Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Yes. they. did.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.
The Point was the audience reaction, they didn't know the story was a story of redemption .
There is no lie, except from you.NO, HE DID NOTBut that isn't what he did...he made false editorial comments that led people to believe she was a racist.Question for law buffs...
Has anyone ever successfully sued someone for libel based solely on the defendant printing a direct quote from the plaintiff, taken 'out of context'? IMO, that's perfectly analogous to what Breitbart did.
So he either did it purposely with malicious intent to defame her/her audience/the NAACP, or he is a really stupid person that believes what is spoon fed to him.
you keep repeating that lie
Big Government has uncovered video from the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia showing a federal appointee describing her racist behavior toward a white farmer in need of assistance. The NAACP has yet to renounce her behavior.
Earlier in her speech, she talks about the inherent job security that comes with a government job: "Have you heard of anybody in the federal government losing their job?"
btw...it has nothing to do with the first amendment.
Watch the video at your link.btw...it has nothing to do with the first amendment.
His blog has EVERYTHING to do with the 1st Amendment.
And I see no disclaimer?
What did he post that was false?
Watch the video at your link.btw...it has nothing to do with the first amendment.
His blog has EVERYTHING to do with the 1st Amendment.
And I see no disclaimer?
What did he post that was false?
There is no first amendment right to defame people.
I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farm land, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land, so I didnt give him the full force of what I could do, Sherrod said.
I did enough, she said.
Sherrod said the only reason she helped the man at all was because she knew that the federal or state department of agriculture had sent him to her and he needed to go back and report that I had tried to help him.
So I took him to a white lawyer, she said. So I figured if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him.
Sherrod then said it was revealed to her, though she did not explain how, that its about the poor versus those who have.
Its not so much about white it is about white and black but its not, you know, she said, failing to finish the thought. It opened my eyes, because I took him to one of his own.
The video, a less than three-minute excerpt of Sherrods remarks, ends at that point.
Here's the best part...
On Monday, the former USDA employee said she was "still reeling" from the incident and said it had prevented her from finding further work.
"I'm not employed and no one's offered me a job anywhere, so I don't know where to look at this point,'' she told the Associated Press in an interview. "I'm just trying to survive.''
Boo fucking hoo!
The fact that she actually blames Breitbart for her continued failure to secure employment just takes the fucking cake. I mean really? No, seriously... REALLY?
Watch the video at your link.btw...it has nothing to do with the first amendment.
His blog has EVERYTHING to do with the 1st Amendment.
And I see no disclaimer?
What did he post that was false?
There is no first amendment right to defame people.
Shirley Sherrod Files Suit Against Andrew Breitbart - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Does she really have a case?
Shirley Sherrod Files Suit Against Andrew Breitbart - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Does she really have a case?
How can we really know if she has a good case?
If the editing of the tape was clearly designed to change the tenor of her actions, then yes, I'd say that she probably does.
Shirley Sherrod Files Suit Against Andrew Breitbart - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Does she really have a case?
How can we really know if she has a good case?
If the editing of the tape was clearly designed to change the tenor of her actions, then yes, I'd say that she probably does.
But if the damages she's claiming are of her own doing or somebody else then she doesn't have a case. Especially if the damages aren't real. She is lying about her plight. She has been offered jobs. She'll have to perjure herself to claim that she hasn't.
All the defense lawyers have to do is ask her "Didn't the Obama administration offer you a job?"
Then they can expose her admitted racism and corruption.
It's a slam-dunk case.