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.
another liberal who hates the 1st amendment
The first amendment is not protection against slander lawsuits.
If part of the judgement in said lawsuit is a court order to shut down the media outlet that is doing the slander, I would not be adverse to that result, no.
The truth has become malleable in the "new media".
There are no facts anymore, just a bunch of talking heads spouting opinions. If the laws surrounding slander and libel are strengthened I would certainly not be adverse to that.
If you want to claim that my desire to stop people from blatantly lying in the press to slander their political opponents is unconstitutional, well then go for it. I'm fine with my position.
Maybe...but I knew it wasn't true simply from watching the video...it's pretty clear at the end she was telling a story about how she overcame her thoughts.IMO, only #1 needs be proven. But yes, that is a good weasel. It will come down to his word against his source.Still won't cut it in the legal department though. Too many hurdles to overcome.
1. It would have to be proven the Breitbart added the written commentary in the beginning of the clip.
2. If (1) happens, then it would have to be proven that Breitbart knew the full context of the clip in question.
No matter what we believe about either of those things, I doubt it can be proven in a court of law.
But even if #1 is proven, it only reaches the legal definition of slander if he knew it not to be true. Which is why #2 must happen as well.
Breitbart: Information from Answers.comSherrod's going to Sue Breitbart...
Who is Sue Breitbart? Is that Andy's wife?
And why is she going to her?
what kind of silly name is breitbart anyway. it sounds like an ent name.
an ent who is totally drunk or stoned.
Maybe...but I knew it wasn't true simply from watching the video...it's pretty clear at the end she was telling a story about how she overcame her thoughts.
And what isn't true is that she was being a racist in her USDA job.
Breitbart OWNS and RUNS the media outlet in question. Therefore, to punish him in the same way Rather was punished, he would have to have his outlet shut down.
And personally, I don't care if it's Breitbart or not. I believe that ALL the media has got to start taking some responsibility for their blatant spin and falsehoods.
I think MSNBC, FoxNews, and several other stations need to either fire some people for their lies or be held responsible legally also.
But hey, that's just my opinion.
like i said, you hate the first amendment...his site isn't devoted to just sherrod...you want to shut him down over one comment that may or may not be slander or libel....you don't have to shut down an entire station or blog, there are avenues to address actual slander/libel, shutting down speech is not the appropriate manner
Breitbart OWNS and RUNS the media outlet in question. Therefore, to punish him in the same way Rather was punished, he would have to have his outlet shut down.
Breitbart: Information from Answers.comWho is Sue Breitbart? Is that Andy's wife?
And why is she going to her?
what kind of silly name is breitbart anyway. it sounds like an ent name.
an ent who is totally drunk or stoned.
Breitbart OWNS and RUNS the media outlet in question. Therefore, to punish him in the same way Rather was punished, he would have to have his outlet shut down.
Spoken like a true Brown Shirt.
Was he? Can this be proven? Is he still working?
Perhaps he just transferred himself out of CBS due to political pressure. I'm unaware of any statement by CBS that he was forced to resign...
...Ah.
How'd that work out? If I sue you for defamation does that indicate anything? I think I'm starting to understand the law according to you now.
Maybe I can sue Obama for lying. He said that nobody who makes less than $250,000 would pay more in taxes - "not one dime."
Strange. Rather gets to take his severance and go work for Current TV, CBS gets to keep the BS in CBS. You however have the preference of shutting down a media outlet.
Yeah, I think we can see the bias here.
Of course. It appears to me that this isn't about any sort of fairness, it's about taking someone down you don't like.
Ah.
Is that a proven fact or just your opinion?
Evidence.
"He posted an edited video. GET HIM!"
"Um, so did you."
Breitbart OWNS and RUNS the media outlet in question. Therefore, to punish him in the same way Rather was punished, he would have to have his outlet shut down.
And personally, I don't care if it's Breitbart or not. I believe that ALL the media has got to start taking some responsibility for their blatant spin and falsehoods.
I think MSNBC, FoxNews, and several other stations need to either fire some people for their lies or be held responsible legally also.
But hey, that's just my opinion.
Spoken like a true Brown Shirt.
uh, not what that saysBreitbart: Information from Answers.comwhat kind of silly name is breitbart anyway. it sounds like an ent name.
an ent who is totally drunk or stoned.
Breitbarth: Information from Answers.com
thanks. breit (broad) can mean - depending on the dialect - stoned or drunk or even both.
Interesting spin.
Dan Rather gets to work for anyone he chooses after getting $8 Million per year from CBS. Breitbart has to have his website shut down.
Rather still gets to get another job and CBS gets to keep the BS. But Breitbart must be shut down.
"punishment" indeed.
You could start with the White House Press Office.
Nah, that would be too much on the nose.
Perhaps it's not the government's job to regulate the media. Just a thought.
uh, not what that says
Breitbarth: Information from Answers.com
thanks. breit (broad) can mean - depending on the dialect - stoned or drunk or even both.
its more likel wide beard
Oh look! The Gehirn Geschädigter Dildokopf made a cameo appearance.
If we're lucky, it will be of a very short duration.
Interesting spin.
Dan Rather gets to work for anyone he chooses after getting $8 Million per year from CBS. Breitbart has to have his website shut down.
Rather still gets to get another job and CBS gets to keep the BS. But Breitbart must be shut down.
"punishment" indeed.
Why would Breitbart not be able to get another job? FoxNews hired Ollie North, I'm sure they would be happy to hire Breitbart.
You could start with the White House Press Office.
Nah, that would be too much on the nose.
Do I think politicians should be held accountable for lying? Hell yes.
Let's prosecute every single instance of slander from every living politicians. I'm all for it.
Of course that trial would end around the year 2060.
Phnom PenhPerhaps it's not the government's job to regulate the media. Just a thought.
And as per my last post, I agree with you there. Just because I would personally be satisfied in that case if that happened, doesn't mean it SHOULD happen.
It is the job of the civil courts however to rectify situations such as these. Which is what is happening.
If a judge happened to award the entire value of Mr Breitbart's site over to the plaintiff, it would probably be wrong, but I would find it very satisfying.
Maybe...but I knew it wasn't true simply from watching the video...it's pretty clear at the end she was telling a story about how she overcame her thoughts.IMO, only #1 needs be proven. But yes, that is a good weasel. It will come down to his word against his source.
But even if #1 is proven, it only reaches the legal definition of slander if he knew it not to be true. Which is why #2 must happen as well.
And what isn't true is that she was being a racist in her USDA job.
She isn't going to sue Breitbart. She may say she is but she has no case against Breitbart. Breitbart didn't fire her.
