"Sue" for what?

Andrew has to be paying her. I can't wait for him to release another exclusive tape about another Obamanation. He should time it right about when this latest news story peaks.

"Obama said Thursday morning on ABC's daytime talk show "The View" that the incident shows racial tensions still exist in America."

Meet the President of the United States ladies and gentleman. Dilettante golfer and coffee-klatsch gossip.

She was offered her job back two days after being fired. So here damages are, what, two days' lost salary? That's barely enough for small claims court.

She has the makings of a defamation or false light claim against Breitbart, I think. That said, I am highly dubious that she could prevail on that claim.

Once a bitter racist, alway's a money grubbing bitter racist.

James H,

So you think showing someone utter their own words is ground's for defamation of character?

In that case, everytime Barry hops in front of the prompter and FOX cover's it, he could sue for defamation of character. Or just enact the unfairness doctrine.

And Ward of the state. Get lost you creepy predator.

To quote some lawyer: "Discovery can be a bitch"

So if she sues and wins, can conservatives do the same every time they are taken out of context and slimed with the racist charge, in the case of black conservative the Uncle Tom charge?

Andrew Breitbart is evil genius smart. Grab a front row seat and some popcorn, peeps...this is going to get interesting. I'd be surprised to see the NAACP releasing that October Surprise announcement about Tea Party racists...not saying it still won't happen...just saying I bet there is some deliberations inside HQ about what comes back on them--because, yes--

"Discovery can be a real bitch".

The thing that really amazes me is that she is willing to go along with the charade the White House has asked her to participate in AFTER they ordered her fired.

Either they have threatened or bribed her beyond our imagination or she is very

very

very

DUMB.

John:

In general, no. In particular, maybe.

Somewhere Rush is sitting back hoping Ms Looney tunes wins. He can hire a whole team of lawyers and go hogwild with lawsuits against pretty much every Dinosaur media outlet there is.

Breitbart knew he posting something that was edited. He knew the likely outcome of his posting. That's prior knowledge and willful intent. This is going to cost him a lot of money, and whatever shred of respectability he had.

This is yet another serious setback for the Republican Party. The latest polls, even Rasmussen, have Sharron angle falling behind Harry Reid. My pet goldfish could have beaten Harry Reid, but the Tea Party can't.

The Arizona setback yesterday is another devastating blow, and another underscore of the whole racist argument.

The next hammer to fall will be the decision on Prop 8 in California, which should be today or is it tomorrow?

Looks like Obama got his mojo back. After solving the oil spill crisis and slam dunking the Swine Flu scare he's clearly hitting homers.

How do we go about derailing him and his Dummy pals?

The administration knew as did the NAACP that this Sherrod was a loud mouth race baiter and troublemaker. That is why they acted swiftly to get rid of her. The didn't doubt the story for a minute. I personally hope she sues and part of the discovery that Breitbart will get pertaining to the inner workings of the NAACP and the Obama Administration. Both of those groups would sooner put this away for good but this is a sue crazy racist so all bets are off. ww

Breitbart knew he posting something that was edited.

...and your evidence for this is...?

Oh, yeah, it's just "obvious," isn't it?

After solving the oil spill crisis

He what? When did that happen? Between his rounds of golf?

Sherrod is a public figure. She'll have to prove that Breitbart KNOWINGLY published with MALICE. For a public figure, that's going to be a really high bar to reach.

She'd have better luck with the person who doctored the video.

http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

If it was Brethbart's intent to keep this before the public eye, Sherrod is providing him with a large helping hand. At this point, I'm thinking that both the White House and the NAACP are saying STFU Sherrod!

"...and your evidence for this is...?

Watching the video you can see that it is edited. Heavily edited. Breitbart will be asked under oath if he knew the video had been edited. He'll say yes.

"After solving the oil spill crisis"

Oil all gone. It's in all the newspapers.

Garand:

Sherrod is a public figure. She'll have to prove that Breitbart KNOWINGLY published with MALICE. For a public figure, that's going to be a really high bar to reach.

