Breitbart: Ball's In Your Court, Shirley

Andrew Breitbart weighs in on the Shirley Sherrod controversy via Newsweek. Read the whole thing. My take, Breitbart is showing himself to be a reasonable adult interested in resolving the thing, perhaps turning it into a position meeting of the minds, and negating the need for a lawsuit he's prepared to fight.

Shirley Sherrod will have to make up her own mind as to how she wishes to proceed, if at all. She may just opt to do nothing. Far more lawsuits get threatened, than are ever served. That should depend on what a lawyer advises her as to the probability of success and any potential reward for her, financial or PR-wise.

Q: If it came to pass, would you settle or fight it?

A: If there’s a lawsuit, there will be a legal team.

Q: She said she simply wanted an apology. Why not just do it?

A: All I can say is that this is a person on national television who said I wanted to put blacks back into slavery. This thing has gotten to a place that’s far beyond where it should be. I’d be more than happy to meet with her in private and have a discussion with her.

Comments

[salvage]

He selectively edited a video that showed her to be something she is not and then broadcast it to the world. Her lawyers are going to slaughter him, should be fun to watch.

[Peach]

An appointed official is a public person and she can not deny the video are her words no matter how edited or else Michael Moore would be bankrupt and in jail, Salvage. Nice try.

[A Stephens]

salvage,
even were we to agree that was the case, and we're not, she proceeded to go on various public platforms and by her very own words, showed herself to be the very thing she is accusing others of trying to paint her as.

Irony is always lost on people who go through life accusing others of what they themselves project.

[RefudiateObama2012]

Salvage, you might want to study the facts before you come on a message board and embarrass yourself.

[sitnam]

Too late, asshole.

[rrpjr]

salvage is an idiot. Breitbart didn't edit it, he released it. The video includes admissions against Breitbart's interest. Her livelihood wasn't jeopardized and proving malice would be next to impossible. First Amendment is rigorous protection in America -- especially with a case involving a public person giving speeches before organizations. Breitbart has a better chance of proving malice against her if he decided to pursue it, as her charges against him were wild and demonstrably malicious. The case isn't even close to passing legal muster, and will never get past the blustering stage.

[Jason - StoryBalloon.org]

Fact is.. Shirley and her husband have made a life capitalizing on white vs. black fears.

If she can't handle the heat.. well.. stop pretending to be a civil rights leader.

Unlike Dan, I think Breitbart acted stupidly this time.

He could have taken on the NAACP in a smarter way than this nonsense.

Now it's become a distraction instead of a tool.

And if it's a tool, it's for the dems now.

[swift boater]

Jason,

You're wrong or a little shortsighted on this one. Breitbart's throwing back the racism charge at the NAACP was never going to stand, they are too big a tool in the liberal/progressives/socialist's arsenal to allow a takedown of. No matter what evidence was presented the dinosaur media was going to attack him.

And I am not sure the Dems want to use this race-baiter as their pitbull. Right now Breitbart's charge has been abated, if she keeps onstage her racism will become very evident, too much so for the dinosaurs to hide.

Breitbart could have waited for the full video and released them at the same time, which, conveniently, the dinosaurs would have immediately forgotten about and still attacked him. Don't forget, people saw the original video with the NAACP nodding their heads at overt racism. That is now going into the total package when Obama and the Dems deals the race card.

[salvage]

>Breitbart didn't edit it, he released it.

Really? Who edited it then?

>The video includes admissions against Breitbart's interest.

I'm not sure what you're talking about or why you think it would have relevance.

>Her livelihood wasn't jeopardized and proving malice would be next to impossible.

Um... she was fired?

>First Amendment is rigorous protection in America

Is it? You sentence maker good!

-- especially with a case involving a public person giving speeches before organizations.

Once again, you put words together that make no sense, what does that have to do with anything? It's okay to make a public person look like a racist with a doctored tape?

>Breitbart has a better chance of proving malice against her if he decided to pursue it,

He has a better chance of sprouting wings and flying to the moon.

>as her charges against him were wild and demonstrably malicious.

Like the one that says he edited a video tape to make it look like she was a racist when in fact the people she was alleged to be racist against said she wasn't? Yeah, good luck proving that one! There's only the edited video tape and the testimony of the "victims" to go on!

>The case isn't even close to passing legal muster, and will never get past the blustering stage.

