Sherrod's going to Sue Breitbart...

[asterism]

Lets let a jury decide. Its not just the outtake of what she said but the context it was put in. She was defined as a racist and the clip was presented to make the case she was a racist

The jury can also look at intent and whether he intended to inflict harm on her. Damages could get nasty here

Perhaps.

However wouldn't actual harm have to be proven first?

Again, actual harm may not have been that bad in monetary damages. She was humiliated in front of the whole country, forced to resign, labeled a racist. Whats the dollar value on that?

Punative damages could get nasty. But of course that scum Breitbart will never pay a cent

Labeled a racist?

Accused, yes but labeled? What the legal definition and precedent for that argument?

 

[Luissa]

Do you have a link to him saying Sherrod is "an obvious racist" or something of that nature? IOW, directed AT her and not the NAACP...

Was it to cause "harm to the poor woman" or to the NAACP?

It's an important distinction...

From the blog, the link is in a few of my above posts.

also from the blog:

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

problem is, he got the timeline wrong when describing the speech. She first said someone of his own kind should help him, she then later said that isn't a race issue, but have v have not issue. He also should of checked with the farmer.

 

[Dr.House]

But "it's not about Sherrod" bwahahahaha!

You people are too much.

Liar...

I made no such claim... I said it would have to be proved that the intention was to harm HER personally... IMHO, the blog post, in it's entirety, reads as more of a tirade against the NAACP...

Go back to your helpdesk, ya fucking liar...

I was quoting Brietbart, not you...sensitive much?

You quoted me as a reply to my post...

Dumbass much? (rhetorical question - we know you do)

 

[asterism]

She was offered another job withing a very short amount of time. Her economic damages are nil. For any humiliation she may have felt, she has also been cried up as a heroine on the Left.

And do you really want to set a precedent of liability for posting clips and quotes of a larger event?

maybe we should set a precedent? There is already a problem with responsible journalism.

Hence my comment about Ezra Klein.

 

[boedicca]

Question: What is the most important issue facing the U.S. today?

- Two wars
- The Deficit and Debt
- Unemployment
- The BP Oil Spill
- Breitbart posting two video clips on his political blog site

 

[asterism]

Brietbarts lie cause emotional suffering and Sherrod to lose her job, she should sue so maybe these damn distorting, lying Republictards and Teabaggers will stop twisting facts to damage and destroy people for political gain.

She was offered a promotion. Saying "well I turned down more money because I was so distraught" won't exactly play well with a jury.

This really is going to be funny.

That was between her and her employer who was also at fault here. No reason Breitbart should get off the hook because her employer covered his ass.

If I were a lawyer, I would jump at this case. Intentional infliction of harm, fraud, defamation, slander

Of course Breitbart is scum and will never pay a cent

Ah. So it's not the source of her income that is at play here, it's someone else.

Define "public figure" for the class so we can figure out how she has been defamed.

 

[asterism]

Brietbarts lie cause emotional suffering and Sherrod to lose her job, she should sue so maybe these damn distorting, lying Republictards and Teabaggers will stop twisting facts to damage and destroy people for political gain.

She was offered a promotion. Saying "well I turned down more money because I was so distraught" won't exactly play well with a jury.

This really is going to be funny.

She was forced to resign after being slandered as a racist with lies and distortion by that ape Briebart. When fired people are offered their job back within the same company the work environment is *NEVER* the same because the trust is gone.

She was forced to resign after an incompetent employer overreacted. It's the employer's fault.

 

[Vast LWC]

What are her damages? She was out of work for one day, received an apology from the President, and was offered a better job.

I disagree. The woman's reputation was savaged before millions of people. Breitbart manipulated that clip of her to make it look like she said something she didn't. I think she has a decent case of libel against him.

Word.

And to the poster who asked about Palin suing the media...

If she can prove any claim of a false story being used to malign her, yes, she certainly does have the right to sue the offending party.

When people maliciously slander someone, that is surely a basis for a lawsuit. Otherwise, the media could say anything they want about anyone and no-one would be the wiser.

Personally I think the laws surrounding libel and slander in this country should be a hell of a lot tougher, to prevent crap like 9/11 "truther" "Documentaries", and "swift-boating".

 

[asterism]

Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.

Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:

* Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
* Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
* Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
* Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
Defamation, Libel and Slander Law

Interesting.

Wouldn't that broad swath include any conservative you have slandered here?

 

[asterism]

emotional damages, and I think Rightwingers post answered the question very well.
If Tom Cruise can get money out of tabloid that claimed he was gay, I am sure this lady has a chance when be called a racist by the media, then forced to resign.

Tom Cruise got a settlement because he had actual proof that his ability to further enrich himself was hampered by smears.

That said, he had enough money to pursue an active defense, something that Ms. Sherrod doesn't have.

I just wonder why she isn't suing the party at fault, the party that cause the actual damage.

She has actual proof they tried to smear her name, and it will be very easy to prove mental anguish.

As it turns out, mental anguish is pretty hard to prove. But go on with your theories.