... which is why I think Sherrod would have a hard time prevailing on her claim.

The suit is DOA and Sherrod knows it.

My bet:
Sherrod filed suit to keep the publicity going. In effect, she's using the judicial system for personal publicity. I'm guessing that she'll attempt to parlay the publicity into a book deal and have a go at the speech circuit. This one reason why we need a 'loser pays' system.

I though this race thing was over a long time ago.

I remember watching OJ Simpson's slow police chase, many moons ago, on TV. The announcer said, "do you think it's because OJ is black" - or something like that. I had to stop and think. Oh yeah. OJ is black. How about that? I thought of OJ as a football player and an actor - not as a black man.

I thought racism toward blacks was over back then, but I guess not.
I thought racism toward blacks was over long before Obama was elected President.
And here we are today picking at that scab yet today. And it seems to me that it's politicians and the MSM that are doing the picking at that scab. I don't see it in the streets. I don't see it at work. I have this issue pushed in my face by the MSM and by this administration.

I heard Morgan Freeman say that if you want to end racism - stop talking about it. But this administration and the MSM seems to be more than happy to turn over every rock they can find to see if there might be a racism angle.

Just yesterday there was a post about Tim Scott, and several times it was pointed out that Tim was " ...first black Republican elected...". Why? Wouldn't his merits hold water without mentioning that he was black?

I'm told I should be color blind and then I get hit over the head with color. WTF?

Not only did the farmers come to her defense, but the whole freakin' speech was about NOT using bias.

I've only seen Maddow & Jon Stewart point this out with the clarity it needs.

This is a clear case of slander and libel with a purposeful intent to damage her reputation, smear her name and cause her extreme pain and suffering. It matters that her words were taken out of context -- in order to stir up hate, in order to convey the wrong impression (deliberately) and in order to defame her character.

Ever heard of "defamation by false light?"

Indie:

I have heard of it. And I am going to tell you that Sherrod would have a hard time making this stick if she goes forward with a lawsuit. As a public official, she will likely have to prove either that Breitbart knew the recording was false -- that is, that it was a selective edit that depicted her as racist when she wasn't -- or that Breitbart acted with a reckless diregard for truth.

I don't think Sherrod's going to be able to meet that standard, although I would not be surprised if such litigation ends in a settlement.

PS.

Make no mistake. My political sympathies do not lie with Breitbart, and I don't like his acts from a professional standpoint. But these beliefs o' mine are completely irrelevant to whether Ms. Sherrod could prevail on a defamation or false light claim.

J McNeely = Mr. Sherrod?

Let's review:

"Breitbart knew he posting something that was edited."

Probably, but that does not prove he knew the context was altered. Further, unless Sherrod can prove Breitbart knew the original context, she cannot claim his actions were unreasonable, especially since as a government employy, Sherrod is by definition a public official.

"He knew the likely outcome of his posting."

Wrong. There is no evidence that Breitbart expected Sherrod to be fired, nor that such as his intention.

"That's prior knowledge and willful intent."

No, that's your rectum taking over your fingers and excreting onto teh post.

"This is going to cost him a lot of money, and whatever shred of respectability he had."

No, and no. First off, Sherrod has to prove damages and since she was/is a public oficial who got to keep her job, and Breitbart had no direct contact with her or direct control in the decision to dismiss her, he's pretty safe from everything but legal fees. As for respectability, lawsuits don't impair respectability. You sound like a man who voted for Bubba Clinton, that dude LOST his license and got impeached for a lot worse than anything Breitbart did, and I bet you still think Bubba's a prince, hmm?

"This is yet another serious setback for the Republican Party."

Yeah sure, you bet money on that and see what happens in November.

"The latest polls, even Rasmussen, have Sharron angle falling behind Harry Reid."

News flash chuckles, there's more than one race. You might wanna check up on the overall trend, not just the one or two or three that look good to you.

"The Arizona setback yesterday is another devastating blow"

Uh-huh. Wanna bet on what the Appeals Court says?

"and another underscore of the whole racist argument."

