Sherrod files suit against Breitbart

[Ravi]

Brietbart considers his site to be a news site. Therefore, he is possibly guilty of defamation of character or slander.

The comedians do not consider their shows to be news.

You're welcome.

Your opinion is always welcome ravi.

But as I said before, I'll need some factual evidence to support it if I'm to reconsider my position.

So, is there a legal distinction that you can cite with precedent?



PS: I thought Breitbart's video was funny as hell.

My bad, I forgot that you are retarded.

There is most definitely a difference in law between a news site publishing false defamatory articles and a comedian publishing satire. I'm sure you are quite capable of googling for yourself.

 

[manifold]

There is most definitely a difference in law between a news site publishing false defamatory articles and a comedian publishing satire.

Again, what did he publish that was false?

 

[Mini 14]

FTR: I'm not defending Breitbart as a human being. I never heard of him before this and this story convinces me that he is a total fucking slime ball. But even total fucking slime balls are protected by the 1st Amendment. I just don't see how she has a leg to stand on with this suit.

She doesn't.

I don't believe she is pushing this.

I smell the NAACP.

 

[Ravi]

except he didnt slander her

Says you. I believe the comments he posted along with the edited video show an intent to defame her. Now, maybe he is just stupid and didn't watch the video closely enough...that is always a possibility.

I have no idea if she has a case or not but I will enjoy seeing Brietbart once again in the news for posting false stories.

nope
they were about the NAACP

They were about both. I guess he should be thankful that the NAACP isn't suing him as well. Or at least the people in the video that he portrayed as doing something racial when they were not.

 

[R.D.]

Brietbart considers his site to be a news site. Therefore, he is possibly guilty of defamation of character or slander.

The comedians do not consider their shows to be news.

You're welcome.

except he didnt slander her

Says you. I believe the comments he posted along with the edited video show an intent to defame her. Now, maybe he is just stupid and didn't watch the video closely enough...that is always a possibility.

I have no idea if she has a case or not but I will enjoy seeing Brietbart once again in the news for posting false stories.

The point of the clip - not an edited video, was to show the NAACP as a racist organization. The crowd she was playing to loved her racist remarks.

She was right to be embarrassed by the clip and said as much. Now she just wants to play the victim and sees Brietbart as deep pockets.

Discovery goes both ways, this will be fun to watch as she will crawl back under a rock if he doesn't settle. jmo

 

[manifold]

Ravi,

Perhaps you are unclear about the facts, so I'll cut you some slack and educate you.

Breitbart posted portions of the video. But what he posted was not altered. Therefore, it was not 'false'.

 

[DiveCon]

Says you. I believe the comments he posted along with the edited video show an intent to defame her. Now, maybe he is just stupid and didn't watch the video closely enough...that is always a possibility.

I have no idea if she has a case or not but I will enjoy seeing Brietbart once again in the news for posting false stories.

nope
they were about the NAACP

They were about both. I guess he should be thankful that the NAACP isn't suing him as well. Or at least the people in the video that he portrayed as doing something racial when they were not.

no it was just about the racist within the NAACP
that was the whole point of the page

 

[manifold]

You know Dive, that's actually a great point (yeah I just threw up in my mouth )

I never read the articles Breitbart wrote, but I did see the video. And the audience clearly cheers when she says she didn't help the guy because he was white, and at that point they had no reason to assume she would go on to 'redeem' herself so to speak.

 

[Ravi]

except he didnt slander her

Says you. I believe the comments he posted along with the edited video show an intent to defame her. Now, maybe he is just stupid and didn't watch the video closely enough...that is always a possibility.

I have no idea if she has a case or not but I will enjoy seeing Brietbart once again in the news for posting false stories.

The point of the clip - not an edited video, was to show the NAACP as a racist organization. The crowd she was playing to loved her racist rant.

She was right to be embarrassed by the clip and said as much. Now she just wants to play the victim and sees Brietbart as deep pockets.

Discovery goes both ways, this will be fun to watch as she will crawl back under a rock if he doesn't settle. jmo

Case in point...you were fooled by it. She was telling the audience that she overcame her feelings that white people looked down on her and realized that it was her job to help all...and that she eventually befriended the farmer. And the audience was applauding her for arriving at her conclusion and empathizing with her.

 

[Mini 14]

She is toast.

I just went and watched a couple of her interviews right after the incident. She told Anderson Cooper that she was "firmly convinced" that "someone at the Whitehouse" was behind the pressure for her to resign. This was about a week after her resignation.

She has no case against Breitbart. She MAY have had a case against USDA or the Whitehouse, but she threw that all away when she resigned.

That's why I don't believe she is driving this bus. Her case is terrible, but she continues to posture.

 

[Ravi]

Ravi,

Perhaps you are unclear about the facts, so I'll cut you some slack and educate you.

Breitbart posted portions of the video. But what he posted was not altered. Therefore, it was not 'false'.

Right...but his commentary was false and led those viewing the video to believe what he was telling them to believe and not what was really happening.

 

[Mini 14]

Ravi,

Perhaps you are unclear about the facts, so I'll cut you some slack and educate you.

Breitbart posted portions of the video. But what he posted was not altered. Therefore, it was not 'false'.

