Shirley Sherrod Sues Andrew Breitbart

[kpete]

Source: New York Times

Andrew Breitbart, the owner of several conservative Web sites, was served at the conference on Saturday with a lawsuit filed by Shirley Sherrod, the former Agriculture Department employee who lost her job last year over a video that Mr. Brietbart posted at his site biggovernment.com.

The video was selectively edited so that it appeared Ms. Sherrod was confessing she had discriminated against a farmer because he was white. In the suit, which was filed in Washington on Friday, Ms. Sherrod says the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work.

Mr. Breitbart said in a statement that he “categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech.”

Read more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/13/943357/-Shirley-Sherrod-Sues-Andrew-Breitbart!

[rocktivity]

1. You're not free to propagrandize, Breit-barf

at least, not unless you've got a Rupert Murdoch behind you.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Joe Bacon]

7. He's a KOCHSUCKER

He's got the Koch Brothers behind him paying the bills and they're also buying off the judges for him. He'll walk away clean.

[annabanana]

25. I LIKE that!.. There are a LOT of "Kocksucker's" out there, aren't there?

I'm going to use that at every available opportunity.

[lib2DaBone]

50. I like that! .... Koch-Sucker.. good one.....

It's really come down to that.. the 2 Koch Bros vs the rest of America.

The Koch Bros.. who have attached themselves to the Repukes and TeaBaggers.. vs the working poor and sane Americans.

Mr. Obama is no better than the Koch Bros... when he offers ways to cut LIHEAP and push America into the fiscal austerity buzz saw.

Fiscal austerity for who? Certainly not the wealthy or the military.

[valerief]

51. BOOM!!! Great line! nt

[tularetom]

2. The constitution only prevents the government from interfering with Mr Brainfart's free speech

He's not "free" to defame Ms Sherrod or anyone else.

[rasputin1952]

43. Precisely, few people get that part...

and if this was done with the intent of malice, she's met the 4 criteria to persue the case.

He'll try to settle out of court, but if I were in Sherrod's shoes, I'd take it all the way and try to bankrupt the creep.

[AlbertCat]

46. The constitution only prevents the government from interfering with Mr Brainfart's free speech

They use the "Free Speech Card" more than they accuse us of using the "Race Card".

Until Congress makes a law stopping him, he's not got a complaint.... or a case.

[left on green only]

52. I hope she nails him to across and three down...........

....in the crossword puzzle of life.

[Number_Six]

3. No way, Andy!

Look again, Andy. There are laws against LIBEL and SLANDER. Better cop a deal, buddy.

[xchrom]

4. recommend

[alsame]

5. Good. nt

[sabrina 1]

6. The Constitution protects lying, smear campaigns? I hope

that is his defense when he gets to court!

These 1st Amendment absolutists would make the Founding Fathers roll over in their graves.

[W T F]

8. Free speech in one thing, Slander is another......

I hope she cleans his raciest bank account out.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NCcoast]

17. Exactly

Just write that big fat check while you're running your mouth.

[Oceansaway]

9. K&R...n/t

[jpak]

10. Wooo HOOOO!!11 Breitbart's gonna need a TRIAL LAWYER now

:rofl:

[blondeatlast]

32. Heh...It's those sweet little ironies in life that make it worth living.

:rofl:

[SpiralHawk]

11. Let justice be done

Skanky professional Republicon liars like Brietbart must be held accountable for their attacks on traditional American values of truth, honesty, and honor.

Honorable Americans reject degenerate 'Republicon Family Pharisee Values,' and instead choose truth, justice, fairness, and integrity...

[savalez]

12. Heck yeah. That punk Acorn pimp kid should be next.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mister Ed]

26. ? People opposed to gun control are in favor of libel and slander? n/t

[cleanhippie]

69. That sure is some "progressive" thought you have going there.

no, not really.

[spooky3]

14. hope she has good lawyers and can get an excellent settlement

[EFerrari]

15. Good for her! That's the only way to deal with these cowards. n/t

[HankyDubs]

18. take everything he has

you'll be doing him a favor. Cokeheads are their own worst enemy.

[jeaps]

19. Perhaps a lawsuit will

open up Mr. Brainfart's operation up for further scrutiny - win or lose, it could be a good thing

[Ikonoklast]

28. He'll settle, because discovery will kill him.

I'll give odds that his legal advisors will inform him that he'd leave himself wide open if further litigated.