I'm surprised but pleased that you can admit the Obama Administration is racist and has based both policies and procedures on race-based hate.

"Looks like Obama got his mojo back."

Further proof, folks, that doing drugs before posting comments is just stoooopid.

"solving the oil spill crisis"

No, that was Nature. All O did was throw a tantrum, suck his thumb and hide.

"he's clearly hitting homers."

Yeah, unless of course you look at unemployment, consumer confidence, the deficit, the state of our relations with our longest allies, O's record of keeping campaign promises, et cetera ...

Whatamarooooooooooooooon!

"I'm told I should be color blind and then I get hit over the head with color. WTF?"

It's funny how the folks who continually cry about racism stand to gain the most in power and influence from any 'remedies' they propose.

I'm thinking we won't have a chance to get over racism until the race-baiting poverty pimps who've been making their livings off preaching against it for the last four decades or so die off.

Shawn, I need you. And I need your Mom. And I need your baby brother Nick too. I need you all.

And I need you all to understand why I do what I do. I need you to understand that I believe in something bigger than myself. I need you to understand that I believe in an America where you are able to walk down streets or go to the mall with your friends without fear of Breitbart doctoring videos of you.

And I need you to understand that I believe in what I'm doing in this comment to what you typed.

I believe with all my heart that little girls like you, Shawn Mallow, should be able to go to school and get an education. I believe you should be able to do so without fear of being poisoned by Breitbart who is driven by bad ideas. I believe other little girls at Wizbang deserve the same kind of opportunities you will have as you grow up.

I need you to understand that I believe that my job in pointing our your racist hypocrisy is crucial to an American future where Breitbart plots cannot be planned in the plush and overly ostentatious offices of our country. I need you to understand that I don't want you to be afraid every time you look at yourself in a mirror and examine your sophomoric belief system, and that I'm willing to do something about it to make sure it doesn't happen again.

I need you to understand, in your own little little little little little little little little little little way, that Larry Dickman is doing what is best for you. And honorable. And noble. And just. And brave.

For us. For them. For you.

Thread winner @ #26. Nice job, Ponderosa.

Sherrod is a public figure.

No, she isn't.

"Sherrod is a public figure.
No, she isn't.

30. Posted by Senor Cardgage | July 29, 2010 2:47 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast"

She is now..

Larry Dickman, I need you to understand your broad brushing of everyone at Wizbang could fill your need of disemvowelment, or something a little, little, little, little, little, little, little more extreme.

Capiche?

Maggie

Sherrod is a public figure.

No, she isn't.

How do you conclude that Sherrod is not a public figure? You link to some precedential quotes, but you don't offer any analysis.

The unbalanced spinning of the left above reminds me of the sounds that would come from an old Kenmore washer I once had.

Breitbart's obsessive early tweets on the Sherrod matter have probably already strangled any alibi of his innocent intentions. That he publicly considered or presented his doctored videotape as anything other than full evidence of "Sherrod" not using the "full force" of her office to help a white complainant based on race, is advertised by him as fact studied by himself and presented by himself as "Andrew Breitbart Presents" in the form of pre-release twitter-teasers..
Only later, in extremis, does Breitbart accept the necessity of himself assuming the unenviable fool's seat by blaming an international video editor of mystery who knavishly tricked him via registered mail (or however that time bomb arrived).
Yet, in other media, even later in the timeline, Breitbart can't help himself from questioning all exculpatory evidence regarding Sherrod's supposed racism, including the white farm couple who were the incidental players in Breitbart's smear. Reality hit him finally and the institutional racism of the NAACP...an old meme...was forwarded as his *big scoop*.
Nice try. (If it were 1978 it would be a medium scoop.) Nope. Andrew thought he had a bleeding scalp to put on his saddle horn. He blew it, and some other conservative blogger KNEW he blew it. Early. (The Anchoress, et al).

All this and more is why Breitbart has been in seclusion.

She is now..

Mox nix, genius.

How do you conclude that Sherrod is not a public figure? You link to some precedential quotes, but you don't offer any analysis.

