Sherrod to sue Breitbart over edited video

[waggy]

A
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.

.

and this says a lot about your ethics and honesty.

 

[waggy]

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.

not just MSM all of them need to start vetting again. it seems in the last 10 years they have stopped. in a attempt to be the first to get that gotcha story out real journalism has ended.

 

[JEDIYoda]

and this says a lot about your ethics and honesty.

what it says is that Harvey has strong ethics and morals.

As for you youe ethics and honesty are convoluted at best!

 

[waggy]

what it says is that Harvey has strong ethics and morals.

As for you youe ethics and honesty are convoluted at best!

yes saying that its ok when they are attacking and lying about someone he does not like, but someone that shares his views and side its wrong. yeah that makes strong ethics and honesty.


i do think that the media needs to quite this game of editing video's and stop making "documentary's" that are full of lies and creative editing.

i do think that briabart IF he is the one that edited it needs to pay for it.

and to have YOU question my eithics really does not matter. long as anyone questions what you say or has different ideas both of you slam them.

 

[Harvey]

i do think that briabart IF he is the one that edited it needs to pay for it.

You're missing the point. Truth is a complete defense against a charge of libel or slander. It doesn't matter whether or not FrightFart edited the tape. He posted a public statement that, if false, is defamatory under civil laws of libel and slander. Furthermore, he added the opening four text frames I quoted, earlier:

On July 25, 2009 Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack appointed Shirley Sherrod as Georgia Director of Rural Development

USDA Rural Development spends over $12.2 Billion in the State of Georgia each year.

On March 27, 2010, while speaking at the NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet...

Ms. Sherrod admits that in her federally appointed position overseeing over a billion dollars...

She discriminates against people due to their race.

Those are his own words, not the words of whoever gave him the tape, and the last two lines are his declaratory statement that Ms. Sherrod, in her federally appointed position overseeing over a billion dollars, discriminates against people due to their race.

1. Ms Sherrod was NOT a Federal employee when she spoke the words on the tape.

2. Her words were presented out of context. She was explaining to that NAACP the events and thought process that brought her AWAY FROM her own biases to a more enlightened viewpoint. That has been confirmed by the very white farm owners against whom she was alleged to have discriminated.

FrightFart is responsible for knowing whether his own statements and any materials he presents through his public platform are true or false before he posts them in public. He failed in that responsiblity, and he should be held to account for any harm he caused to Sherrod and anyone else.

I'd hope the alleged ACORN actors he libeled sue his lying ass, as well.

 

[hal2kilo]

I'd hope the alleged ACORN actors he libeled sue his lying ass, as well.

Bookmarked for beginning of wing nut circle jerk.

 

[Harvey]

Bookmarked for beginning of wing nut circle jerk.

You mean you didn't know that video was another right wingnut fuster cluck of lies. The ACORN workers were cleared of all charges. Here' the AP story from your favorite source... Wait for it... Faux:

ACORN Workers Cleared in NYC Pimp Video

Published March 02, 2010 | AP

NEW YORK -- ACORN employees caught on video apparently advising a couple posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend to lie about her profession and launder her earnings did not commit a crime, the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office said Monday.

The office began its investigation Sept. 15, the day after the video was released online by the conservative activists who posed as an outlaw couple seeking help buying a house. It was but one in a series of such videos filmed at ACORN offices around the country that sparked a national scandal and helped drive the organization to near ruin.

"We are gratified that the district attorney, after a thorough investigation, found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by ACORN," said a statement by Jean Sassine, a spokeswoman for the organization that has replaced ACORN's Brooklyn operation.
.
.
(continues)

Was FrightFart involved? Ummm... Yeah!

California Attorney General: Breitbart's ACORN tapes were "severely edited"

April 02, 2010 11:24 am ET by Eric Boehlert

The AG also confirms the ACORN 'pimp' story was a hoax.
.
.
(continues)

Got anymore feet ready to fall from your mouth?

 

[hal2kilo]

You mean you didn't know that video was another right wingnut fuster cluck of lies. The ACORN workers were cleared of all charges. Here' the AP story from your favorite source... Wait for it... Faux:



Was FrightFart involved? Ummm... Yeah!



Got anymore feet ready to fall from your mouth?