[jaysunb]

61. My thoughts exactly...

I really hope he's stupid enough to try and go to trial with this. Lots of stuff under this guys fingernails :evilgrin:

[PatrynXX]

20. Slander is not a protected right. n/t

[Kingofalldems]

21. K and R for the freepers

[alp227]

22. Anyone thinking that it'll end with "settled out of court"? But good move for Sherrod.

Next, when will ACORN, Planned Parenthood, that CNN reporter, and that special ed teacher take "Big" Breitbart and his goon squad of James O'Keefe etc to court?

[Taverner]

23. It's called LIBEL Mr Breitbart, not free speech

If you really are a journalist, you would know the difference

[beac]

41. Q.E.D.

Brietbart is no journalist.


I hope she takes him for everything he's got.

[aquart]

24. Go Shirley!

[Marnie]

27. Oh Excellent.

[Lint Head]

29. You're not free to pass a lie off as the truth.

Andrew Breitbart is mentally unstable in the same way Jared Lee Loughner is mentally unstable. :crazy: :crazy:

[Kingofalldems]

30. Someone here used to link to that punk

[perdita9]

31. Slander is not protected by the constitution

I hope she takes you for all she's worth, Brieghtbart.

[supernova]

33. Go Shirley Sherrod!!

Breitbart can bend over and suck his own privates.

I hope she cleans him out. Permanently.

[Vinca]

34. Good! I hope she takes him to the cleaners.

[femrap]

35. Good for her.....!!! nt

[Crowman1979]

36. I hope she sues that scumbag into bankruptcy!

[DissedByBush]

37. I really hope she is absolutely truthful

And has all her ducks in a row.

Breitbart's expensive lawyers will steamroll her in discovery.

He'll kill her over the slightest discrepancy.

[chowhound]

38. is there an unedited copy

to see what was edited out.

[PoliticAverse]

55. Yes, here

http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/video_sherrod/

[catrose]

39. A misstatement

is not a carefully edited tape. Can we donate to Ms. Sherrod and her effort?

[Playinghardball]

40. Good for Shirley

[rasputin1952]

42. That would fall under Libel statutes...

not sure what his defense would be, the article states he received the video "intact", which is highly suspicious considering it's a 43+ minute video, and his taker is just a short take of the entire video. If he received this and just aired it, he's negligent at best for not checking the rest of the video. If it's found that anyone in his organization edited the video to cause injury to the plaintiff, he's toast.

Just my 2 cents, but I'm willing to bet he'll settle when he finds out how much this will cost him in attorney fees, especially if it looks as though she's got a really good case, (something I believe she does).

It would get very interesting if her lawyers can tie this into a Civil Rights case, (basically because Breitbart brought up the racial factor), and any award would be doubled under Federal Law.

I think she has a good case, and while it is up to her and her lawyers to prove malice was behind this, I don't think they'll much of a problem proving malice, he damn near states this was done to embarrass her and make her life miserable...that's malice.

[naaman fletcher]

44. she has no case.

I know everyone will get on me about saying the truth, but she has no case. In the US the standards for this sort of thing are way too high. Look at what the Star and the Enquirer get away with printing. she has no case.

[jmowreader]

68. I don't know about the Star...

but the Enquirer have been sued so many times, and LOST, BIG TIME, so many times, their work is now very truthful.

What separates Breitbart from the Enquirer is by selectively editing the tape to make his case, hence making Sherrod sound like she discriminated when she actually did not, Breitbart's guilty of making shit up. That's actionable.

[naaman fletcher]

73. no, its not actionable.

look, i hate brietbart as much as everyone else, but selectively editing is not actionable and there is no case that says it is.

[struggle4progress]

45. With malice, he knowingly launched a false and defamatory media campaign against her:

I hope she wins and bankrupts him

[Adsos Letter]

47. I thought President Obama offered her her job back...

after the true nature of the video editing became known. :shrug:

I ask only because of this statement: "Ms. Sherrod says the video has...prevented her from continuing her work."

I'm probably confused on this, as on so many other things...

[PoliticAverse]

53. Not the exact same job though...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/22/sherrod-offered-new-job-but-says-she-is-not-so-sure/
http://www.thegrio.com/politics/sherrod-says-vilsack-has-offered-to-hire-her-back.php

[Adsos Letter]

56. Ah, thanks. You've jogged my memory on it. I should have done my own research.

:hi:

[RoccoR5955]

48. Breitbart a journalist?!?! Don't make me laugh

I hope she sues him into bankruptcy.

[Ramulux]

49. Fuck yes

Breitbart is scum of the fucking earth.

[yurbud]

54. great timing.

[democrank]

57. Very good news

[craigmatic]

58. I hope she wins and takes all his money and shuts down his whole operation.

[calimary]

59. EXCELLENT!!!

EXCELLENT!!!!