I'm not your tutor. Do your own damn homework.

j mcneely: "Oil all gone. It's in all the newspapers."

Wow.

mcneely has just given our diversity-hire President the credit for the existence of oil-consuming microbes that have been in the gulf for as long as oil has naturally seeped into the gulf thru rifts in the seabed.

Wow.

Remind you anything?

Like obambi's nobel prize for...for...whatever.

Seems like we have a trend here.

Oh, and it's still "RECOVERY SUMMER"!!! Woohoo!

You wingnuts were a lot less racist before a black man became president.

I wonder when her book deal will be announced. And the movie rights?? So she is suing because someone posted a portion of HER speech to the NAACP online! Leftists invariably scream of having been ATTACKED whenever their own words are made available to the public.

I'm not your tutor. Do your own damn homework.

Okay, my damn homework says that Sherrod is what they call a "limited public figure," due to her lifelong history of political activism (high profile cases against the government, including the largest civil rights case in history). She basically leveraged a life of public political activism for a government job in 1999. She's the sort of person who gets invited to give speeches at meetings.

No, you don't have to be "famous" to be a public figure, you just have to put yourself "in the eye of the public" in certain contexts.

A judge will call it, cirby. I'm betting against it.

How do you conclude that Sherrod is not a public figure? You link to some precedential quotes, but you don't offer any analysis.

I'm not your tutor. Do your own damn homework.

Cardgage, you are quite mistaken. Quite mistaken indeed. The responsibility for "doing homework" here does not lie with me, but with you. You put forward the contention that Ms. Sherrod is not a public figure.

If you wish to prevail in this contention, it is incumbent on you to support you contention. It is incumbent on you to research legal precedent or commentary. It is incumbent on you to apply that precedent or commentary to the case at hand. It is incumbent on you to persuade me that you have applied the law correctly.

In other words, Cardgage, do your own damn homework.

It will never reach a judge ...

Oh, Dickman..

You have a penchant for displaying blinding wit.

Let's keep this simple...

Remind me:

Who was it that automatically fired Mrs. Sherrod, for reasons bogus as they were, directly impacting her life?

I'll remind you. Actually, I'll let Mrs. Sherrod remind you:

"They asked me to resign, and, in fact, they harassed me as I was driving back to the state office from West Point, Georgia yesterday," Sherrod told CNN.

"I had at least three calls telling me the White House wanted me to resign...and the last one asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it.

Sherrod said the final call came from Cheryl Cook, an undersecretary at the Department of Agriculture. Sherrod said White House officials wanted her to quit immediately because the controversy was "going to be on Glenn Beck tonight."

Her own account of the situation.

And you just can't fathom that Mrs. Sherrod might be displaying a bit of misplaced anger toward certain players in this situation?

Just because you have a one-track mind doesn't mean you have to travel it with your eyes closed.

You may now resume your long overdue hycolonic.

-Shawn

Two interesting tidbits have gotten lost in the thick fog that has surrounded this story.

First, I think it's very interesting that the first of the two clips that were given to Brietbart and later released by him, was carefully selected so that it could be misrepresented as misleading and "taken out of context". That clip clearly demonstrates her race based decision making, but when put into the context of the particular anecdote she was telling at the time (that she eventually, begrudgingly helped the poor "white" farmer) would seem to show that it was a tale "about racial reconciliation". (Now if anyone bothers to watch the whole speech and put that particular anecdote in the context of the full speech they'd see it was not what it's being presented as-- but that's beside my point.)

Second, when the NAACP did release the full speech, it appears that they edited out something around the 21:00 minute mark. Wonder what that was all about?

I speculate that it was someone from the NAACP that gave those clips to Breitbart-- with the full knowledge and blessing of the Obama regime-- in order to create the charade that ensued. Unfortunately for Obama et al., FOX and Glenn Beck did not take the bait so it turned into the fiasco that it is today.

It is my firm belief that if anyone set up Sharrod it was the NAACP and the Obama regime.

