Shirley Sherrod To Sue Andrew Breitbart

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Source: The Huffington Post

SAN DIEGO — Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted an edited video of her making racially tinged remarks last week.

Sherrod made the announcement in San Diego at the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention.

The edited video posted by Andrew Breitbart led Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to ask her to resign, a decision he reconsidered after seeing the entire video of her March speech to a local NAACP group. In the full speech, Sherrod spoke of racial reconciliation and lessons she learned after initially hesitating to help a white farmer save his home.

Vilsack and President Barack Obama later called Sherrod to apologize for her hasty ouster. Vilsack has offered her a new job at the department, which she is still considering.



Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/shirley-sherrod-to-sue-an_n_663656.html

[jah the baptist]

1. good luck and god speedspeed ms. sherrod

i hope she takes that son of a bitch to the fucking cleaners.

[47of74]

2. I hope Sherrod takes that fucker to the cleaners

[SomeGuyInEagan]

63. Sue him and all his heirs into a hole out of which they can never climb out ...

... and maybe the next time someone decides to try this crap, someone close to him/her will stop it.

Money talks. And talks loud to people like him. Wipe him out financially forever and reduce his existence to sub-poverty as an example to anyone who might try it again.

[24601]

127. "His heirs?" The constutition forbids forfeiture of blood. n/t

[No Elephants]

156. No, it doesn't, but where in the South are you from?

The Const. prohibits corruption of blood and forfeiture, both of which refer to property.


"The doctrine in English common law that someone attainted of felony or treason has corrupt blood and so cannot inherit property and has no legal heirs"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS337US337&defl=en&q=define:corruption+of+blood&sa=X&ei=hyNTTM2dEML-8AaynayMBA&ved=0CAYQkAE

[Maeve]

3. Go, girl! They only care when you hit them in the pocket! eom

[Oceansaway]

4. wooooohoooooo !!...nt

[Warpy]

5. I hope you managed to find a particularly rabid, left wing lawyer

who will use subpoena power to bust the right wing lie machine right open.

Cockroaches always run from the light and it will be great to see them turn on each other and then scatter.

[activa8tr]

8. Great idea! I like that analogy, too. They really are cockroaches! n/t

[drmeow]

87. Cockroaches provide a beneficial service

They break down organic waste and litter. They help give us compost which helps other things grow. These e-coli infested piles of human excrement serve no such beneficial service. I think they are more like the HIV virus - they infected this country under Reagan (and before) but it's taken a long time for the symptoms to really become apparent - Bush was full blown AIDS but we've maybe brought it under control with some prescription Obama; they mutate constantly making them hard to kill; they crowd out the beneficial cells/voices; they cause enormous amounts of pain and suffering - disproportionately against the poor, weak and minorities; and unless we can find a cure, they are going to kill the host.

[pnorman]

88. "Cockroaches provide a beneficial service ........"

That's a SAVER, and I may "borrow" it more or less 'as is'. Also, can you explain the meaning of your Avatar? It's long puzzled me.

[drmeow]

91. Avatar

[pnorman]

99. Thanks!

n/t

[TerribleLarryDingle]

109. Best analogy ever!

Kudos!

[drmeow]

155. Thanks

I just came up with it on the fly as I was writing the post and was very disturbed by how well it fit!

[rhett o rick]

126. You make me sick.

But other than that it was a good post.

[DBoon]

13. even if she receives no compensation for her harm

The process of discovery will shine a bright light on that nest of cockroaches

That alone is worth it

[Warpy]

17. Exactly, sometimes winning a case is not the real point

which is something I pointed out when Kerry was loath to sue the Smear Boat liars.

[glitch]

102. His funders are probably nervous, they do not like sunshine.

In the old days they could count on their corporate media to cover for them, now the left blogosphere is going to shine it so brightly they'll have to wear shades to leave the house at night. They'll be using the service entrance like a Cheney. Or a Schwarzeneggar.
:headbang:

[Downwinder]

15. How about a right wing cannibalistic one, out for the BIG bucks?

[glitch]

103. Can't trust em to not take a bribe and throw the case. nt

[peace frog]

65. Absolutely, she should get the best lefty shark in the water

one who is hungry to scarf up some tasty wingnut butthole. :evilgrin:

[NJmaverick]

6. Good I hope she takes that racist bastard for everything he is worth

This sort of tactic has precedence, lawsuits were what brought down more than a few KKK chapters.