 

[asterism]

And Brietbart is the party at fault, he is the one who posted the video and claimed she was a racist. I do love how you guys continue to defend him,

Use of the phrase "you guys" in a post responding to my post causes me mental anguish. I am not defending "him" (aka Breitbart) one bit. You have slandered the name of a public person by including me in that false and baseless attack on my character.

I am deeply offended that you would ever accuse me of defending anyone named Breitbart.

 

[Vast LWC]

She was forced to resign after an incompetent employer overreacted. It's the employer's fault.

Bullshit.

The employer was given false information by the media, due to a malicious slander fed to media sources by one Andrew Breitbart.

If I hire someone, and the media runs a story about them being a murderer, I'll probably fire them rather than take the chance that the story is true.

That's just common sense.

The fault lies with the vicious rumor-mongerer who spread the lie in the first place.

Or are you comfortable with, say, school districts not suspending or firing people suspected of child molestation, for instance?

 

[Ravi]

Liar...

I made no such claim... I said it would have to be proved that the intention was to harm HER personally... IMHO, the blog post, in it's entirety, reads as more of a tirade against the NAACP...

Go back to your helpdesk, ya fucking liar...

I was quoting Brietbart, not you...sensitive much?

You quoted me as a reply to my post...

Dumbass much? (rhetorical question - we know you do)

My, you are sensitive. *sniff*

 

[Vast LWC]

Interesting.

Wouldn't that broad swath include any conservative you have slandered here?

Indeed it would, however, the items in this message board are considered opinion, not presented as fact. This is a message board, meant for debate, not journalism.

Breitbart's story was presented as fact, and was then further presented as fact through multiple major media outlets.

 

[Coyote]

She was forced to resign after an incompetent employer overreacted. It's the employer's fault.

Bullshit.

The employer was given false information by the media, due to a malicious slander fed to media sources by one Andrew Breitbart.

If I hire someone, and the media runs a story about them being a murderer, I'll probably fire them rather than take the chance that the story is true.

That's just common sense.

The fault lies with the vicious rumor-mongerer who spread the lie in the first place.

Or are you comfortable with, say, school districts not suspending or firing people suspected of child molestation, for instance?

The employer should have had the decency to verify first.

However, the employer has apologized and made amends.

Breitbart and his fanclub, on the other hand have done nothing more than lie, obfuscate and make excuses.

 

[Dr.House]

I was quoting Brietbart, not you...sensitive much?

You quoted me as a reply to my post...

Dumbass much? (rhetorical question - we know you do)

My, you are sensitive. *sniff*

Is it painful to be continuously stupid?

Just askin'...

 

[boedicca]

She was forced to resign after an incompetent employer overreacted. It's the employer's fault.

Bullshit.

The employer was given false information by the media, due to a malicious slander fed to media sources by one Andrew Breitbart.

If I hire someone, and the media runs a story about them being a murderer, I'll probably fire them rather than take the chance that the story is true.

That's just common sense.

The fault lies with the vicious rumor-mongerer who spread the lie in the first place.

Or are you comfortable with, say, school districts not suspending or firing people suspected of child molestation, for instance?

Her employer constantly refers to Fox news as being a phony news outlet. Why on earth would her employer rely upon a small article on Foxnews.com to fire anybody without first doing a proper investigation?

Blaming Breitbart and Fox is just a smoke screen to try to distract attention away from the thin-skinned immature bad management of the Obama Regime.

 

[asterism]

She was forced to resign after an incompetent employer overreacted. It's the employer's fault.

Bullshit.

The employer was given false information by the media, due to a malicious slander fed to media sources by one Andrew Breitbart.

It appears that you don't think the current administration is required to do some due diligence in situations like this. I agree, the current administration does not believe it is required to do this.

That's the incompetence.

If I hire someone, and the media runs a story about them being a murderer, I'll probably fire them rather than take the chance that the story is true.

That's just common sense.

And that's why nobody would ever want you to have that power. However, we the people are justified in expecting a bit better from the US Government.

The fault lies with the vicious rumor-mongerer who spread the lie in the first place.

Ah. So Karl Rove should have been fired when "Sealed vs. Sealed" came out? He was accused of outing Valerie Plame and a media outlet said he had been indicted.

HMMMMMM...............

Or are you comfortable with, say, school districts not suspending or firing people suspected of child molestation, for instance?

I've written off government education, so I have no dog in that hunt. The entire system is broken and I don't give a shit who they hire and fire.

 

[asterism]

Interesting.

Wouldn't that broad swath include any conservative you have slandered here?

Indeed it would, however, the items in this message board are considered opinion, not presented as fact. This is a message board, meant for debate, not journalism.

Breitbart's story was presented as fact, and was then further presented as fact through multiple major media outlets.

Was Dan Rather stating fact or opinion?

How about Alan Grayson?

 

[Vast LWC]

The employer should have had the decency to verify first.

However, the employer has apologized and made amends.

Breitbart and his fanclub, on the other hand have done nothing more than lie, obfuscate and make excuses.

Good points all.

I would say that since just about every media source was repeating the same story, action may have needed to be taken first before verification.

Perhaps a suspension until the facts were straightened out would have been more logical and decent.

Your point about Breitbart and his sycophants being unapologetic and downright deceitful is right on the mark.