I think these people ought to start facing major lawsuits on all fronts. Starting with breitbart and moving straight on to anyone and everyone opening their yap on Pox Noise. limbaugh too. ANYBODY. Smother them with lawsuits. Plague them with lawsuits. Suffocate them with legal grief.

It will cost them, or somebody, money and extra time and effort and trouble and inconvenience with the inevitable fundraisers that will be mounted. Might be nice to tie up more of the koch brothers' (or their ilk's) money defending or helping to defend stuff like this. Maybe that'll be a few pennies less spent on commercials and stuff, or on squadrons of lawyers all battling to find ways to dance around further damage and vulnerability. They'll have to pay all those lawyers. Think of all that overtime!

Yes, breitbart and others will have to turn to these major donors and people who've up til now had a wide open field in which to roam around and indulge and splurge. Used to be, they could dump all their money into buying lobbyists; buying senators and congressmembers and presidents; and ad time on radio, TV, and in print/online.

I'd like to see some of that river of money diverted off into having to defend umpteen brazillion lawsuits, large and small. The DNC needs to sue. Glenn Greenwald needs to sue. EVERYONE who's aggrieved in some way needs to sue. It can't be left only to People for the American Way and/or a couple of other organizations. Class action suits and individual suits.

Seems to me we (or our professional strategists) should be thinking of All Kinds of Other Ways to divert the enemy's funds and energies and distract their focus. My kid and his bandmates have all these big ideas of how to spend some of their earnings, which aren't that much but could help go toward some equipment and such that they actually do need. Well, on their last tour that just ended, they discovered something elsee they should be doing with that money instead: emergency car repairs. The van died. Now, whatever other plans they already had are on hold. GRANTED the koch brothers and other major league people and institutions are many multiples of millions bigger. But wouldn't it be strategically interesting to add to their load? They're juggling a few things now as is, with some more to come as campaign season heats up. Why don't we throw MORE at 'em? Make 'em reactively catch. Make 'em dodge. Make 'em work harder. Keep adding to their load so they have to carry more. Tire them out faster. As my karate teacher used to say in sparring class - "keep 'em busy."

After all, with all this serious new need that's been generated, they will inevitably have to add to their overhead - more people or lobbyists or consultants will have to be hired, along with their staffs and expenses, and overhead. Meetings will take longer and the attendees will soon be living with a feeling of overwhelm. More staffers and assistants and errand-runners who all need to put gas in their cars and ... well, you see how expenses can mushroom. And it's not just monetary either. It's intangibles. Stress. Distraction. Too many juggle balls to have to keep airborne. After awhile, you reach critical mass and it's stopped, or crippled, or so hamstrung and bloated and top-heavy that nobody can keep it under control anymore. They reach overwhelm. Energy overwhelmed, short-circuited, slowly but steadily depleted. Momentum slowed, or even stopped.

I've always found it striking that our side (Dems/liberals/progressives) seems ALWAYS under seige. From EVERY direction. They come at us from all over everywhere, in venues large and small, forcing us on defense and in reactive mode all the frickin' time! Whether it's sarah palin gnawing at our psyche from one end to the butt-inskis in the "heartland" trying to redefine rape, to all the crap going on in Arizona, to the US Chamber, EVERYWHERE. From within the courts to the Civil War discussion in your kid's new textbook. They're like gnats on a dirty beach. What I find myself asking is - WHY is that all going in one direction only? Why can't we start hitting them back in like manner, on all sides, all fronts, all venues large and small, in and out of government, everywhere we can think of? Make them react. Put them on the defensive. Throw them off their game and fuck with their heads as far as their visions of their own invincibility (versus vulnerability - which would be on the rise for them). Make 'em wake up every morning reaching for the Maalox bottle.

I wonder what took Ms. Sherrod so long. This should have happened as soon as his case publicly fell apart, when the iron was hot. And a pile-on should have started from there. Every knuckle-dragger commentator and editorialist and other assorted hyenas who furthered it and gave it aid and comfort. There was no cost for doing so. Financial or other cost. There was no serious or painful or meaningful price to or penalty pay. People on our side went tsk-tsk-tsk. But nobody actually got up and came after breitbart and his little pals. He should have been sued for EVERYTHING he owned. Maybe if you have to fight a gawdawful lawsuit and appeals and for who knows how long, you'll think twice the next time you decide you're gonna hatchet some Democrat's career. They need to have one of those "Doctor, it hurts when I do that" moments. (Solution? "Don't do that!")