Code Blue... CODE BLUE STAT!!!!

Kool-Ade overdose in "room/comment 15"

I think Obama also worked with Algore in inventing the internet thingy.

Sherrod is toast. Just listening to her rantings of how there are racists at every turn convince me why Obama and the NAACP got rid of her. She is racist. Plain and simple. ww

Man, everyone misses the point of the whole episode. Brietbart very easily turned the whole "out of context" trap on the left. Gee, could it mean that all this "Tea Party is racist" bullshit could be something "out of context" if not outright fabrication? Brietbart only did what the fucking media has been doing to people for fucking years, especially to conservatives. Like someone posted above, Rush could sue scores of people for what's said about him which is ALWAYS "out of context." Fuck the left--how's it feel to have it shoved up your ass?

So, "Little Miss Racist" is going to sue the blogger who POSTED the video.

No the person or persons who excerpted the video to take her words out of context.

(Note I said "excerpted", not "edited". The video was not edited in any way, to my knowledge. It just had he explanatory parts deleted. By someone at the NAACP.)

You know, I would have thought the fault for this fiasco would be with the NAACP and her boss, not the whistleblower.

Sky --

The smart course is to sue 'em both. In either case, Breitbart'd be subpoenaed.

She won't sue the NAACP or Dear Leader (not sure she could, could she?) because her husband won't let her sue anyone but The (white) Man.

Seriously, if she really is "reformed," why isn't she suing the NAACP?

GarandFan #1~

"Sue" for what?

Ha ha ha ha... For the annoyance of pegging a liberal for what they are. That's what.

Yeah, the whole thing will end up like the fake CIA agent Valerie Plame case.

A liberal judge will supeaona People that have nothing to do with the Shamjob Sherrodd's while letting the leaker ( NAACP ) skate cause they represent the lower liberal class voting block.

By the way, For the definition of "LIAR'. Look up Joe LIAR Plame Wilson!!

BTW, simply threatening to sue someone, in this case probably for the publicity and/or a continuation of the dem party election strategy of screaming "Racist" at every turn, is meaningless.

Somebody call me when this gal actually files a lawsuit.

Then somebody call me when the lawyers actually let it go far enough for discovery with dear sainted Shirley.

Why do I think it really won't go that far.

BTW, can any lib give me an update on the the status of that "obvious" and "slam-dunk" prosecution of Tom Delay?

Sherrod does NOT want to sit for a deposition and be interrogated on her history of racial comments and activism.

The argument over whether she is a "limited public figure" is one which would be argued in motions, but is one which could only expedite things for Breitbart if the courts decide she qualifies. It doesn't hurt his case at all.

The video wasn't "edited" in the sense that it misrepresents what she said. It's a clip which doesn't show the full speech. Media clips rarely show the whole speech, just the gaffe. Ask Dan Quayle.

Besides, the full speech doesn't deny or contradict what she said she did: discriminate against the guy on the basis of race. She says she realized the error of her ways and went back to correct her mistake as best she could. But she did what she did in the first place. And she admitted it in public on tape. Posting that simply cannot be defamation of character.

Breitbart was planning on carving a backwards "B" into his face but found out that had been tried before.

"Seriously, if she really is "reformed," why isn't she suing the NAACP?"

Really. They got whiplash spinning around to defame her even though they had possession of the full tape.

Not to mention the person denouncing her in a public address was actually present at the speech.

With a myriad of reasons why she SHOULD sue the government (again) and the NAACP, explain to me why she's suing Breitbart instead?

Nevermind. I already know the answer.

I am continually annoyed at the use of the word 'edited' regarding the clip shown by Breitbart. It was a clip, a portion of a larger video. News program use clips all the time - usually shorter than the one shown by Breitbart. I'll won't accept their criticisms until they stop using clips.

Additionally, the point of the Breitbart piece, as evidenced by the text included with the clip, was the response by the NAACP members to the implication of racism against the white farmer by Sherrod. They cheered. So what are they doing complaining about fictional racism at Tea Party rallies?