Slow down Harvey I'm on your side. Sometimes my sarcasm doesn't go over so well. I assumed that this comment would result in the typical wing nut (right wing) flailing on this subject. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Harvey]

Slow down Harvey I'm on your side. Sometimes my sarcasm doesn't go over so well. I assumed that this comment would result in the typical wing nut (right wing) flailing on this subject. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Thanks! I'm likewise sorry for misunderstanding your post. :thumbsup:

 

[werepossum]

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

This. Sherrod, being a long-time public figure, will have a very hard time collecting anything.

 

[UberNeuman]

This. Sherrod, being a long-time public figure, will have a very hard time collecting anything.

Collecting isn't the issue....

\accountability is....
\\and the source of that edited video is?

 

[JEDIYoda]

This. Sherrod, being a long-time public figure, will have a very hard time collecting anything.

actually just because your a public figure does not mean you have to put up with out and out lies.
Plus at the time of this video she was not a public figure!!

I don`t know where idiots like you think that just because somebody is a public figure it means they have to put up with slander and lies....

 

[Thump553]

This. Sherrod, being a long-time public figure, will have a very hard time collecting anything.

Whether or not she was a public figure-PRIOR to this incident-is a crucial legal determination. Personally I think you have lept to a major and dificult legal conclusion hastily and almost certainly as a results driven determination (ie, your philisophical bias predetermined the result you wanted). Fortunately for all of us-regardless of our political idealogy-there are next to no federal judges that show such a poor display of legal reasoning.

Personally, I view this case as a tough call but that is because US libel law means the defendant wins the overwhelming majority of cases. I think she has a better than even chance of not being found a public figure, and if that is the case, she will almost certainly win.

If she is found a public figure-well take a look at Westermoreland v. CBS (the leading case in this area of the law) and tell me if you think it is possible for any public figure to win any libel case under US law, as a practical matter.

It will be especially interesting if she finds some way to succesfully venue the case in England and that holds up. If so, the defendant might as well bend over now because he's going to get reamed.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Why is everyone talking about defamation laws? Wouldn't her best case be to sue under False Light? That seems more applicable to what happened. Is editing a video even a defamatory statement?

Hell, does False Light even require some sort of public figure determination? I don't believe that it does, but I also don't think that she would qualify as a public figure when Breitbart released the video. However, I think that she would have to prove 'malice' on Breitbart's part in order to collect extra damages...fortunately for her, that includes a type of recklessness.

 

[waggy]

You're missing the point. Truth is a complete defense against a charge of libel or slander. It doesn't matter whether or not FrightFart edited the tape. He posted a public statement that, if false, is defamatory under civil laws of libel and slander. Furthermore, he added the opening four text frames I quoted, earlier:



Those are his own words, not the words of whoever gave him the tape, and the last two lines are his declaratory statement that Ms. Sherrod, in her federally appointed position overseeing over a billion dollars, discriminates against people due to their race.

1. Ms Sherrod was NOT a Federal employee when she spoke the words on the tape.

2. Her words were presented out of context. She was explaining to that NAACP the events and thought process that brought her AWAY FROM her own biases to a more enlightened viewpoint. That has been confirmed by the very white farm owners against whom she was alleged to have discriminated.

FrightFart is responsible for knowing whether his own statements and any materials he presents through his public platform are true or false before he posts them in public. He failed in that responsiblity, and he should be held to account for any harm he caused to Sherrod and anyone else.

gotcha. yeah then he needs to pay. i get tired of the media doing the "gotcha" journalism. something needs to be done. sue his ass maybe that will make the next person think twice.

Though i really do have my doubts this gets to court.

 

[Harvey]

gotcha. yeah then he needs to pay. i get tired of the media doing the "gotcha" journalism. something needs to be done. sue his ass maybe that will make the next person think twice.

Dayum!! Facts and reason make a point. Thanks for listening. :beer: :thumbsup:

Though i really do have my doubts this gets to court.

Too late. As soon as she files the suit, it's "in court" in the sense that it's an action filed under the civil judicial system. FrightFart made false, damaging statements about her for which he is obviously responsible. I think she can make a good case that his intentions were malicious, which would go to being awarded punitive damages.

If she wins, maybe she'll show some real class by donating the punitive damages to an organization like the NAACP or victims of the oil spill or any other worthwhile organization or charity, especially a lib organization like truthdig or mediamatters that would piss on FrightFart's shoes. :biggrin:

 

[waggy]

Too late. As soon as she files the suit, it's "in court" in the sense that it's an action filed under the civil judicial system.