[activa8tr]

10. You mean "take all his money", he's worth zero as a human being! n/t

[NJmaverick]

48. point taken

:hi:

[Irishonly]

85. Agreed but.....

I really hope the light will shine so brightly on his racism, lack of being anything that resembles a human being and on and on that even Faux will laugh if he ever comes up with a video again.

[jah the baptist]

14. hey man, and not to mention the rocks that will be turned over during the

discovery process.

mwahahahahaha!

[NJmaverick]

49. Ah, I forgot all about that bonus issue

yeah, that could be very interesting.

[CTyankee]

7. That smarmy SOB will have his sneer wiped off his face once she

gets a huge damage award out of him. He'll be sorry he screwed with her for SURE! She is one smart lady and I hope she gets the best lawyer in this country to go after him. I hope he grows old in dire poverty because she ruins him financially...

[Bitwit1234]

9. What with ACORN and Shirley Sherrod filing lawsuits

what Breitbart gonna pay them with. Is Drudge and Fox gonna foot the bill. I think she should add all the news companies that aired the ads. After all if they were responsible news organizations they would have verified that Breitbummer was airing edited tapes.

[activa8tr]

12. Yes, I agree, Fixed Noise and the Fixed Noise web site and Drudge

and maybe a few others......."FREE" Republic?

[Mike Daniels]

59. How about MSNBC as well which ran the tape just like everyone else did?

Just because they have a liberal programming block it doesn't let them off the hook for their part in promoting the story.

[awnobles]

46. Hopefully

They seem to be negligent in not fact-checking or accomplices if they knew the tapes were edited.

[NewJeffCT]

74. He'll declare bankruptcy

lay low for a few years, and then will return as a RW radio host and fill-in talking head on Fox News.

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. Maybe this will send a message those other lurking scumbags...

....think carefully before you try to destroy someone.

[NoQuarter]

147. "...think carefully before you try to destroy someone"

...with turds pulled out of your ass.

[jaxx]

16. Breitbart tangled with the wrong woman this time.

I wish her the very best and hope she cleans his plow once and for all.

[JustAnotherGen]

18. Doggone it!

And I gave money and have committed a monthly amount to Alan Grayson's re-election.

Siiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggh!

He'd be a GREAT attorney on this case! :-)

[Turborama]

26. LOL that's exactly what I was thinking.

As you said, he'd be perfect for this case!

[unblock]

19. from a legal perspective, won't she have a hard time proving damages?

obviously her reputation was severely damaged and she got fired, and if that were the end of the story, no problem, obvious damages, plus emotional distress and all that.

however, as the truth has emerged very quickly (by political gossip standards) and she got a job offer from her old employer that appears to be a promotion, much of the damage has been short-lived or even completely addressed.

by the time this case gets to trial, the defense might be able to show that her situation has actually improved, and in a very perverse and unintended way, breitbart might have done her a favor.

i'd very much love for breibart to go bankrupt because of this, but i can see this becoming one of those cases where they find in favor of the plaintiff but award only $1.00.

[Pab Sungenis]

22. The Marquis of Queensbury didn't collect a penny from Oscar Wilde, either

but the scrutiny that grew out of the trial destroyed Wilde's career and even led to prison.

Breitbart can come out of this suit so thoroughly discredited that he'll never be able to make a living as an online muckmaker (not muckraker) ever again.

[madmax]

58. +1

[SomeGuyInEagan]

89. I dunno ...

... there will always be high-paying jobs for shitheel shills like him and this only enhances his reputation with that sort (as I guess it should, since it did make Vilsaak, the WH and others look like incompetent boobs (because on this issue, they were)).

[DissedByBush]

124. In that case, it was Wilde who sued

He sued the marquess over the claim that he was a practicing homosexual.

As we know, the marquess was indeed correct in his claim. Wilde dropped the suit when several male prostitutes were about to testify against him, and he had to pay the defendant's expenses.

