Sherrod to sue Breitbart over edited video

[Harvey]

So prove he edited it or you have no case.

Sherrod has a strong case against FrightFart for libel with punative damages for malice. Regardless of whether FrightFart edited the tape, himself, or he received it as he presented it, if he claims to be any kind of a journalist, he failed dismally in his duty to verify the facts behind the tape before publishing such potentially damaging material.

If he considers himself to be anything other than a journalist, then, by definition, he's exactly what he appears to be, a lying wingnut political hack and smear merchant. Either way, First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech do not absolve him from responsiblity for the consequenses of publishing false information.

You forgive the USDA for taking it at it's face value, you forgive the Whitehouse for making her resign over her blackberry and you forgive the NAACP who had the FULL video in their archives for condeming her but you support suing Briebert with no prrof that he edited anything.

There's plenty of blame to go around for both the USDA and the NAACP for allowing themselves to be sucker punched by FrightFart and for failing to do due dilligence before reacting against Sherrod publicly to the video. It's understandable in today's 24/7 news cycle, but it isn't pretty. To that extent, they are also victims of FrightFart's smear campaign.

FrightFart is still the primary offender for posting it with his own libelous, incendiary introductory words and for continuing to pimp his lies, even after being busted for them.

I hope the court throws the book at FrightFart and awards SherROD big bucks including substantial punative damages. That's the only consequence small minded assholes like FrightFart understand.

 

[xj0hnx]

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:

Don't forget ThinkProgress.com and Huffington!!!

lol

 

[xj0hnx]

I hope the court throws the book at FrightFart and awards SherROD big bucks including substantial punative damages. That's the only consequence small minded assholes like FrightFart understand.

Can we get some walls of text of your crying when she gets shit?

 

[marincounty]

The last Breitbart big story was the Acorn pimp story. And his minions ended up getting arrested and pleading guilty to crimes. Let's hope this time he feels the pain himself for pushing BS stories.

 

[Harvey]

Can we get some walls of text of your crying when she gets shit?

Can we get some of yours when she takes him for all he's got and maybe a good chunk of Murdoch's empire with it?

How much will you piss and moan when she ends up owning Faux and closing down his entire lie factory? :biggrin:

 

[woolfe9999]

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.

Public figures have a higher burden of proof for libel and slander than do non-public figures. A public figure must prove not only that the statement was false, but that the defendant acted with malice. For a non-public figure, it is sufficient to show only that the statement was false. That's the law.

- wolf

 

[Amused]

Public figures have a higher burden of proof for libel and slander than do non-public figures. A public figure must prove not only that the statement was false, but that the defendant acted with malice. For a non-public figure, it is sufficient to show only that the statement was false. That's the law.

- wolf

What defines a public figure? Is not a government employee speaking at a public nonprofit meeting a public figure?

 

[Vette73]

What defines a public figure? Is not a government employee speaking at a public nonprofit meeting a public figure?

Facepalm... NO YOU DUMBASS.
Did you understand it that time. If not look up the case law. She was not working as a Gov employee at the time. She was a private citizen giving a speech to a private group.

There is plenty of case law and very simple bing/google searchs brings them up.

"The actual malice standard only applies to public officials or public figures who sue for slander or libel. Other examples of public officials include elected officials, such as governors or senators, or non-elected government employees with substantial responsibility or control over public affairs. Courts have held that candidates for public office also are public officials and must prove the actual malice standard before prevailing in libel or slander lawsuits.

The Supreme Court in 1967 expanded the actual malice standard for public officials to include public figures as well. Public figures, unlike public officials, are not government officials but instead are extremely prominent private citizens whose prominence allows them to use the mass media to influence policy. Public figures, by the Court's definition, thrust themselves into the public arena. Examples of public figures include famous movie actors, musicians, professional athletes, authors, and others who are so prominent as to be household names."

"Courts do not allow the media to create public figures or limited purpose public figures merely by thrusting private citizens into the spotlight; public figures must voluntarily place themselves in the spotlight by, for example, deciding to buy a lottery ticket or by deciding to play football professionally. Public figures and limited-purpose public figures must demonstrate a defendant's actual malice before prevailing in a libel or slander lawsuit."

 

[Harvey]

What defines a public figure?

The fact that an individual has a public media platform doesn't change his absolute responsibility for making libelous statements. Rather, it goes to the amount of damage such libelous public statements can cause. It may also go to the amount of punitive damages awarded to the victim of that libel. Those are matters to be determined at trial.

Is not a government employee speaking at a public nonprofit meeting a public figure?

Maybe, but if you're still contending that Ms. Sherrod said anything that, in context of her entire speech, could be remotely considered as racist, either you haven't been paying attention, you're too stupid to understand that or you're intentionally continuing to pimp FrightFart's original lies.