Right...but his commentary was false and led those viewing the video to believe what he was telling them to believe and not what was really happening.

Olberman?

Limbaugh?

Matthews?

Beck?

Breitbart broke no law.

 

[Ravi]

You know Dive, that's actually a great point (yeah I just threw up in my mouth )

I never read the articles Breitbart wrote, but I did see the video. And the audience clearly cheers when she says she didn't help the guy because he was white, and at that point they had no reason to assume she would go on to 'redeem' herself so to speak.

If you watch the entire video, not Brietbart's edited clip, you would see that she alludes to her awakening in advance...so yes, they had every reason to know that she would "redeem" herself.

You never watched it did you? Which makes your commentary on the topic very amusing. But then again, you are an opinionated ignoramus.

 

[Ravi]

Ravi,

Perhaps you are unclear about the facts, so I'll cut you some slack and educate you.

Breitbart posted portions of the video. But what he posted was not altered. Therefore, it was not 'false'.

Right...but his commentary was false and led those viewing the video to believe what he was telling them to believe and not what was really happening.

Olberman?

Limbaugh?

Matthews?

Beck?

Breitbart broke no law.

None of those besides Brietbart pretend to be reporting news.

 

[manifold]

Ravi,

Perhaps you are unclear about the facts, so I'll cut you some slack and educate you.

Breitbart posted portions of the video. But what he posted was not altered. Therefore, it was not 'false'.

Right...but his commentary was false and led those viewing the video to believe what he was telling them to believe and not what was really happening.

I'm not aware of any false commentary, but I admit I've not researched it thoroughly either. But I do pay attention a little, and considering that I'm hearing it from you for the first time, well...

Typically, spin = misleading
but spin <> false.

 

[Mini 14]

You know Dive, that's actually a great point (yeah I just threw up in my mouth )

I never read the articles Breitbart wrote, but I did see the video. And the audience clearly cheers when she says she didn't help the guy because he was white, and at that point they had no reason to assume she would go on to 'redeem' herself so to speak.

If you watch the entire video, not Brietbart's edited clip, you would see that she alludes to her awakening in advance...so yes, they had every reason to know that she would "redeem" herself.

You never watched it did you? Which makes your commentary on the topic very amusing. But then again, you are an opinionated ignoramus.

Breitbart claims he did not have the entire video, only those portions that he posted.

He maintained that position the first time the full video surfaced, a few days after he had posted the excerpts on his site.

 

[manifold]

You know Dive, that's actually a great point (yeah I just threw up in my mouth )

I never read the articles Breitbart wrote, but I did see the video. And the audience clearly cheers when she says she didn't help the guy because he was white, and at that point they had no reason to assume she would go on to 'redeem' herself so to speak.

If you watch the entire video, not Brietbart's edited clip, you would see that she alludes to her awakening in advance...so yes, they had every reason to know that she would "redeem" herself.

You never watched it did you? Which makes your commentary on the topic very amusing. But then again, you are an opinionated ignoramus.

Actually I did watch it asshat.

And no, they did not know it was coming before they cheered her dissing the white farmer. Fact, not opinion.

 

[Ravi]

Ravi,

Perhaps you are unclear about the facts, so I'll cut you some slack and educate you.

Breitbart posted portions of the video. But what he posted was not altered. Therefore, it was not 'false'.

Right...but his commentary was false and led those viewing the video to believe what he was telling them to believe and not what was really happening.

I'm not aware of any false commentary, but I admit I've not researched it thoroughly either. But I do pay attention a little, and considering that I'm hearing it from you for the first time, well...

Typically, spin = misleading
but spin <> false.

Are you suffering from early onset dementia...I seem to recall you participating in some of the Sherrod threads in the past.

 

[Ravi]

You know Dive, that's actually a great point (yeah I just threw up in my mouth )

I never read the articles Breitbart wrote, but I did see the video. And the audience clearly cheers when she says she didn't help the guy because he was white, and at that point they had no reason to assume she would go on to 'redeem' herself so to speak.

If you watch the entire video, not Brietbart's edited clip, you would see that she alludes to her awakening in advance...so yes, they had every reason to know that she would "redeem" herself.

You never watched it did you? Which makes your commentary on the topic very amusing. But then again, you are an opinionated ignoramus.

Breitbart claims he did not have the entire video, only those portions that he posted.

He maintained that position the first time the full video surfaced, a few days after he had posted the excerpts on his site.

Then he should not have posted it with his comments, should he have? He is what passes for critical thought in wingnutland?

 

[DiveCon]

You know Dive, that's actually a great point (yeah I just threw up in my mouth )

I never read the articles Breitbart wrote, but I did see the video. And the audience clearly cheers when she says she didn't help the guy because he was white, and at that point they had no reason to assume she would go on to 'redeem' herself so to speak.

If you watch the entire video, not Brietbart's edited clip, you would see that she alludes to her awakening in advance...so yes, they had every reason to know that she would "redeem" herself.

You never watched it did you? Which makes your commentary on the topic very amusing. But then again, you are an opinionated ignoramus.

Breibart didnt edit anything
he was given clips, he posted what he was given