Apply it here, Breitbart is correct and she will be paying his court fees.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

24. Maybe the plaintiff's attorney should round up 50 Fox Viewers/Tea-baggers and...

... depose them by asking if Shirley Sherrod is a discriminatory reverse racist Marxist.

That should cinch the damage to her reputation piece.

That said, I'm curious to hear an attorney's take on this case. Does Britefart have any protections because she was semi-public, or he was criticizing a government official, or is libel harder to establish when you take words out of context versus outright lies (partial truth defense). On the other hand, I think malice is pretty evident.

[connecticut yankee]

56. There's pain and suffering

as well as humiliation.

I hope she cleans him out.

[KansDem]

20. This will go a long way to end FOX's and other propagandists' practice of "selectively editing"

I hope it drives them out of business...:thumbsup:

[Pab Sungenis]

21. She's going to have to sue Fox, too.

Their coverage was cited as the main reason she "had to be" fired.

[Turbineguy]

23. Being held responsible?

not much point in being a conservative if you're going to be held responsible for your actions.

[LittleGirl]

25. *Stands and Cheers*

yeah.

[sui generis]

27. she needs to name Fox news in that lawsuit

[slampoet]

113. Corporations have unlimited resources and lifetimes. Better to sue Mortals don'tcha think?

[martymar64]

131. Vilsack should commit to paying her legal fees out of pocket

It was he who fired her. He should go this extra mile to do right by her.

Also I hope than any decent person that runs in Breitbart in a bar should go up to him and toss their drink right into his face. Preferably a Bloody Mary with extra Tabasco, that would sure sting!

[sui generis]

150. Actually a case with merit will make the docket

So giving up and suing Mortals is the same thing as throwing in the towel.

Elephants are far mightier than mice, but a mouse is pretty damn hard to stomp, if you're an elephant.

[slampoet]

151. Have you ever sued someone who is immortal? I have and it's still pending a decade later.

Live in the world where results matter,

not in a world where you are fighting for a footnote in your history lesson.



BTW - Mice get crushed by elephants every day. The elephants never notice and the mice don't know what hit them. Elephants only fear mice in cartoons.

[sui generis]

152. oh dear.

I suppose in my world, where results matter, I am the immortal elephant, in a manner of speaking.

And I got that way by not giving up. You are right though. If you are a plebe and self-defeating, you shouldn't bother trying.

I don't believe Ms. Sherrod is either.

[slampoet]

153. and now you take the false position that she isn't suing anyone.

You really aren't concerned with facts either, just winning this debate. good bye.

[sui generis]

154. what in hell are you talking about?

I said I think she should also file suit against fox news. I stand behind that.

Good riddance.

[BeliQueen]

28. Yes! **insert fist pump**

I hope I get picked for that jury.

[xxqqqzme]

29. Should be interesting who his attorney will

be. Who will lead his defense fund? That's when we find out who is backstage. Or who puts up the money for the settlement so it all goes away.

[Capitalocracy]

50. I hope she won't take a settlement... at least not under condition of secrecy

A lot of settlements are kept secret it seems, don't know if they could keep it a secret where the money comes from as well, of course. But I want to know who pays Breitbart's lawyers and how much they pay.

[texastoast]

30. To the cleaners with that asshole and all who would do the same!

May good luck and success be yours.

What an asshole he is.

[AllTooEasy]

31. She won't win, but I sure how she does...

...or atleast the legal fees will run the blogger out of business.

He will use the Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Press argument and the judges (both liberal and conservative) will unfortunately agree. I hope I'm wrong. Plus, they will argue that she lost her job because her boss didn't do his homework, not because of the video. She has a better case with the USDA.

Good, not GREAT luck. She deserves it!!!

[Robb]

32. I don't think he can use that, actually.

Proving malicious intent should be easy.

[peacetalksforall]

35. She doesn't have to claim she lost her job, does she. She can limit the claim

to manipulation of publishing to slander the character of? It would be a better lawsuit if the NAACP could be in on it, but they goofed and they may have weakened/ruined their organization for any participation in hers.

Maybe some lawyers will post.

