Sherrod to sue Breitbart over edited video

[TehMac]

Good, that way Sherrod can be exposed even further as a vile, disparaging, and racist pawn of the cracked (in more ways than one) democrat machine.

 

[xj0hnx]

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

He showed the parts of the video with her racist statements, AND her redemption speech, that's not slander. The video was posted to show the NAACP's joy at her treating a white farmer badly.

 

[Zebo]

She has no case. Videos are edited by media all the time for brevity.

 

[Vette73]

She has no case. Videos are edited by media all the time for brevity.

Editing for time is one thing, editing to make something look like it is not gets you sued. Just ask NBC(GMtruck) or CBS (AudiCar).

 

[Zebo]

Editing for time is one thing, editing to make something look like it is not gets you sued. Just ask NBC(GMtruck) or CBS (AudiCar).

Wel then Howard Dean should be a bazillionaire.

 

[Throckmorton]

He showed the parts of the video with her racist statements, AND her redemption speech, that's not slander. The video was posted to show the NAACP's joy at her treating a white farmer badly.

The argument that the audience was pleased with her original racism against the farmer would only make sense if they didn't know the intent of her speech.

 

[Vette73]

Wel then Howard Dean should be a bazillionaire.

Facepalm

Public figures do not have the same protection as private citizens. Dean by being a politician and going on TV etc… has put himself in the public’s eye and does not share the same privacy protection as you, I, or Sherrod.
This is very basic law. Do some reading before injecting comment on something you have no knowledge of.

Start with just the basic stuff...

Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.

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

 

[Amused]

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

I believe I repudiated the video the minute I found out the facts on it, and changed the post title.

Nice try, though. Keep that hardon going for me, I seem to be working better than Viagra. :d

 

[Vette73]

I believe I repudiated the video the minute I found out the facts on it, and changed the post title.

Nice try, though. Keep that hardon going for me, I seem to be working better than Viagra. :d

Yea your last 3 threads have all been shown to be BS and you only changed after someone made a thread to make even more fun of you.

But keep it up, you make a good punch line. :awe:

 

[CallMeJoe]

I believe I repudiated the video the minute I found out the facts on it, and changed the post title.
Nice try, though. Keep that hardon going for me, I seem to be working better than Viagra. :d

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Amused deserves your respect on this one, Marlin. Unlike Patranus and company, Amused backed off Breitbart and his character assassination as soon as he saw the unedited video.

 

[UberNeuman]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Amused deserves your respect on this one, Marlin. Unlike Patranus and company, Amused backed off Breitbart and his character assassination as soon as he saw the unedited video.

nah, not really - he kept checking in and out of the forums then once the flames got too great - and the truth too clear, attempted to be the "man of the people" and go after the media....

 

[Nemesis 1]

Yea your last 3 threads have all been shown to be BS and you only changed after someone made a thread to make even more fun of you.

But keep it up, you make a good punch line. :awe:

Amused has done nothing wrong at all . He simply made the same mistake as millions of others and rushed to judgement without thinking of what was said in that video . Amused changed his title and that says enough to me to understand he took things out of context.

 

[Harvey]

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.

Are you intentionally continuing to spew that sorry lie, or did you just forget to put down the crack pipe? For your edication, whether FrightFart photochopped the tape, himself, or it was handed to him as he presented it on his site, he preceded it with successive screens:

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.

If you still don't know that the tape of Ms. Sherrod was chopped, diced, sliced and butchered to present a false picture that she was making racist statements, either you're willfully ignorant, or you're as much a malicious bigot as FrightFart and his cohorts at Faux.

1. The context for Ms. Sherrod's statements was a narrative of events that brought her to a realization and understanding of her own biases and how she overcame them.

2. Not that it matters, but the statements made 24 years ago at a time when she was not working for any government agency.

