are next. :thumbsup:

Yep, let's clear out the trash so that all we're left with is good reliable reporting like we get with MSNBC, Dailykos, and Moveon. Rah! :tu:

 

[Amused]

Actually, only a fool would be willfully ignorant and assume that the left is the same.

The left is EXACTLY the same. If there is ANY difference, I would say the left is better at and more creative with propaganda, the right more clumsy. But both are equally full of shit.

If you'd stop being such a partisan hack sheep, you'd see it.

 

[Amused]

Do people here ever actually google facts? If you look at the definiton of libel you can see clearly she has enough to make a case. Everything you just posted was left open to interpretation. But in this case a statement of fact was made and evidence was presented as fact to back up that statement. Unfortunately it was false and someone was disgraced and fired because of it. The person responsible is Andy B. Will this go to trial? Yes. Will she win? I don't know. My guess is Breitbart will attempt to settle. Probably not for the fear of losing but to protect who actually edited that video. This is a classic Dan Rather type case.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying whoever set her up (created the edited video) is not responsible. I'm saying she had no expectation of privacy, which is what Marlin would have us think.

I am also saying this happens all the time. Moore does it consistantly in his movies as do ANY political newscast/commentary with a bias.

It matters NOT were she an actor, a politician, a government employee, or a housewife. Comments made in a public speech are public.

Now, slander/libel is another issue, and Marlin would have us think that doing this very thing to an elected official, actor, etc. is okay, but not for a government employee. I say it's not. Slander IS slander. If her case is, than so are videos taking ANYONE'S speech out of context. Period.

 

[classy]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying whoever set her up (created the edited video) is not responsible. I'm saying she had no expectation of privacy, which is what Marlin would have us think.

I am also saying this happens all the time. Moore does it consistantly in his movies as do ANY political newscast/commentary with a bias.

It matters NOT were she an actor, a politician, a government employee, or a housewife. Comments made in a public speech are public.

Now, slander/libel is another issue, and Marlin would have us think that doing this very thing to an elected official, actor, etc. is okay, but not for a government employee. I say it's not. Slander IS slander. If her case is, than so are videos taking ANYONE'S speech out of context. Period.

I agree with you on privacy. You are right on that point. I will go out on a limb and say he will settle. I watched the whole video. There was very little reaction in a negative way when she talked about the white farmer. At one point when she got in depth about it, the room was dead silent. Another thing people keep saying that is not true if you watch the whole video. She didn't take him to the white attorney because she was prejudice. She said after her experience with him, she thought taking him to one of his own that a white attorney would treat him right because he too was white.

She went on to say that then several days before he was about to lose his farm he called her and she realized that it was because he was poor that this attorney didn't help him. I am very reserved saying who is a good person, but after watching that 45 min video and hearing her story, this is a good person. We need people like her. And the irony, at the end of the video she said she was disappointed their weren't more whites there, because we need to be together. Its a shame. This woman got seriously done a misjustice.

Will she win this lawsuit? Its gonna be tough. My gut says, Breitbart will settle this. Especially if he didn't edit the video. I am sure who ever did will most certainly push him to settle. But this was a bad bad hack job.