Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Breitbart sued for defamation of character

Page 1 of 2 [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

14 Feb 2011, 10:29 am

Blogger Andrew Breitbart has been sued by former U.S. Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod who contends her reputation was damaged by Breitbart's posting last year of an edited video.

The New York Times reports today Breitbart was served with the lawsuit at CPAC Saturday. Sherrod contends in the suit that a video clip he posted last year "has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work."

Breitbart, who first posted the clip on July 19, 2010, at his BigGovernment.com site, had been under scrutiny after it was revealed the clip misrepresented Sherrod's message during a speech in March 2010 before a group of NAACP members.

Fox then posted an online article reporting on the clip, linking to Breitbart's video. Breitbart did not seek comment from Sherrod prior to his report; Fox News also gave no indication that they had done so. She was forced to resign later that day.

Breitbart has recently claimed that Sherrod was not fired because of his video but because of her part in the 11-year-old Pigford case, in which black farmers sued for discrimination against the Agriculture Department.

He stated such a claim again on Thursday in an interview with Media Matters, in which he admitted he had no proof of the assertion, revealing it was a theory.

Breitbart responded to Sherrod's lawsuit Saturday with an online statement that said, in part:

Quote:
I find it extremely telling that this lawsuit was brought almost seven months after the alleged incidents that caused a national media frenzy occurred. It is no coincidence that this lawsuit was filed one day after I held a press conference revealing audio proof of orchestrated and systemic Pigford fraud. I can promise you this: neither I, nor my journalistic websites, will or can be silenced by the institutional Left, which is obviously funding this lawsuit. I welcome the judicial discovery process, including finding out which groups are doing so.


Sherrod could not immediately be reached for comment Sunday.


_________________
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


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Feb 2011, 11:11 am

This lawsuit isn't going to go anywhere:

1. He didn't air the video out of malice.

2. He didn't doctor the video, he released it the same way as he received it.

3. He had attempted to get the full video from NAACP but was stonewalled.

So unless we have a far left activist Judge, this lawsuit isn't going anywhere.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Feb 2011, 11:29 am

Inuyasha wrote:
1. He didn't air the video out of malice.

Really?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Feb 2011, 11:31 am

Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
1. He didn't air the video out of malice.

Really?


To clarrify, he didn't air it out of malice toward her for sure, you may have a point if it is malice towards the NAACP but they aren't the party sueing and they looked even worse when the full video came out.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

14 Feb 2011, 1:17 pm

Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
1. He didn't air the video out of malice.

Really?


Yes.

"Malice" would require that he personally edited the video to make her look bad or knew it had been deliberately edited to make her look bad when he chose to air it.

That someone else edited it and passed it off as a fair representation of what she said and did means he did not act with malice simply by airing it.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

14 Feb 2011, 2:30 pm

not going anywhere

will probably just raise Breitbart's profile and bring more money to him



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

14 Feb 2011, 2:33 pm

Jacoby wrote:
not going anywhere

will probably just raise Breitbart's profile and bring more money to him


I concur, and the timing is weird to say the least. Last I heard, AB wanted her to sue him so that he could use discovery to dig even further into her business than he's been able to before, especially with his interest in the Pigford settlement. Doesn't seem like a bright move all around.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

14 Feb 2011, 6:04 pm

Attorney Thomas Clare, representing Shirley Sherrod, released the following statement on her behalf today:

Quote:
Former USDA Official Shirley Sherrod Sues Blogger Andrew Breitbart for Defamation

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 14, 2011 - Former USDA Official Shirley Sherrod has filed a lawsuit against blogger Andrew Breitbart, producer Larry O'Connor and an unknown "John Doe" defendant for defamation, false light and infliction of emotional distress. The lawsuit, filed February 11 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleges that these individuals authored and posted a series of defamatory statements on Mr. Breitbart's BigGovernment.com website regarding Mrs.Sherrod. These statements, together with highly edited video clips of a 2009 speech given by Mrs. Sherrod, falsely portrayed her as "racially discriminat[ing]" against a white farmer and managing her federal duties at the USDA "through the prism of race and class distinctions." In reality, Mrs. Sherrod's speech was describing events that occurred more than twenty years before she held her federal position and, in fact, was encouraging people not to discriminate on the basis of race. The patently false statements about her immediately went viral on the Internet, igniting a national media firestorm, costing Mrs. Sherrod her federal position, and severely damaging her reputation earned over decades by helping rural farmers.

