READER COMMENTS ON

"BREAKING AP: Sherrod Plans to Sue Breitbart"

(16 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... IntelVet said on 7/29/2010 @ 10:36 am PT...





Putting "Andy" in jail for a while (GITMO?). Now, that would be worth contributing money for......

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... colinjames said on 7/29/2010 @ 10:53 am PT...





Well Halleluja! Next comes Glen Beck for inciting violence against the Tides Foundation. Finally, a Dem with some BALLS! May the lawsuits begin, where warranted.

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Billy said on 7/29/2010 @ 11:09 am PT...





At first I thought this would be a hard case to prove. I thought, how can Shirley Sherrod prove professional racist Andrew Breitbart selectively aired portions of that video with the intention of damaging her? But now that I've had time to think about it, maybe I was setting the bar too high. Maybe Sherrod only need demonstrate Andrew Brietbart's malicious propensity to abandon all "journalistic" standards when "reporting" on black people who don't happen to be Republicans. Perhaps she'll get professional racist James O'Keefe on the record to prove her case. It should be fun.

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... Tom Woolf said on 7/29/2010 @ 11:14 am PT...





Her biggest obstacle, I believe, will be his defense of "absence of malice". He will claim that he did not know the video was deceptive, and that he believed the video was true, all as a continuation of his "I did not edit the video - somebody gave it to me that way" shtick. I would love to be on that jury to hear that defense.

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... LawyerUp said on 7/29/2010 @ 11:23 am PT...





Tom Woofe: She was not a public figure. Malice is not an issue. Great case, plus she has a good shot at puitive damages

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Hankydub said on 7/29/2010 @ 1:36 pm PT...





I'm really disappointed that Brad Friedman hasn't been "Breitbarted" yet. C'mon Andy!

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Ancient said on 7/29/2010 @ 1:36 pm PT...





Will it be disclosed who pays his lawyer bills?

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Emily said on 7/29/2010 @ 2:55 pm PT...





Nice work, Shirley. I hope you beat the pants off that moron Breitbart. Emily

http://emilyscoffeespot.blogspot.com

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... SreeBee said on 7/29/2010 @ 4:16 pm PT...





Oh I hope she sues and WINS WINS WINS!!!!! Breitbart has been too reckless, negligent, and sociopathic in his media assasination campaign. He'll only get worse if not directly confronted on his bs.

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Mark da Shark said on 7/29/2010 @ 6:23 pm PT...





SreeBee #9. Again, this isn't as simple as it looks. If Sherrod is found to be a public offical, it will be very difficult for her to win. This is by no means a slam dunk. If she files, she may very well follow the footsteps of ACORN in Maryland. File the suit for self-gratification, and then let it die. While we are on the subject, what has happened in the Philly case (Conway-Russell v. James E. O’Keefe III)? Have the plaintiffs abandoned this one too?

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... libhomo said on 7/29/2010 @ 7:07 pm PT...





I am curious as to whether Breitbart can be prosecuted for fraud.

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Rvrctyrdnck said on 7/30/2010 @ 10:12 am PT...





I doubt she can find the lawyers to take on Faux News also but their ADDITIONAL editing made the video appear even WORSE that what Brightscum posted on his website.

The good news for Ms. Sherrod is that she was a private citizen therefore the liable bar is somewhat lower. She only has to prove that Faux acted with malice publishing the story. Now running the story in and of its self would fall under the category of "news" however I would love to have a JURY decide if the Faux News's EDITING of the tape constituted intent to defame.

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Rvrctyrdnck said on 7/30/2010 @ 10:20 am PT...





What should sink Brightscum is the ADDITIONAL titling he, yes he, ADDED to the video he was "given". In that ADDITIONAL titling he made two substantial and material FALSE and DEFAMITORY claims. HE said she acted as a government official to deny benefits, neither of which were true!

Now the most interesting part will be the determination of damages. Given that she only lost her job for a matter of days and that the resulting publicity actually ENHANCED her reputation I’m not sure she could collect the big pay day we all here at the Brad Blog think Brightscum deserves to pay for his total lack of ethics!

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Rvrctyrdnck said on 7/30/2010 @ 10:35 am PT...





Faux News can escape responsibility by saying that they were only "reporting" what Brightscum had posted and get off the hook entirely UNLESS it can be PROVED that they altered the video to present a DIFFERENT story than what Brightscum posted on Biggovt AND that that presentation was materially different AND was KNOWINGLY factually incorrect and/or done with malice. Now the armchair lawyers out there like me would say that you don't need to prove malice since she is a private citizen, however it is easier to prove malice in this case than it would be to PROVE that Faux News "should" have know that the comments were 180 degrees opposite from what she actually said.

News organizations are NOT required by CRIMINAL LAW to be accurate. ONLY the consequences of CIVIL action require ANY media to be accurate! And that my friends is why big media like Faux News and the small media like your home town Newspapers can get away with LYING and DEFAMATION on a regular basis. Unless you have the $’s to hold them accountable they can do & say just about anything they want!

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... PLR Pete said on 8/1/2010 @ 2:32 am PT...





Gonna be a difficult case to prove unless there is counter evidence - but I hope she wins and takes Breitbart down a peg or 10.

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Merle said on 8/12/2010 @ 4:57 pm PT...