[66 dmhlt]

107. She'd most likely sue under a "False Light" claim ...

Although IANAL, it would be doubtful that she would pursue any type of lawsuit surrounding her employment/firing situation. She not only resigned without pursuing forced termination proceedings, but she herself has said she’s not sure she wants her job back.

Sherrod’s most likely course will be to sue under the “False Light” and Defamation. Restatement Second defines the tort of false light:

Restatement (Second) of Torts

§§ 652A-E (1997)

652E. Publicity Placing Person in False Light

One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if

(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.

http://www.tomwbell.com/NetLaw/Ch05/R2ndTorts.html

It would seem that any reasonable person would agree that Breitbart’s actions were intentional, reckless and highly offensive.

It's also fairly evident that Sherrod would make it pass summary judgments and be able to get to discovery – which would most likely prove extremely embarrassing to Breitbart et al. Whether she prevails in a monetary judgment is another matter – but I’m not sure that’s what she’s really after in this matter.

John Dean has an excellent review critiquing legal options that are available to Ms. Sherrod. It’s quite long, so under the Fair Use Doctrine I’m just quoting from his summary:

Frankly, if I found myself in Shirley Sherrod's situation, I would file a lawsuit next week. But I could represent myself in court, and would take delight in going after a jackass like Breitbart, not to mention Fox News, to expose what they are doing. For me, the reward would be holding them accountable for even nominal damages and making their lives miserable.

(Snip)

Sherrod should be advised (and I say this based on a lot of personal experience) that conservatives like Breitbart will not play nicely merely because they have been taken to court. These authoritarian personalities, and those who share their thinking, go ballistic when confronted with legal actions. They resist being held accountable, and feel particularly threatened by legal actions. What Breitbart will do if Sherrod files a lawsuit against him is to quickly create a legal defense fund, with the support and financing of like-thinking conservatives, and he will hire as nasty an attorney as is available in his tribe. Soon, he will be using the legal process to harass Sherrod by digging into every inch of her life, and perhaps even countersuing Sherrod for claims as to which she has no knowledge. It will be ugly, and she must plan on several years of intense unpleasantness.

(Snip)

Hopefully, Sherrod will not proceed with a lawsuit for it will involve much more unpleasantness, and much of her time, with little reward. On the other hand, Andrew Breitbart, the Obama Administration, and the NAACP have given her a meaningful public presence. She has an important and timely message to send, and now, she also has a commanding presence on the public stage through which to share it. She should write a book and lecture, and share her experiences. Even thinking conservatives must acknowledge that Breitbart made himself look more the jerk, so I would hope that Sherrod gives her malevolent detractor no more of the negative attention he so craves.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20100723.html

[depakid]

130. Interestingly enough, even if Breitbart had libel & infringement coverage

the intentional nature of the tort against a public official, along with the facts of the case probably means it falls under an exclusion!

[RedCloud]

92. He cruelly hoaxed his report. His intent was to cause her great harm.

He has no chance in hell of winning.

[peacetalksforall]

33. 1. Steele and Breitbart leading the RNC event in August. Good timing. 2. Let's hope

the lawyer is able to follow the money and get it in the record.

The Republican Party continues to find the most ridiculous and malevolent creatures to lead their campaigns.

(May not be RNC, but it seems to be a major August event for R's)

[MrMickeysMom]

34. Let's all join a suite against Fox News...

There are sure to be legitimate claims related to dumbing down anyone whose work environment makes them hear or watch blips all day, instructing them to be stupid, and stay stupid.

Then there's the suite against BP for fucking up the earth. That should recruit a number of claimants.

[damntexdem]

36. Good!

I'd like to see her take him for everything he has; and then go after Faux News.

[Turborama]

37. Media Matters: Fox News Admits 'Breakdown' On Sherrod Coverage

Article here: http://mediamatters.org/strupp/201007280075

Media Matters have put together the timeline of exactly how it unfolded with screenshots: http://mediamatters.org/research/201007220004

[mckara]

41. Hammer Time, for Shirley's Lawyers!

[mckara]

38. Show Him No Mercy, Shirley!

[politicalmajority]

123. Ditto! We Have to Punish That Nasty Conservative Jackass!

[The Straight Story]

39. Will he sue Move On for the same thing? (nt)

[donquijoterocket]

51. my take

would be no because Breitbart's a cockroach and that amount of light will send him scurrying for his usual dark little hole.More or less on the same subject what's the current state of the suit brought by the former ACORN employee against the junior cockroaches O'Keefe and Giles to which Breitbart might be added as a defendant?