"This lawsuit is not about politics or race," Mrs. Sherrod said of the lawsuit. "It is not about Right versus Left, the NAACP, or the Tea Party. It is about how quickly, in today's internet media environment, a person's good name can become 'collateral damage' in an overheated political debate. I strongly believe in a free press and a full discussion of public issues, but not in deliberate distortions of the truth. Mr. Breitbart has never apologized for what he did to me and continues -- to this day -- to make the same slurs about my character.

I am issuing this statement because I know there may be intense media interest in this case. But I do not intend at this time to discuss the lawsuit further, and I hope members of the media will respect that decision."


_________________
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


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Feb 2011, 6:46 pm

Again, she is sueing the wrong individual, she could demand the hide of whomever provided the video to Bretbart and that would actually be a case that could be won. However, Bretbart received the tape from someone else, tried to get get a copy from NAACP to verify its authenticity, got stonewalled by NAACP. He finally ran with video and had a note about people should pay attention to the crowd. I think the tape he released had the part that vindicated her.

So as far as the emotional distress part, she should sue for the information as to whom provided the tape which apparently had been editted. She would have a case to sue that individual for emotional distress.

Sueing Bretbart over it, unless you have a corrupt judge is likely to get dismissed.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

14 Feb 2011, 7:12 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Again, she is sueing the wrong individual, she could demand the hide of whomever provided the video to Bretbart and that would actually be a case that could be won. However, Bretbart received the tape from someone else, tried to get get a copy from NAACP to verify its authenticity, got stonewalled by NAACP. He finally ran with video and had a note about people should pay attention to the crowd. I think the tape he released had the part that vindicated her.

So as far as the emotional distress part, she should sue for the information as to whom provided the tape which apparently had been editted. She would have a case to sue that individual for emotional distress.

Sueing Bretbart over it, unless you have a corrupt judge is likely to get dismissed.

Well obviously it was some amoral conservative hack-job who chose to slander her by giving that edited video to Breitbart. Yet you seem to think only people on the left do that sort of thing. :roll: Chances are the person who edited the video didn't reveal his/her identity to Breitbart. It was irresponsible for Breitbart to trust that person. We all know he doesn't give a flying s**t though, as long as his "enemies" get hurt.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Feb 2011, 8:29 pm

Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
1. He didn't air the video out of malice.

Really?


Proving malicious intent in a court is damned near impossible.

ruveyn



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

15 Feb 2011, 10:17 am

ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
1. He didn't air the video out of malice.

Really?


Proving malicious intent in a court is damned near impossible.

ruveyn



Considering that he made her out to be a racist and cost her job and hurt her reputation, malicious intent seems pretty evident other than by those who are too blinded by partisan hackery. To publish a news article with a doctored video and claiming someone is a racist is pretty malicious and it isn't that hard to fact check such a video.


_________________
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


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Feb 2011, 1:57 pm

marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Again, she is sueing the wrong individual, she could demand the hide of whomever provided the video to Bretbart and that would actually be a case that could be won. However, Bretbart received the tape from someone else, tried to get get a copy from NAACP to verify its authenticity, got stonewalled by NAACP. He finally ran with video and had a note about people should pay attention to the crowd. I think the tape he released had the part that vindicated her.

So as far as the emotional distress part, she should sue for the information as to whom provided the tape which apparently had been editted. She would have a case to sue that individual for emotional distress.