Uh huh, you're quite the Matlock J Ironssides there Sparky.

When she sues and wins remember to start shrieking about activist judges.

Or will it be like Iraq and the WMD? Just won't talk about it, I've noticed that when wingnuts are wrong they get a curiously selective amnesia.

[Ragspierre]

salvage, as a lawyer, you are an idiot.

Please review NYT v. Sullivan.

Sherrod would not only lose, she would, in Federal court, pay attorney fees.

[rrpjr]

You obviously have no understanding of or experience with defamation lawsuits. The bar is very high. The discovery phase is a potential minefield for her. Study up, sport.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/07/shirley-sherrod-may-make-andrew.html

There will be no lawsuit, just as there was no lawsuit in the ACORN case. This is pure bullying bogosity.

[Dan]

People in Michigan have a chance to send President Obama a message August 3rd! http://mittromneycentral.com/2010/07/30/we-need-pete-hoekstra-as-michigans-next-governor-vote-august-3rd/

President Obama is trying to knock down Michigan’s best chance at finally having a conservative governor, but we can’t let Obama win! The stakes of this election are simply too high!

August 3rd is the most important day in Michigan politics in years! We need to do what we can to help make sure Michigan sends President Obama a message.

[joyMc]

Because she does not mind playing the injured dove to get what she wants. Secondly she wants to put the screws to Barry et al until they give her everything she wants. The law suit she can't win is just a way to keep her bad self in front of the camera and in the news. She will suddenly be elevated within the Barry O regime. Then the law suit will disappear. Either that or there will be a totally cool book deal.

[david r]

She's a professional plaintiff and a Marxist, who hates whitey and his Uncle Toms. Sounds like Obama's kind of gal.

[Sharp Right Turn]

Salvage and others are incorrect in stating that Breitbart "edited" the video. As I understand and what I watched indicated a SEGMENT of a larger video. No editing, no cutting and repasting of words....just a continous portion of a video.
Since the words are all her own, Breitbart, or any other news organization, can relay that segement of video until the cows come home. She said the words, the video was uncut...how is that defamation or slander?

[Jim Ryan]

Is that MSNBC I hear on in the background, Salvage? Better run, Maddow's on. After that, Garofalo.

[bobmontgomery]

For more on the Sherrods, see The American Thinker. These people are not only racists, they are scam artists.

[Eileen]

I don't believe one word Breitbart says.

[memomachine]

Hmmmm.

@ Eileen

"I don't believe one word Breitbart says."

What about "the" or "a"? You don't believe that?

lol.

[Ragspierre]

Eileen can choose to close her little mind TOTALLY, thank you very much...!!!

And NOBODY can stop her...and if they try, she'll hold her breath and turn blue!!!

She has a right...

[salvage]

>Salvage and others are incorrect in stating that Breitbart "edited" the video. As I understand and what I watched indicated a SEGMENT of a larger video. No editing, no cutting and repasting of words....just a continous portion of a video.

...

Do you know what editing means? Its when you take SEGMENTS or a SEGMENT out of the the whole thing. So what you are saying here is Breitbart didn't edit the video he just edited the video.

See, there was cutting HE CUT OUT THE CONTEXT of the story she was telling to make it look the opposite of what it was.

Do you idiots really deny that the "victims" of her "racism" say that there was no racism? You know that right? They outright said Sherrod did nothing but help them?

>Since the words are all her own, Breitbart, or any other news organization, can relay that segement of video until the cows come home. She said the words, the video was uncut...how is that defamation or slander?

Okay, so your first statement says "As I understand and what I watched indicated a SEGMENT of a larger video."

And now you're saying it's "uncut" so tell me Brainiac McEinstein how does one get a SEGMENT without cutting?

[Ragspierre]

"Do you know what editing means? Its when you take SEGMENTS or a SEGMENT out of the the whole thing. So what you are saying here is Breitbart didn't edit the video he just edited the video."

First, name a print journolister, network reporter, or ANY MSM type who does not do precisely what you describe. You or I NEVER see or read an interview or taped event in its entirety, dummy.

"See, there was cutting HE CUT OUT THE CONTEXT of the story she was telling to make it look the opposite of what it was."

He published what he was provided. Complete. Unless you can prove otherwise.

And, just so's you know...that is not actionable under the law.

You wanta see a REALLY egregious example of a smear?

