Page 6 of 6 [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,156
Location: New Orleans, LA

31 Jul 2010, 6:21 pm

Dox47 wrote:
He's not a journalist



And yet Fox News always uses him as a source.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

31 Jul 2010, 6:32 pm

skafather84 wrote:
And yet Fox News always uses him as a source.


So what? That might open up Fox News to charges of "reckless disregard" as you're so fond of repeating, but it doesn't reflect on Andrew Breitbart in any way. The rules don't change based on whether a third party takes someone seriously or not, that's not how it works.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

31 Jul 2010, 6:43 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Yes it does matter because it puts it back into the actual malice qualifier of defamation considering the video and associated commentary with the video was released.....

Quote:
"with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."


You still haven't answered my challenge to present what part of the original posting is actually libelous, I gave you the link and everything.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,571

31 Jul 2010, 6:43 pm

Jacoby wrote:
There really isn't any argument that she's wasn't a public figure.


That certainly is in dispute. Who had heard of her before Breitbart set out the phony video for the world to see?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,153
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

31 Jul 2010, 6:48 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Couldn't have said it better myself.


I'm sorry.

Kraichgauer wrote:
This man is a vicious racist, and is justifying his hate under the guise of political activism.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Uh oh, smells like more libel, better lawyer up...


I seriously doubt Breitbart would ever read anything on WP. So, I'll call him a vicious racist till the cows come home. Besides, I'm only expressing my opinion, while Breitbart has an admitted agenda of destruction.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,156
Location: New Orleans, LA

31 Jul 2010, 6:54 pm

Dox47 wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Yes it does matter because it puts it back into the actual malice qualifier of defamation considering the video and associated commentary with the video was released.....

Quote:
"with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."


You still haven't answered my challenge to present what part of the original posting is actually libelous, I gave you the link and everything.


He accuses many times in the article of Sharrod as being racist and the NAACP applauding racist actions.

"Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement."


"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."


Which is actually in direct contrast to the point of her story had the story itself been taken in context that yes she was tempted but decided against it and did her best to help the farmer in the story. The farmer himself has also said that he didn't think he experienced any racism from Sharrod and received a good bit of help. The point of the story was to overcome your own personal biases from your past and to treat everyone equally. So given that is the true context of Sharrod's story and given that Brietbart has written an article claiming the exact opposite, I'd say that's a malicious act
Quote:
"with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

31 Jul 2010, 7:16 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I seriously doubt Breitbart would ever read anything on WP. So, I'll call him a vicious racist till the cows come home. Besides, I'm only expressing my opinion, while Breitbart has an admitted agenda of destruction.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


So if I'm reading this correctly, your views are:

A) That libel is OK so long as the target doesn't find out (Shall I forward this thread to Breitbart.com to test this hypothesis?).

B) That having an agenda disqualifies someone from publicly expressing their opinion.

That sound about right?


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,153
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

31 Jul 2010, 9:11 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I seriously doubt Breitbart would ever read anything on WP. So, I'll call him a vicious racist till the cows come home. Besides, I'm only expressing my opinion, while Breitbart has an admitted agenda of destruction.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


So if I'm reading this correctly, your views are:

A) That libel is OK so long as the target doesn't find out (Shall I forward this thread to Breitbart.com to test this hypothesis?).

B) That having an agenda disqualifies someone from publicly expressing their opinion.

That sound about right?


It's libel if it's meant to be heard or seen by the public, or by certain individuals in order to give a damaging or misleading impression. I hardly would call our little forum of Aspies "public." And Breitbart wasn't just expressing an opinion; he was trying to cause damage to the NAACP, and whether he actually intended it or not, to Shirley Shirod. I am not trying to destroy Andrew Breitbart with my point of view, because my posts aren't going to get him fired, in trouble with the law, or harm his life in any way. The same can't be said about Breitbart's actions toward say ACORN.
And if you seriously want to forward my posts to that racist prick, go ahead. If he wants to take me to court, I suspect the judge would laugh him out of the courtroom.
Besides, don't conservatives pretend they believe in absolute freedom of speech?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

31 Jul 2010, 9:17 pm

xenon13 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
There really isn't any argument that she's wasn't a public figure.


That certainly is in dispute. Who had heard of her before Breitbart set out the phony video for the world to see?


I don' really know if that really makes a difference. She was an appointed public official and I assume was able to use public funds. I'm pretty sure legally she would be considered a public figure.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

01 Aug 2010, 1:23 am

does anyone know, legally, at what level public employees start to become 'public figures'? Is it the aforementioned asphalt shoveler? Is it anyone with an income over, say, 50K/year? Anyone appointed to office? Anyone appointed to state-wide office? Anyone appointed to federal office? The web definitions say, 'politicans' are public figures; does someone who never ran for office count as a politician?