None of these assholes ever has to pay ANY serious price for doing this stuff. Maybe that's one of the key reasons why these assholes can continue to do shit like this with impunity. And of course they hide behind the First Amendment, claiming their God-given right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Boycotts that cost them some advertisers aren't enough. I hope that now changes with andrew breitbart. It should hurt when he does that.

Sorry this is so long. Just rambling. But I'd truly truly love seeing more people from somewhere on our side actively and even aggressively working to "keep 'em busy."

[Kurovski]

76. +1

"Gnats on a dirty beach". They should only work that hard to be halfway decent human beings.

[Xenotime]

60. Fantastic news!

[Irishonly]

62. I hope he pays

and pays and pays.

[msanthrope]

63. Good for you, Ms. Sherrod....n/t

[Fire1]

64. Good for her!! Give him hell, Shirley! n/t

[The Wizard]

65. The Koch brothers will

pay the tab. When subverting democracy a bum like Breitbart is a good ally. They all should walk the plank.

[DeSwiss]

66. K&R n/t

[MasonJar]

67. Hallelujah! Good for her. Maybe some of these loney tunes will think at least twice now.

[customerserviceguy]

70. Did she name the Secretary of Agriculture as a co-defendant?

That's who really overreacted to Breitbart's editing job.

Because she actually said the things that were in that editing job, taken completely out of context, of course, she's got an uphill climb here. And he benefits from continued free publicity over this.

[farmbo]

77. Don't blame the fireman... blame the arsonist.

Sure, Secretary Vilsack pulled the trigger too early-- sort of like a fireman who gets in a wreck on the way to an arson fire. But he apologized to Shirley a day later and offered her job back.

How is that morally equivalent to Breitbart, who knowingly did the hatchet editing job with deliberate indifference to the truth?

Shirley is absolutely right, from both a legal and public policy perspective, to name Breitbart alone.

[customerserviceguy]

79. Vilsack is not so much a fireman

as he is a guy with a can of gasoline to toss on that fire.

Breitbart had no power to fire Sherrod, it was Vilsack who overreacted based on a snap decision from lousy information, from a source that he had an obligation to question. I guess I put more of a responsibility on him than I do on a nattering clown like Breitbart.

[farmbo]

80. Premeditated commission of a crime vs compounding an existing crime...

Plus, Shirley needs a clear, concise narrative for her jury. Tertiary actors just muck things up. This dandy breitbart is a villain from central casting.

[customerserviceguy]

81. Unless she comes up with something

showing that he did more than take her out of context, she's going to lose.

Why are you so reluctant to assign blame to Vilsack for his reaction to what an idiot had to say, before checking out the facts?

[farmbo]

82. Breitbart will lose if it goes before a jury

The standard for libel (even against public figures-which arguably Shirley was not) is printing false and defamatory material with deliberate indifference to the truth. Bringing sec vilsack into the case doesn't help Shirley advance that narrative.

And since Shirley was a political appointee, she has no case against vilsack for the firing, since political appointees can be fired for any reason or no reason.

[customerserviceguy]

84. Then she was fired for no reason

And Breitbart will be happy to call Vilsack to the stand, and make an ass out of him.

If I recall correctly (and I'm sure you will graciously correct me if I'm wrong) Breitbart merely took what Sherrod said out of context, in other words, he put up only part of what she said, and did not add falsified words to the tape. Taking speakers out of context happens every day, it is up to the speaker to clarify what was said. And it is up to that speaker's superiors to give the speaker a chance to do so.

My prediction is that Breitbart will win.

[onpatrol98]

83. I forgot that he offered her job back...

If he offered her, her job back...how will she sue on grounds of not being able to work because of the video? Too bad she can't sue on the basis of sheer jerkdom...but I guess the court system would be overrun.

[Buddha2B]

71. K & R

Yes!!

[Kingofalldems]

72. Keep this kicked and recced

[Beartracks]

74. Suing doesn't "chill" free speech.

It just so happens that slander isn't constitutionally protected. However, you're still free to lie. You simply must be prepared to accept the consequences.

----------------------------

[TxVietVet]

75. Poor Andy, the dumb f*ck, needs to find out that LYING can be dangerous.

I hope Ms. Sherrod takes a lot of money out of that dildo's pockets. Breitbart is blinded by conservanazi propaganda and will not learn his lesson the first time. Hopefully, he will make the same dangerous lies about someone again and really get his clock cleaned in court.

[Jack Rabbit]

78. Briebart whines about free speech. How long has he been a civil libertarian?

Just wondering.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

85. He fucked with the wrong sister!! n/t