Suck on this....http://hindenblog1.blogspot.com/2010/07/crash-grinding-hypocrisy-of-beast.html

Do you deny that Sherrod is a bigot?

[rrpjr]

"Do you know what editing means?"

What shabby disingenuous bullshite. We all know damn well what "editing" means. SharpRight is dead right. He didn't edit it (according to either definition -- "he", Bretitbart, didn't edit it). Whatever else that means, it means the lawsuit is a joke.

You got your ass kicked.

[salvage]

>First, name a print journolister, network reporter, or ANY MSM type who does not do precisely what you describe.

Edit a video so that it makes it look like something that didn't happen did? Um... none? At least none who keep their jobs and don't get sued.

>You or I NEVER see or read an interview or taped event in its entirety, dummy.

It wasn't edited for time and clarity as is typical and ethical, it was selectively edited to present Sherrod as a racist when clearly she was not, that is not typical or ethical. It's weird that you can't understand the difference between the two states. See wingnut I also can't help but notice that you're not addressing the point that the farmers (y'know the people that she was accused of being racists at?) say that she helped them and that they were not discriminated against in anyway.

Why don't you address that point, that should be fascinating.

>He published what he was provided. Complete. Unless you can prove otherwise.

It wasn't complete, you just in your very first sentence said "You or I NEVER see or read an interview or taped event in its entirety, dummy." so now you're saying it was in it's entirety, complete?

Are you really so stupid that you contradict yourself after two sentences?

Do you really not understand that the incomplete EDITED video that Breitbart prepared and released makes it look as if she screwed the farmers over because they're White whereas the whole thing shows the EXACT OPPOSITE?

What part of that very simple, clearly proven and very actionable under all kinds of law string of facts baffles you?

Not sure what your link there has to do with any of this but you should try and focus, you don't seem to understand the Sherrod case, try and get that one down before moving on to other topics.

And I have no idea what Sherrod is other than someone who was clearly slandered by a selectively edited video tape.

See? Facts! Stick with 'em and you'll look slightly less the jackass.

At any rate I doubt Breitbart's lawyers are going to let it go to court, I suspect in about three months there will be a quiet apology and undisclosed settlement and Sherrod probably won't have to work again. That'll be some poetic justice right there.

[Mikey NTH]

I hope she keeps speaking out. The more she does the more damage teh Race Card (tm) takes. And that can only be good news for teh country.

[david r]

The NAACP is nothing but a bunch of hate mongers looking to make a buck. Here in Austin, the local NAACP head went on TV yesterday and berated city officials for not paying $750K in "settlement" to the family of a crook shot by the police because he would not give up his gun. He said that "White people should be afraid to go into (predominately black and hispanic) East Austin." Really a noble organization, huh ?

[rrpjr]

"Do you really not understand that the incomplete EDITED video that Breitbart prepared and released makes it look as if she screwed the farmers over.."

This is how the Left argues -- repeating moronically and in multiple ways the same lie until people just tire of responding or the lie simply materializes into an accepted truth.

Breitbart didn't "prepare" or edit the tape. Breitbart released the tape. If you want to say the tape was incomplete, and that Breitbart knowingly released a truncated tape, then you do nothing more than place Breitbart smack in the center of both mainstream journalism practices and political speech in which truncated and even out-of-context tapes of public officials are circulated every day. Moreover, Breitbart issued a timely correction, weakening any claims of malice, which must attend such a lawsuit involving a public person as set forth in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). Moreover, even the portion of the tape that Breitbart released provided evidence of Sherrod's claims of redemption, further udnermining any charges of "malice." Moreover, Breitbart's advertised and public intention for releasing the tape was to demonstrate an NAACP audience receptive to racist language, not attack Sherrod. The tape proves this to be true.

Sherrod would be wiser to take up a lawsuit against those who fired her before seeing the whole tape. But then these people re-hired her. No, she really hasn't got a case against anybody. This is all business as usual in the fray of American political speech, exceptional only for the matter of race, and for Andrew Breitbart's civilized interest in addressing the loose ends of the issue and his own responsibility (something completely unknown and inconceivable among the slanderous Left).

This is all about self-aggrandizement and sending a message. There will be no lawsuit.

[salvage]

>Breitbart didn't "prepare" or edit the tape.

Again I ask who did?