[The Straight Story]

52. I think any politician could now sue, given what we see during campaign season

Ever see a commercial that showed snippets of a statement and not the entire tape?

[LanternWaste]

55. New York Times v. Sullivan

"I think any politician could now sue..."

New York Times v. Sullivan makes that a practical impossibility.

[Bette Noir]

40. I hope she wins enough to put him out of business permanently.

[sonias]

42. Excellent news!

Thank you Shirley Sherrod - for standing up to this thug. :loveya: Shirley!

:bounce::bounce::bounce:

[EC]

43. Good,

maybe when these folks learn there are consequences for lies and slandering of peoples good names in the name of politics it'll stop.

[barbtries]

44. good.

i hope she breaks him.

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. You go, Shirley!!

Good move.

[dadzilla]

47. Not that I want to encourage lawyers

But I wish the very best to her in these efforts. I'd like to know who actually did the editing, who he called at Faux with this smear and if they have money ties.

[Capitalocracy]

53. Can you sue for being called a racist?

Don't want to be a debbie downer, it's a serious question. I think the reason the right wing makes these kinds of claims is that you can't really prove whether someone's a racist or not, and therefore I don't know if you can sue for being called that. If they can ever change those rules, of course, they'll stop calling people Marxists and start saying they actually literally work for the USSR. Which they'll start claiming still exists and has a nuclear bomb aimed at your daughter.

I hope they take so much money from this guy that he'll have to sell his kidneys to pay for it. I hope they take him for enough cash to make even Fox News think twice about pulling this kind of $hit in the future.

[Lifelong Protester]

54. Yay! Just yay!

Time to call these yahoos to account. Someone on the loudmouth channel needs to be made the example of what will not be tolerated ANY MORE.

[drgonzosghost]

57. Do you think ACORN can get in on this action? (EOM)

[mike r]

60. Yesss. Sue the bastards!

[Mad_Dem_X]

61. Yes! Go get 'im, Shirley!

:woohoo:

[myrna minx]

62. Good for her. K&R n/t

[florida08]

64. Go get 'em Shirley

From what I've seen she can sue him for libel. She lost her job but she was also defamed before the entire nation. She can't sue Fox the broadcast but she can sue Fox.com as they took credit for her firing because they posted it at their website before she was fired. What an ordeal she's been through. But look for the cock-a-roaches to come out in this. She'll need plenty of support to get thru it. Unless they decide to settle with her out of court..but I don't think she can be bought.

Good luck Mrs. Sherrod..Lord knows you deserve justice.

[katty]

66. bravo-sue the bastard!

[DainBramaged]

67. The fucker will declare bankruptcy and she'll never see a penny

or he will liquidate his holdings and disappear.


This is untenable for him, so he will cut his losses and basically run.

[Mr. Ected]

68. Shirley Sherrod - The Rosa Parks of our Generation

Until the Reptilian Party is vanquished of its simmering yet overt racism, we cannot truly say that racism is in our rear view mirror.

Same fight, second chorus.

[burnsei sensei]

69. EXCELLENT!

I am immensely pleased to hear of this.

[Happyhippychick]

70. Hells yes, you GO girl. Love ya!

[Jefferson23]

71. Great news! No absence of malice here, quite the contrary. n/t

[blueredneck]

72. Assisting her & her attorney

There are so many bright people on this forum--just on this thread! I hope her lawyer is a member or at the very least someone sends her attorney some of the links outlining the events as they unfolded that were posted on here. Might help in court. And yes, I truly hope FOX gets implicated somehow.

[FreeState]

73. Hope she wins! And I hope she starts honoring union and civil rights boycotts

The hotel she spoke at is being boycotted by the union and the LGBT community.

[Richd506]

75. Good for her!

Breitbart committed libel as far as I can see. He deserves to be sued...

[jdlh8894]

80. Libel? How?

She ought to be suing the USDA. They made her resign (or fired) for things that she said. Even though they were out of context,this is on the Govt.

