Some lawyers are saying that Shirley Sherrod may have little chance of a damage award against Brietb

[Stinky The Clown]

I heard this on local noozradio (WTOP in DC). The thinking is that she will not be able to prove damage as she has been offered her old job back.

Oddly, there was little discussion of whether or not she would even win. The tone of the interview with the anchor was such as to make me think they feel she would win. It was the damages they saw as uncertain. This sorta bothers me. Already, they are equating "success" with money. I have a gut feeling that money isn't what she's looking for.

[Warpy]

1. I have a feeling you're right about that

Win or lose, she wants to destroy that little fucker and take his sources down with him.

[safeinOhio]

2. discovery will be

worth the price of admission.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. It depends.

state or federal law?
actual damages? damage to reputation? there are a whole shiteload of issues.
I can guess at his defense, mainly, that he simply copied and sent on something someone else edited. And knowing his type, he has already scrubbed all his machines, making it impossible to find out any digital information about the source, his personal actions, etc.

[customerserviceguy]

5. She won't destroy him

She'll make him. So far, most of America doesn't know who this little scum is, but after several months of this being in the papers, they will.

Breitbart will become a hero to most all of the American reich wing, including those who have zero clue as to who he is right now.

[Ross K]

18. Yep

Just hang out the fucking twerp's dirty laundry for all to see!

[dsc]

4. the problem is getting a lawyer to take the case if damages are so limited

a percentage of zero is zero.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Unless you get somebody doing this pro bono

on principle... yes, they are rare. But they do exist.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. I don't think, in a case like this, they'll be all that rare at all.

I should think more than a few lawyers would welcome this case.

[laughingliberal]

10. That's what I was thinking. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. If I were a lawyer I'd jump at it

:-)

[Jackpine Radical]

20. Hell yes.

Wonderful free advertising.

[dsc]

19. to take one high profile example

someone sued Drudge for libel (I think Blumenthal) but had to give up the suit due to Drudge having a mongo legal fund and being able to spend Blumenthal into the ground. I fear this could happen in this case. Legal cases have more expense than just the lawyers.

[MadMaddie]

7. That's really not the case Norman Goldman

had someone on and he said the crux of the case is that Breitbart picked Shirley Sherrod a private citizen out of obscurity and caused damage to her reputation based on lies. She has grounds, she may not get a lot of money but that may not be important to her.

Also, it can be shown that Faux has a pattern of going after blacks and black organizations....Rev Wright, Acorn, Vance, Shirley Sherrod....there is a consistant pattern of putting out stories that damage the reputations of the above people.

I think that Breitbart is in trouble because he will have to reveal where he got the story and who he was communicating with to get the story out on the airwaves. O"Leilly was the first to put it out...so if there is a direct link of when Breitbart contacted Faux...emails, phone calls etc...

Don't write this off as impossible it is very likely Breitbart and Faux will end up on the short end of the stick.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. I'm not writing it off. I actually don't think the guy in the radio was saying anything much .......

..... different than you're saying. His comments were mostly abut money, which, as I point out in the OP, seemed kind of off the point.

[MadMaddie]

14. She is facinating and I would consider her a Role Model

She has been very dignified about this and I think that's what scares Breitbart and Faux...they picked the wrong woman to mess with. Her background and the life she has lived has prepared her for this battle.

This will be an interesting case.

[depakid]

8. "Some lawyers" are wrong

Her case meets the standard for public officials being placed in a false light.

Basically, what she has to show is that had knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard of the falsity of what the video portrayed prior to publishing it.

I can't imagine her attorney will have much t all doing that. What will be more interesting is what the discovery turns up with respect to Fox "news" and other actors and outlets.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. As I said above, they were discussing her chances of a big monetary damage award

[depakid]

13. Damages in the case are against her reputation

as shown by, among many other things- the loss of employment.

Subsequent remedial measures and acts after the falsehood was discovered and had caused the harm shouldn't vitiate the amount recovered- but of course, that will be a for a jury to decide and justify.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Oh yeah?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Burnett_v._National_Enquirer,_Inc.

Now, this is California law so who knows what Sherrod will run into, but Burnett didn't lose any work because of the story. She got punitive damages, though.

[depakid]

16. Interesting case with some parallels

Burnett drew attention in 1981, when she sued the National Enquirer for libel after the tabloid newspaper described her alleged public drunkenness, purportedly with Henry Kissinger. Carol was particularly sensitive to the accusations because of her parents' own alcoholism. The case was a landmark for libel cases involving celebrities, although the unprecedented $1.6 million verdict for Burnett was reduced to about $800,000 on appeal, and eventually settled out of court.

She donated a portion of that award to the University of Hawaii and University of California at Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism saying she hoped the suit would teach aspiring journalists the dangers of defaming individuals in articles. The money was used to fund Law and Ethics courses at the school. Burnett said at the time that she didn't care if she just won "car fare", and that the lawsuit was a matter of principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Burnett#Lawsuits