>If you want to say the tape was incomplete, and that Breitbart knowingly released a truncated tape, then you do nothing more than place Breitbart smack in the center of both mainstream journalism practices and political speech in which truncated and even out-of-context tapes of public officials are circulated every day.

The denial here is staggering, the initial tape was incomplete, again this is a fact, it was incomplete in such a way that it showed Sherrod to be racist when she was being the exact opposite. And no, there are not "out of context" tapes circulating like this everyday. Aside from those obvbious facts what you seem to be saying is that because other people do wrong things it's okay to do wrong things without actually admititing that Breitbart did anything wrong.

Are you really this stupid and crazy?

>Moreover, Breitbart issued a timely correction, weakening any claims of malice, which must attend such a lawsuit involving a public person as set forth in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).

I guess you are really this stupid, you now seem to be saying he did nothing wrong yet offered a correction anyway? So what was he correcting then? In fact Breitbart still insists he did nothing wrong and his "correction" didn't address the meat of the mater; he selectively edited a video making Sherrod look racist when she was talking about being the exact opposite. He didn't talk about that in his "correction.

>Moreover, even the portion of the tape that Breitbart released provided evidence of Sherrod's claims of redemption, further udnermining any charges of "malice."

And you really are this crazy, if the tape showed the redemption than she wouldn't have been fired and the NAACP wouldn't have condemed her would they? They firing and condemning was only apologized and retracted AFTER the whole tape came out.

See that's what crazy means; you don't comprehend reality.

>Moreover, Breitbart's advertised and public intention for releasing the tape was to demonstrate an NAACP audience receptive to racist language, not attack Sherrod. The tape proves this to be true.

Yeah, weird that wasn't what the initial story was about, it was about Sherrod and that "clarification" came out only after the whole tape was released.Furthermore since the story was about RACISM BEING BAD I'm not sure how that makes the NAACP receptive to racism.

Are you on medication? You may want to up the dose crazy wingnut.

>Sherrod would be wiser to take up a lawsuit against those who fired her before seeing the whole tape.

So... it's the victim of the hoax that should sue the other victims of the hoax while the purported of the hoax goes without reprimand?

Forget upping the dose, you need brain surgery not to fix but to have one installed.

The people who fired her already apologized because they should have waited for the whole story but since they didn't make the tape that tricked them I'm not they're all that culpable.

>But then these people re-hired her. No, she really hasn't got a case against anybody.

No, she does, he reputation was most certainly besmirched, she obviously went through a great deal of stress, she has more than enough for a case.

Since you denial reality I guess you can't see that for yourself but for us sane not stupid as a sack of retard hammers it's pretty obvious.

>This is all business as usual in the fray of American political speech,

LOL! Yes! Edited videos showing people who aren't racist being racist happen every day!

Again this wingnut logic; because bad things happen it doesn't matter that bad things happen, how does that even begin to make any sort of sense? Hey your wife was murdered but the cops aren't going to bother searching for the killer because it happens all the time!

Retards!

>This is all about self-aggrandizement and sending a message. There will be no lawsuit.

What will you shriek about when the lawsuit starts / settles? Activist judges? Some shadowy Obama conspiracy? Satan? Or will you just forget it all like Iraq?

Can't wait to find out, I'm sure whatever it is it will be stupid and crazy.

[rrpjr]

"Are you really this stupid and crazy?"

Yes, apparently I have been. Fortunately, I've learned the error of my ways.

[Ragspierre]

"At any rate I doubt Breitbart's lawyers are going to let it go to court, I suspect in about three months there will be a quiet apology and undisclosed settlement and Sherrod probably won't have to work again. That'll be some poetic justice right there."

I've offered to assist with the Breitbart defense, which would be both a walk-in-the-park AND a conservative PR coup.

But you've made a prediction, and it will be FUN you see you made a fool of in the future, as now.

Lemme make this point yet again; under NYT v. Sullivan, Sherrod has no case for defamation. None. If she brings one, expect her to pay for Breitbart's lawyers.

There are at least two reasons for this: under the NYT standard, Sherrod could never prove her case, AND TRUTH IS A PERFECT DEFENSE AGAINST DEFAMATION.

The Sherrods are bigots...racial and otherwise.

salvage, do you deny that?

[Ragspierre]

salvage, do you deny that several people in the press...and in political office...have repeated the outright lie that TEA Party people called members of Congress the "N" word, and intentionally spat on them (as opposed to "stage spit")?

Yes or No, please.