If she wins, maybe she'll show some real class by donating the punitive damages to an organization like the NAACP or victims of the oil spill or any other worthwhile organization or charity, especially a lib organization like truthdig or mediamatters that would piss on FrightFart's shoes. :biggrin:

well you guys know what i mean. its going to be settled before they go to trail. I really think that far to many parties would be embarrassed about it.

meh if she wins its her money. she can buy lotto tickets for all i care. but yes it would be a nice gesture to donate it.

 

[classy]

well you guys know what i mean. its going to be settled before they go to trail. I really think that far to many parties would be embarrassed about it.

meh if she wins its her money. she can buy lotto tickets for all i care. but yes it would be a nice gesture to donate it.

Thats my take. I think this will be settled out of court. My guess she walks away with 1-1.5 million. She is going to get some money. So far at least two law professors I have read from various newspapers thinks her case will be tough for her to win. But both think Breibart is in some hot water.

 

[bullbert]

Thats my take. I think this will be settled out of court. My guess she walks away with 1-1.5 million. She is going to get some money. So far at least two law professors I have read from various newspapers thinks her case will be tough for her to win. But both think Breibart is in some hot water.

I see nothing good coming out of a lawsuit started by Shirley Sherrod. I would of course expect a counter-suit from Breitbart. I also see more bad press for both Shirley Sherrod and terrible terrible (yes, I wrote that twice) press for her husband, Charles Sherrod. CNN has already reported on HER libelous comments toward Breitbart (you have to listen for them, but they are there, and yes, they are made out of media driven frustration and not reason) and well as her husband's public speeches. Once FOX News jumps in with those more in-depth reporting on Charles Sherrod, followed by MSNBC having to also jump in just to call FOX reporters a bunch racists and fascists which will just draw more attention to Breitbart's counter-suit, Shirley's anecdote of overcoming racism will be lost. In the end, we will only be teaching our younger generation that racism is alive and well on both sides, and will end up polarizing many youth to one side or the other. This is the oppose message than what Shirley wanted to communicate.

 

[khon]

I see nothing good coming out of a lawsuit started by Shirley Sherrod.

The good coming out of the lawsuit would be the message it sends: If you misrepresent the facts on purpose there will be consequences.

Given the state of US politics that's a desperately needed change.

Problem is the truth no longer works because the country is so polarized. If the oppositions says it noone listens anyway, and even if their side gets caught people just ignore it. For example Breitbart, he got caught in a major lie over the ACORN thing, but did anyone on the right care ? Of course not. They moved right along to his next lie which was Sherrod, and when he comes up with the next one they'll go along with that too.

 

[bullbert]

The good coming out of the lawsuit would be the message it sends: If you misrepresent the facts on purpose there will be consequences.

Given the state of US politics that's a desperately needed change.

Problem is the truth no longer works because the country is so polarized. If the oppositions says it noone listens anyway, and even if their side gets caught people just ignore it. For example Breitbart, he got caught in a major lie over the ACORN thing, but did anyone on the right care ? Of course not. They moved right along to his next lie which was Sherrod, and when he comes up with the next one they'll go along with that too.

The only message(s) coming out of the lawsuit would be: never counter libel with libel, and never engage in a media/legal war when your side has just as many "skeletons in the closet".

That one long sentence kind of boils down (over simplifies) what my one long paragraph was trying to say.

 

[khon]

The only message(s) coming out of the lawsuit would be: never counter libel with libel, and never engage in a media/legal war when your side has just as many "skeletons in the closet".

That one long sentence kind of boils down (over simplifies) what my one long paragraph was trying to say.

That's exactly what I'm talking about, people see it as a sports contest. Doesn't matter how many times the opponents score a hit against you, just as long as you score more against them.

It's not a sports contest though. What Breitbart did was wrong, and there should be consequences for his actions.

 

[classy]

I see nothing good coming out of a lawsuit started by Shirley Sherrod. I would of course expect a counter-suit from Breitbart. I also see more bad press for both Shirley Sherrod and terrible terrible (yes, I wrote that twice) press for her husband, Charles Sherrod. CNN has already reported on HER libelous comments toward Breitbart (you have to listen for them, but they are there, and yes, they are made out of media driven frustration and not reason) and well as her husband's public speeches. Once FOX News jumps in with those more in-depth reporting on Charles Sherrod, followed by MSNBC having to also jump in just to call FOX reporters a bunch racists and fascists which will just draw more attention to Breitbart's counter-suit, Shirley's anecdote of overcoming racism will be lost. In the end, we will only be teaching our younger generation that racism is alive and well on both sides, and will end up polarizing many youth to one side or the other. This is the oppose message than what Shirley wanted to communicate.