Sueing Bretbart over it, unless you have a corrupt judge is likely to get dismissed.

Well obviously it was some amoral conservative hack-job who chose to slander her by giving that edited video to Breitbart. Yet you seem to think only people on the left do that sort of thing. :roll: Chances are the person who edited the video didn't reveal his/her identity to Breitbart. It was irresponsible for Breitbart to trust that person. We all know he doesn't give a flying sh** though, as long as his "enemies" get hurt.


Or it was some liberal whack job that was trying to set Breitbart up to look like an idiot, who knows.

Anyways, in this she doesn't have much of a case while she would have a much better one against the individual that provide Breitbart the tape.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

15 Feb 2011, 4:01 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Considering that he made her out to be a racist and cost her job and hurt her reputation, malicious intent seems pretty evident other than by those who are too blinded by partisan hackery. To publish a news article with a doctored video and claiming someone is a racist is pretty malicious and it isn't that hard to fact check such a video.


If the story was published without fact checking, that's bad journalism but not legally actionable as it would fail the malicious intent test. That charge might stick to whoever actually cut the video, but so long as that persona wasn't Breitbart and so long as he can maintain an opaque barrier around what he knew at the time he published, he hasn't broken any laws.

Incidentally, partisan hackery would be demanding the law be applied in different ways to different people depending upon their political affiliation. Remember 60 Minutes and the Killian documents? Those were far more serious accusations and aired with very damaging timing for a presidential candidate, yet no defamation suits were filed. If W had lost, do you think he should have sued Dan Rather for defamation because of inadequate fact checking and "pretty evident" malice?


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

15 Feb 2011, 4:24 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Again, she is sueing the wrong individual, she could demand the hide of whomever provided the video to Bretbart and that would actually be a case that could be won. However, Bretbart received the tape from someone else, tried to get get a copy from NAACP to verify its authenticity, got stonewalled by NAACP. He finally ran with video and had a note about people should pay attention to the crowd. I think the tape he released had the part that vindicated her.

So as far as the emotional distress part, she should sue for the information as to whom provided the tape which apparently had been editted. She would have a case to sue that individual for emotional distress.

Sueing Bretbart over it, unless you have a corrupt judge is likely to get dismissed.

Well obviously it was some amoral conservative hack-job who chose to slander her by giving that edited video to Breitbart. Yet you seem to think only people on the left do that sort of thing. :roll: Chances are the person who edited the video didn't reveal his/her identity to Breitbart. It was irresponsible for Breitbart to trust that person. We all know he doesn't give a flying sh** though, as long as his "enemies" get hurt.

Or it was some liberal whack job that was trying to set Breitbart up to look like an idiot, who knows.

That is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Even for you this takes the cake. Your stupidity would make Glenn Beck cringe in embarrassment.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

15 Feb 2011, 4:30 pm

Dox47 wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Considering that he made her out to be a racist and cost her job and hurt her reputation, malicious intent seems pretty evident other than by those who are too blinded by partisan hackery. To publish a news article with a doctored video and claiming someone is a racist is pretty malicious and it isn't that hard to fact check such a video.


If the story was published without fact checking, that's bad journalism but not legally actionable as it would fail the malicious intent test. That charge might stick to whoever actually cut the video, but so long as that persona wasn't Breitbart and so long as he can maintain an opaque barrier around what he knew at the time he published, he hasn't broken any laws.

Incidentally, partisan hackery would be demanding the law be applied in different ways to different people depending upon their political affiliation. Remember 60 Minutes and the Killian documents? Those were far more serious accusations and aired with very damaging timing for a presidential candidate, yet no defamation suits were filed. If W had lost, do you think he should have sued Dan Rather for defamation because of inadequate fact checking and "pretty evident" malice?

It's a lot easier to determine that a video has been clipped and taken out of context than it is to determine that a document is a forgery. Actually I'm quite certain that Andrew Brietbart knew the video was edited.