[rrpjr]

One other thing. Any true “liberal” who appreciated the causes of liberty, free speech and “speaking truth to power” would be very wary, as matters of principle and self-interest, of ever supporting the plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit against the press. It isn’t conducive to the causes. And maybe, you never know, the shoe might be on the other foot someday.

The fact that leftists are actually celebrating the news of an alleged lawsuit points not only to their ignorance of the law in this case, but to their feral immaturity.

[salvage]

>I've offered to assist with the Breitbart defense, which would be both a walk-in-the-park AND a conservative PR coup.

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

>But you've made a prediction, and it will be FUN you see you made a fool of in the future, as now.

Yes! I am the fool here! The way you've rebutted all my points... oh wait... no you haven't, you're just calling me names. Can you maybe answer some of my points than tag it with an insult? Nah, that too much thinky for your poor wingnut brain.

>Lemme make this point yet again; under NYT v. Sullivan, Sherrod has no case for defamation. None. If she brings one, expect her to pay for Breitbart's lawyers.

Yeah, I bet it's your keen understanding of the facts of the case and your novel interpretation of a precedent that will have Breitbart's lawyers just rampaging to your door to take you up on your offer.

See, in the Sullivan case you have a defense that worked cuz it was, y'know, the truth and made sense and stuff? In this case you have the defendant lying than lying about the lying than lying some more. The way he switched his story to say that it wasn't about Sherrod after the tape got out is what's going to kill him, that was painfully obviously damage control and it just made things worse for him.

>There are at least two reasons for this: under the NYT standard, Sherrod could never prove her case, AND TRUTH IS A PERFECT DEFENSE AGAINST DEFAMATION.

Yeah, all she has is the tape that Brietbart first released making her look racists and then the initial reaction (fired, her reputation destroyed etc.) and then the whole tape exonerating her and showing quite clearly that the tape was doctored as proof for a slanderous lie.

Yup, she doesn't stand a chance!

>The Sherrods are bigots...racial and otherwise.

>salvage, do you deny that?

>salvage, do you deny that several people in the press...and in political office...have repeated the outright lie that TEA Party people called members of Congress the "N" word, and intentionally spat on them (as opposed to "stage spit")?

See this is what wingnuts do when they've lost, try and change the subject or at the very least throw up chaff.

I have no idea what Sherrod is are but judging from the whole tape and the testimony of the farmers (why won't you address that point?) if she's bigoted she's so good at hiding it that she might as well not be.

Furthermore I have no idea what Tea Baggers do at their rallies but I have no doubt there are racists amongst them just as there are racists amongst any group of people over a certain size. Statistically it's inevitable in America. There are racists in the Democrat party, heck there are racists in the Green Party I'd be willing to bet because America is lousy with racists, it's all rather pathetic.

But all of that doesn't change the facts of this case, so focus children, Breitbart edited a tape, made a woman who isn't look like a racist that resulted in her getting fired and her reputation damaged, he got busted, tried to spin, failed and now her lawyers are going to eat his lunch for breakfast brunch, dinner and supper.

Unless they hire Ragspierre who will leap at the judge shrieking "NYT v. Sullivan! NYT v. Sullivan! NYT v. Sullivan" then Brietbart totally walk!

[pd]

Ragspierre - IANL but I just took the bar. It's an interesting situation involving defamation law. The mens rea requirement under NYT v. Sullivan is intentional or reckless disregard for the falsity of the statement. Although Briebart's conduct doesn't appear to have been intentional, it seems like he could have been reckless for releasing the tape (if the tape contained a false statement).

I agree that the central issue of the case is the falsity of the statement. I wonder how much the context matters compared to the video itself? The explanation that accompanied the video both on Briebart's site and on youtube puts the video in context. Those statements could form the basis for defamation depending on the content.

Should be an interesting case. It will be interesting to see if the MSM springs to the defense of someone in the new media (is Briebart considered a blogger?).

[Ragspierre]

salvage;

I don't attempt to respond to blather, no matter how often repeated. It is a vacuous exercise.

The Sherrods ARE racists. So, pray tell, how could Breitbart...HAD he done what you keep raving he did (and he didn't)...damage their reputation? Hmmm...???

PUBLISHING a tape...even one that was "edited" (as you admit all media tape are edited)...is not defamation. It is not unethical. It is not immoral. It is not fattening.