Will obviously you don't get out much, because the younger generation don't give to much credence at all when it comes to race. Except for the few who are being forced to listen to their closet parents. It really doesn't matter about all that stuff your saying because all this started with Breibart. If he had not started with the notion of misleading the public none of this would have happened.

 

[bullbert]

Will obviously you don't get out much, because the younger generation don't give to much credence at all when it comes to race. Except for the few who are being forced to listen to their closet parents. It really doesn't matter about all that stuff your saying because all this started with Breibart. If he had not started with the notion of misleading the public none of this would have happened.

Yes, you are correct. Breibart invented racism. And without Breibart, racism would disappear.



And before someone quotes me out of context (I can guarantee some #$@% will), yes, I was being sarcastic.

 

[werepossum]

Collecting isn't the issue....

\accountability is....
\\and the source of that edited video is?

Since it's an NAALCP video, the source must be either an NAALCP member or the videographer. But since we're on the subject, anyone asking about the source of the CBS documents for the Bush National Guard story - the documents that were debunked about five minutes after airing? Sherrod's case is that the video was edited to show her in a bad light, which would make it on par with pretty much every video aired by the main stream media about any conservative figures.

actually just because your a public figure does not mean you have to put up with out and out lies.
Plus at the time of this video she was not a public figure!!

I don`t know where idiots like you think that just because somebody is a public figure it means they have to put up with slander and lies....

I simply think that liberal public figures should be subject to the same legal protections as conservative public figures, who put up with much worse than this on a regular basis.

Whether or not she was a public figure-PRIOR to this incident-is a crucial legal determination. Personally I think you have lept to a major and dificult legal conclusion hastily and almost certainly as a results driven determination (ie, your philisophical bias predetermined the result you wanted). Fortunately for all of us-regardless of our political idealogy-there are next to no federal judges that show such a poor display of legal reasoning.

Personally, I view this case as a tough call but that is because US libel law means the defendant wins the overwhelming majority of cases. I think she has a better than even chance of not being found a public figure, and if that is the case, she will almost certainly win.

If she is found a public figure-well take a look at Westermoreland v. CBS (the leading case in this area of the law) and tell me if you think it is possible for any public figure to win any libel case under US law, as a practical matter.

It will be especially interesting if she finds some way to succesfully venue the case in England and that holds up. If so, the defendant might as well bend over now because he's going to get reamed.

It's hard for me to imagine that Sherrod, who has given literally hundreds of speeches for a variety of organizations and been interviewed dozens of times, could somehow be ruled as not a public figure. But I suppose it's possible, if her lawyers shop around for the right venue.

As to Westmoreland v CBS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westmoreland_v._CBS

Trial

Although CBS claimed that they believed the evidence in the documentary to be true, Westmoreland charged that the investigators asked biased and slanted questions, selectively edited interviews (for example, giving a two-minute excerpt of a 90-minute interview and portraying that selection as representative), and selectively chose persons to interview supportive of CBS's point of view. He also charged CBS with editing interview tapes dishonestly and taking statements out of context. Westmoreland charged CBS with reckless misstatements of evidence and contended these distortions indicated malice.[5]

The trial began on October 9, 1984. CBS made a motion for a summary judgment, claiming immunity from libel for doing a commentary on a public figure under the precedent established in New York Times v. Sullivan. At the onset, the presiding judge ruled that under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and the First Amendment, Westmoreland, as a public figure, must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that CBS acted with intentional malice in gathering the evidence and putting it together in the documentary. This is legally a heavy burden of proof and a much higher standard than a nonpublic figure would need to sue for defamation.

On February 18, 1985, just a few weeks after Sharon lost his case, Westmoreland agreed to settle his case out of court before going to the jury. Each side agreed to pay their own legal fees but Westmoreland received no compensatory damages. Westmoreland and CBS released a public statement saying CBS did not assert "General Westmoreland was unpatriotic or disloyal in performing his duties as he saw them."

How exactly is this germane to Sherrod's case? For that matter, how in the world would she prove malice against her for video used in a story about NAALCP hypocrisy?