Which is it?

 

[Amused]

Facepalm... NO YOU DUMBASS.
Did you understand it that time. If not look up the case law. She was not working as a Gov employee at the time. She was a private citizen giving a speech to a private group.

There is plenty of case law and very simple bing/google searchs brings them up.

"The actual malice standard only applies to public officials or public figures who sue for slander or libel. Other examples of public officials include elected officials, such as governors or senators, or non-elected government employees with substantial responsibility or control over public affairs. Courts have held that candidates for public office also are public officials and must prove the actual malice standard before prevailing in libel or slander lawsuits.

The Supreme Court in 1967 expanded the actual malice standard for public officials to include public figures as well. Public figures, unlike public officials, are not government officials but instead are extremely prominent private citizens whose prominence allows them to use the mass media to influence policy. Public figures, by the Court's definition, thrust themselves into the public arena. Examples of public figures include famous movie actors, musicians, professional athletes, authors, and others who are so prominent as to be household names."

"Courts do not allow the media to create public figures or limited purpose public figures merely by thrusting private citizens into the spotlight; public figures must voluntarily place themselves in the spotlight by, for example, deciding to buy a lottery ticket or by deciding to play football professionally. Public figures and limited-purpose public figures must demonstrate a defendant's actual malice before prevailing in a libel or slander lawsuit."

I would say she volutarily gave a public speech at a non-profit political event. She thrust her self out there.

Even so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention.

Go a head, keep insulting me.

 

[Amused]

The fact that an individual has a public media platform doesn't change his absolute responsibility for making libelous statements. Rather, it goes to the amount of damage such libelous public statements can cause. That's a matter to be determined at trial.



Maybe, but if you're still contending that Ms. Sherrod said anything that, in context of her entire speech, could be remotely considered as racist, either you haven't been paying attention, you're too stupid to understand that or you're intentionally continuing to pimp FrightFart's original lies.

Which is it?

As usual, your bias blinds you.

I KNOW she was slandered. The point here is, why despite people splitting legal hairs, is her video being taken out of context ANY worse than that done to others, including people in Moore's films?

That's where this argument is headed now as far as I'm concerned. Not if she was slandered. But why her case is so different from others that happen all the time, especially from the left's filmmakers.

 

[Vette73]

I would say she volutarily gave a public speech at a non-profit political event. She thrust her self out there.

Even so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention.

Go a head, keep insulting me.

Wow again you really show your stupidity.

She is not a public figure by law. Even your own little link shows “"involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity”. The publicity AFTER he released the cut video is fair game. So media can now show the video due to his actions, not hers. What he did is slander/libel. Did you miss this? “Courts do not allow the media to create public figures…”
She cannot be a public figure by law because you made her one. She had to do that herself. Her speech was to a very small and private group by a private citizen and as such does not meet the public figure test.

I guess reading and analysis is not one of your strong points. No whonder you believe anything fox tells ya. :awe:

 

[classy]

As usual, your bias blinds you.

I KNOW she was slandered. The point here is, why despite people splitting legal hairs, is her video being taken out of context ANY worse than that done to others, including people in Moore's films?

That's where this argument is headed now as far as I'm concerned. Not if she was slandered. But why her case is so different from others that happen all the time, especially from the left's filmmakers.

WEll as usual I have to bring facts to the table. According to case law, I doubt Shirley Sherrod is not a public figure.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm

PUBLIC FIGURE
A term usually used in the context of libel and defamation actions where the standards of proof are higher if the party claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has to prove defamatory statements were made with actual malice. Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657, 666-668.

The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried. To begin with, a fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345.

A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, Bruno & Stillman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co. (1st Cir. 1980) 633 F.2d 583, 589, a standard ensuring that reasonable minds may differ on this subject.

Advertisements themselves are not usually sufficient to transform someone into a public figure. Vegod Corp. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 763, 770 [a person in the business world advertising his wares does not necessarily become part of an existing public controversy]; Rancho La Costa, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 646, 661 [advertising is not thrusting oneself into the vortex of a controversy].

 

[Harvey]

As usual, your bias blinds you.

As usual, your bias is the reason you're accusing me of bias in a futile attempt to discredit me, instead of condemning FrightFart for his malicious lies.

I KNOW she was slandered. The point here is, why despite people splitting legal hairs, is her video being taken out of context ANY worse than that done to others, including people in Moore's films?

That's where this argument is headed now as far as I'm concerned. Not if she was slandered. But why her case is so different from others that happen all the time, especially from the left's filmmakers.

First, for accuracy, she was NOT slandered. She was libeled. The difference is whether the false statements were spoken or made in a written/published/permanent format.