Breitbart's publication of a tape he was provided...a segment of a really rambling, boring 40 minute speech...was intended to show the racism of the NAACP, which you admit above.

So, how's that defamation? How could Sherrod PROVE to a jury she's no bigot after making the statements she has in the last week?

pd:

The NYT mens rea only comes into play IF the publication was FALSE, and the publisher KNEW or had reason to believe it was FALSE (from memory). It is established that Breitbart DID NOT have access to the entire speech, whereas the NAACP DID. So, how could Sherrod meet her burden?

[Comanche Voter]

Salvage when you're in a hole and look like a total nincompoop--follow the first rule of holes and stop digging. And anyway you need to go away, your mom has called from the kitchen and said lunch is on the table.

[pd]

Ragspierre - I think falsity is the big issue. If Sherrod can't prove falsity - and she has to affirmatively prove it - then the other elements don't matter.

Unless I'm missing something, I don't think she has to prove falsity before she gets an opportunity to prove recklessness. She doesn't have to prove that Briebart had a reason to know it was false, just that he was reckless regarding the veracity of the video. It's part of the malice requirement for defamation of a public figure. (But the same result - if she can't prove falsity, it doesn't matter if Briebart was reckless).

I'm having a difficult time imagining how Sherrod is going to attempt to show falsity. My guess is that she will argue that the video was cut off in such a way as to falsely portray her as harming the white farmers (by depriving them of government assistance). My guess is that she will stay away from the argument that the video generally portrays her as racist, and instead keep it as close to specific factual allegations as she can.

Again, falsity is the big issue. I'm having a hard time anticipating how Sherrod will try to prove falsity. Have any 1st Amendment scholars weighed in on this? I can't find anything on Volokh Conspiracy, which is unfortunate because one of his many areas of expertise is 1st Amendment law.

[Ragspierre]

http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2010/07/30/who-got-to-chris-matthews-hardball-defense-of-breitbart-memory-holed/

pd, that will help, and it's very fresh.

Falsity is THE threshold. She has to PROVE that a FALSE statement was published before anything else happens.

Then she has to PROVE NYT MALICE...which is one of the hardest things in the world to do. Not impossible...JUST VERY FREAKING HARD. I assert, IMPOSSIBLE on these facts.

ONLY after those are met do we get to damages.

So, please, please, please, Mrs. Sherrod...BRING IT!!!!

[North Dallas Thirty]

Sherrod is an extremely stupid and ignorant woman.

But then again, when you see the people like Salvage with which she has been surrounded her entire life, it's not hard to figure out why.

Sherrod believes, like Salvage, that she will automatically get a verdict in her favor because of her black skin color. Salvage and his racist ilk have told her her entire life that anything that goes wrong is due to "racism" and that she is always right.

The reason the Obama Administration is trying so desperately to shut up this woman is very simple: they know exactly how dumb and corrupt she is and what exactly she will start screaming on the stand.

Piece o' cake. And Breitbart is smart enough to realize that she won't do the intelligent thing in this case.

[salvage]

>I don't attempt to respond to blather, no matter how often repeated. It is a vacuous exercise.

So that would be no, you won't respond to points, you'll just stick to talking about stuff that doesn't matter?

>The Sherrods ARE racists.

Weird that the people they were supposed to be racist against don't think so, why is that?

>So, pray tell, how could Breitbart...HAD he done what you keep raving he did (and he didn't)...damage their reputation? Hmmm...???

He edited and published a tape of Sherrod making it look like she was a racist, this lead to her being fired and condemned by the NAACP, these are facts you silly bitch that you don't even dispute.

>PUBLISHING a tape...even one that was "edited" (as you admit all media tape are edited)...is not defamation. It is not unethical. It is not immoral. It is not fattening.

Once again are you stupid or can't you read? Tapes are edited for time and clarity, that is the SOP they are not edited to make lies truth, that is actionable. To edited and release a tape to make a person look a racist when they are not is most certainly defamation. Clearly you are too stupid to understand this.

>Breitbart's publication of a tape he was provided...a segment of a really rambling, boring 40 minute speech...was intended to show the racism of the NAACP, which you admit above.

Geezes K Rist, you really are too stupid to talk to because a) the tape does not show the racism of the NAACP and b) I said every organization has racists. See how you selectively repeated what I said out of context in a pathetic attempt to be "right"? Perhaps that's why you can't tell when others do it your so used to it yourself.