3. FrightFart's own title cards preceeding the tape clearly present his own agenda to discredit her, the NAACP and the Obama adminstration. His subsequent denials notwithstanding, he is a man with a public platform. He has a First Amendment right to free speech, but free speech carries with it responsiblity for any unfair harm that results from such speech. That's why we have laws against libel and slander. That's why you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

If FrightFart opens his mouth in public to spew lies, he's responsible for any damage he causes to those he maligns. If he can't take that heat, he should stay out of the kitchen. Better yet, he should leave the planet. :thumbsdown:

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

They have the right to try. Can you really look at the hateful signs and pictures from the various teaparty events and the statements by various speakers, including Republican legislators, and claim they were "out of context?"

 

[Amused]

nah, not really - he kept checking in and out of the forums then once the flames got too great - and the truth too clear, attempted to be the "man of the people" and go after the media....

Bullshit. I did NOT check P&N until I made that post. I was disgusted by what happened to the woman and by the edited video.

If you choose not to believe that to keep your "anyone who doesn't have my ideology is evil" belief, go for it.

 

[UberNeuman]

Bullshit. I did NOT check P&N until I made that post. I was disgusted by what happened to the woman and by the edited video.

If you choose not to believe that to keep your "anyone who doesn't have my ideology is evil" belief, go for it.

Believe what you will, follow what you will - don't put it off on me that the little bomb you set up went off and then pretend that you didn't keep track of it...

/big smiles....

 

[nobodyknows]

Editing for time is one thing, editing to make something look like it is not gets you sued. Just ask NBC(GMtruck) or CBS (AudiCar).

So prove he edited it or you have no case. 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.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[UberNeuman]

So prove he edited it or you have no case.

oh, baby doll, Brwrongbart is going to have to reveal his source...

/let the fun begin!

 

[nobodyknows]

oh, baby doll, Brwrongbart is going to have to reveal his source...

/let the fun begin!

My understanding was that someone emailed him the clip. Until someone can prove otherwise he is considered innocent, no? Or does that rule of law only apply when lefties think it should??

Like I said, pot, meet kettle.

 

[UberNeuman]

My understanding was that someone emailed him the clip. Until someone can prove otherwise he is considered innocent, no? Or does that rule of law only apply when lefties think it should??

Like I said, pot, meet kettle.

and.................... who emailed him the clip....?

 

[Amused]

Believe what you will, follow what you will - don't put it off on me that the little bomb you set up went off and then pretend that you didn't keep track of it...

/big smiles....

No pretending required. I did not get back to P&N until I posted my retraction.

I don't know about you, but keeping my word and my integrety is what earned me my elite status on these boards.

Call me a liar if you will, but know that's all you've got.

 

[nobodyknows]

and.................... who emailed him the clip....?

LOL, I'm sure they will look into that. Do you think they will have any luck finding anything out? If I were you I wouldn't hold my breath.

Whatever happens, win or lose, it's my opinion that Sherod will come off as a goldigger. If she was as interested in bettering race relations as she claims she would have taken Obama's job offer instead of suing.

No, she has to teach those nasty white guys a lesson!! LMFAO!!

 

[UberNeuman]

No pretending required. I did not get back to P&N until I posted my retraction.

I know....

\pretend you didn't watch your thread....

 

[UberNeuman]

LOL, I'm sure they will look into that. Do you think they will have any luck finding anything out? If I were you I wouldn't hold my breath.

So, when Mr. Brietbart is on the stand, swears to God and whatnot, and is asked what his source for this edited video is he going to just say - "i don't know..."

 

[xj0hnx]

The argument that the audience was pleased with her original racism against the farmer would only make sense if they didn't know the intent of her speech.

It doesn't really matter what the audience thought, the fact is he showed both her racist statements, and her redemption speech, she has no case because he didn't try to make it appear as though she was a racist by only showing her racist remarks. The USDA prematurely ejaculated all over her career.

 

[xj0hnx]

So, when Mr. Brietbart is on the stand, swears to God and whatnot, and is asked what his source for this edited video is he going to just say - "i don't know..."

That it was edited is not of consequence, what was edited out is, luckily for him he had both her racist comments, and her redemption speech, she has no case, that is unless it comes up before some liberal activist that shouldn't even be on the bench because they can't see past their partisan bias, like a lot of posters here.