By your own admission, FrightFart lied and maliciously disparaged Sherrod. Nothing said, written or presented on film or on the Internet or done by Michael Moore, or any individual from, or the entirety of "the left," or just any other individual filmmaker, or the entirety of "the left's filmmakers" in any way excuses or justifies FrightFart's malicious lies. Your pathetic attempts to do so do not speak well for your intellect or your ethics.

Anyone who believes they were libeled can take Moore or anyone else they believe libeled or slandered them to court and make their case that (A) that person lied about them in any way and (B) to prove that those alledged lies damaged them and to what extent they were damaged.

 

[Jadow]

what are her damages? the fact that she got a ton of media exposure and has had her profile, thus her earning power expand significantly?

deep down she's thanking him

 

[Amused]

WEll as usual I have to bring facts to the table. According to case law, I doubt Shirley Sherrod is not a public figure.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm

Neither were the ordinary folks Moore smeared to make look stupid or funny in his films.

How much you wanna bet none of them were informed on their release forms they would be taken out of context?

 

[bullbert]

She has been hurting her own case, lately, by wagging her mouth. She needs to calm down and curtail her own accusations unless she just wants to lower herself to the depths of other hate spewers.

I am hoping she appears on Anderson Cooper 360 again (CNN). He might have some interesting questions for her.

Side issue: I am not getting my daily dose of Hate Speech from Keith Olbermann (MSNBC) since Keith is on vacation. Any suggestions for where to get my Liberal Hate Speech until Keith comes back on air? The Mr Ed Show (MSNBC) was one recommendation. Any others?

 

[Red Dawn]

She has been hurting her own case, lately, by wagging her mouth. She needs to calm down and curtail her own accusations unless she just wants to lower herself to the depths of other hate spewers.

I am hoping she appears on Anderson Cooper 360 again (CNN). He might have some interesting questions for her.

Side issue: I am not getting my daily dose of Hate Speech from Keith Olbermann (MSNBC) since Keith is on vacation. Any suggestions for where to get my Liberal Hate Speech until Keith comes back on air? The Mr Ed Show (MSNBC) was one recommendation. Any others?

Isn't your daily dose of hate speech on Faux Noise enough for ya? You have to get more by watching that Goon Olbermann. No wonder you're such a twisted individual

 

[woolfe9999]

what are her damages? the fact that she got a ton of media exposure and has had her profile, thus her earning power expand significantly?

deep down she's thanking him

She can probably get general damages (e.g. emotional distress) without proving economic losses. IIRC, with libel you can get general damages with no proof of economic loss but not with slander.

She can also get punitive damages, if she proves malice.

- wolf

 

[bullbert]

Isn't your daily dose of hate speech on Faux Noise enough for ya? You have to get more by watching that Goon Olbermann. No wonder you're such a twisted individual

There are Hate Speech from both sides. It would be unwise to only listen to one side.

 

[Red Dawn]

There are Hate Speech from both sides. It would be unwise to only listen to one side.

What is unwise is a steady diet of either. It easy to tell who here in this forum listens to all that crap.

 

[DrPizza]

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.

Yep, I'd love to see the practice stopped.

 

[PeshakJang]

By your own admission, FrightFart lied and maliciously disparaged Sherrod. Nothing said, written or presented on film or on the Internet or done by Michael Moore, or any individual from, or the entirety of "the left," or just any other individual filmmaker, or the entirety of "the left's filmmakers" in any way excuses or justifies FrightFart's malicious lies. Your pathetic attempts to do so do not speak well for your intellect or your ethics.

But you can ignore it, since it doesn't bother you.

Harvey lecturing others on intellect and ethics... lol... at least my Saturday is off to a funny start.

 

[Harvey]

But you can ignore it, since it doesn't bother you.

Harvey lecturing others on intellect and ethics... lol... at least my Saturday is off to a funny start.

The idiots are so easily amused. Nice statement of absolutely nothing relevant to the thread.

 

[hal2kilo]

There's plenty of blame to go around for both the USDA and the NAACP for allowing themselves to be sucker punched by FrightFart and for failing to do due dilligence before reacting against Sherrod publicly to the video. It's understandable in today's 24/7 news cycle, but it isn't pretty. To that extent, they are also victims of FrightFart's smear campaign.

FrightFart is still the primary offender for posting it with his own libelous, incendiary introductory words and for continuing to pimp his lies, even after being busted for them.

I hope the court throws the book at FrightFart and awards SherROD big bucks including substantial punative damages. That's the only consequence small minded assholes like FrightFart understand.

The reaction of this administration was shameful, but that doesn't excuse people posing as journalist to spout lies and enuendo. MSM news departments better start getting their shit together and vetting any video or audio that passes in front of them in this day and age of digital editing.