>So, how's that defamation? How could Sherrod PROVE to a jury she's no bigot after making the statements she has in the last week?

As I've explained but you still can't wrap your pea wingnut brain around he made someone look to be a racist when they were not being a racist and that is defamation. She doesn't have to prove she's anything, all she has to do is play the first tape, testify about her firing and the NAACP statement condemning her then play the whole tape, talk about the various retractions and boom, she's got a whole new stream of income.

But that won't happen, Breitbart's lawyers will insist that he settles... then again he is a king wingnut and doing the smart thing is never the wingnut way so who knows? Maybe he'll buck his lawyers and go to trial anyway, that'd be as sweet as a Sarah Palin 2012 campaign; there's nothing more entertaining then stupid people screwing themselves.

[rrpjr]

He didn't edit the tape. You can say it as often as you like -- it won't make it true.

[salvage]

So what did he do to the tape?

[Gmax]

Exactly whar damages can she prove? she got a better gig out of the whole thing?

And Salvage you really ought to get out more. Seriously.

[salvage]

>Exactly whar damages can she prove?

She was fired and condemned by the NAACP, see that's a bell that can't be un-rung, it doesn't matter that she got her job back or even a better one once the fraud was exposed.

>she got a better gig out of the whole thing?

It's a bit like if you got drunk and crashed into someone's car and then argued that the injuries had not only healed but they put in a steel plate so the victim is even stronger than before so they can't sue.

And I should get out more but alas my work keeps me at the computer but at least I get out enough to know reality so maybe you should try for some horizon expanding, you seem pretty ignorant of basic facts.

[Ragspierre]

Well, salvage...

I've explained how this works to you. You want to see a unicorn legal system, which is swell. Go for it...your choice.

Time will disappoint you. Bitterly, I suspect. That will increase your hatred and detachment from reality. This will put you in a very select group of people, along with Charles and Shirley Sherrod. Both irrational haters, which is sad.

Thank you, though, for your help with the demonstration of how the Collective "thinks".

[salvage]

No, you haven't explained anything actually but you're a wingnut, that sort of thing is beyond your pay-grade and you clearly don't even understand the whole story. For instance:

>along with Charles and Shirley Sherrod. Both irrational haters,

As I've explained several times now the farmers she is accused of being racist at say she was nothing but. I've asked you to acknowledge or comment on this point but you just keep ignoring it because you know that it completely demolishes your argument.

Make wingnut confused and angry so when that happens so you just pretend it's not there.

But what gives your ignorance further depth is that the Sherodd's, if haters, would certainly have their reasons:

Sherrod’s rich and tragic 62 years makes it all the more embarrassing for Obama. Her father was murdered in 1965 by white men who were never indicted. Her younger sisters endured cross burnings for integrating schools. Her husband was a courageous civil rights worker who was beaten by an ax-handle-wielding white mob. The family home was shot into and the Sherrods lost their own farm to discriminatory loan practices.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/31/speaking_out/

And yet after all that she still helped out those white farmers who, once again, say she did not discriminate against them in any way.

Oh noes! Facts! Run away wignuts, run away!

[Ragspierre]

http://hindenblog1.blogspot.com/2010/07/burn-tell-me-if-you-think-this-is.html

and

http://hindenblog1.blogspot.com/2010/07/burn-sherrods-further-display-of-true.html

Everybody who hates can find an excuse. Look at you...

[Ragspierre]

If I need to bounce this rubble any more, this is a great way to do it...

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/07/original-sherrod-clip-was-not-false.html

[itsMike2Cents]

Ragspierre,
Personally, I hope Breirtbart accepts your offer of legal services.
That you equate what happened here with NYT vs. Sullivan just shows how ill served he'd would be by your counsel.

When somebody knowingly distributes an edited video and alongside claims that it is 'video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee', proving malice and defamation ain't that hard.

And Breitbart (and his actual lawyers) know this, which is why he is now offering to sit down with her and have a discussion (and wipe the sweat from his brow)...

[Ragspierre]

mikeNOsense...

Jacobson http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/07/original-sherrod-clip-was-not-false.html

Hugh Hewitt

And I all say...as, you know...LAWYERS...that you are full of sh!t.

Time will tell. I will expect...even demand...a full grovel when the lawsuit on defamation...IF ever filed...is poured out of court.