[cstanleytech]

95. I thought she was asked to resign, not fired?

Regardless the point is in the end it appears that it was solely this guys fault for posting the edited video like he did and in the manner he did so that caused it thus its his fault and he should be the one to pay for it and not the USDA.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

76. Nail his testicle to the wall.

And then nail the other one to the same wall, 3 feet away.

[Solly Mack]

77. Good

[Kingofalldems]

78. K and R for Fox/Breitbart's good buddy

[Maineman]

79. Yes ! Go get him.

[SteveM]

81. "It's clobberin' time!" -- Hulk

[proteus_lives]

83. Actually, Ben Grimm (The Thing of the Fantastic Four) says, "It's clobberin' time!"

Hulk usually goes with the eloquent "Hulk smash puny man!" :-)

[SteveM]

98. Ah, yes! I must be more careful about quoting the greats!

[proteus_lives]

82. She should. I hope she wins.

[kiapolo]

84. Sherrod will lose this lawsuit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

"In 1964, however, the court issued an opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) dramatically changing the nature of libel law in the United States. In that case, the court determined that public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could demonstrate "actual malice" on the part of reporters or publishers. In that case, "actual malice" was defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." This decision was later extended to cover "public figures", although the standard is still considerably lower in the case of private individuals."

She was a public official at the time. She will have to prove actual malice which will be very hard to prove. My money is that this case will be thrown out on a 12(b)(6) motion by Breitbart's attorney's.

[Bolo Boffin]

90. If she can prove reckless disregard, she's got actual malice.

And reckless disregard is the best possible way to look at what Andrew Breitbart did to her.

[Kweli4Real]

93. Based on what you've cited ...

I have to disagree. You have accurately pointed to the controlling case and have accurately pointed out the issue; but I disagree that the motion for summary judgment would prevail. It depends on how the issue is framed.

I would first name fox"news" as a defendant, then frame the question as: whether intentional editting and/or presenting video in such a manner as to lead the reasonable viewer to believe that the video truthfully represents the editor's subsequent commentary, constitutes a recklessness or a wanton disregard for the truth?"

While Sullivan does stand for the actual malice proposition, it also suggests a "a clear and present danger of the obstruction of justice" exception to otherwise protected "half-truths" and "misinformation." I would argue that at the root of democracy is an informed electorate. As such Public Policy demands that we be able to trust the media. The fact that this particular editor has a history of knowingly distributing false or misleading information to a specific media outlet that claims to be unbiased news outlet and said outlet ran the story with out exercising it's due dilligence, public policy demands sanctions for breitbart's and/or fox"news'" conduct.

This will, at best, have the parties fighting amongst themselves over liability; but the testimony will discredit both entities.

But that said, this suit will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, see a courthouse beyond the filing. It'll be quietly settled ... for alot of money.

[glitch]

104. Agreed about the settling. Breitbart's funders will never allow light to shine on them.

They risk that in a public trial.

[Caretha]

128. Unless she refuses to settle

not everyone is motivated by money.

[glitch]

142. That would be so awesome!

She'll be under enormous pressure though and money might not be the motivation.

[florida08]

96. racial issues

were much different on the 60's than they are now. We've have a hotbed of racism since Obama took office. Would love to see Beck on the stand testifying along with Rush Limbaugh

[Romulox]

106. This is awful legal analysis.

Reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of a statement is "malice" under that standard.

"My money is that this case will be thrown out on a 12(b)(6) motion by Breitbart's attorney's."

LOL. Did you skip some Con Law classes to get a better grade in Civ Pro, or something? The first thing a legal professional needs to know is what they don't know. :hi:

[COLGATE4]

108. Your understanding of NYTimes v Sullivan is incorrect

Sherrod was not a 'public figure' as defined in that case at the time the offense was committed. She does not have to prove actual malice (although as an attorney I can tell you that what Brietbart did probably fits the criterion for 'actual malice'). Either way, she wins.

[treestar]

119. He did actually know what he was doing

He must have known he was showing a piece out of context. This case does not make it impossible for a public official. This is a good case for an example of actual malice.

[martymar64]

133. Also many of his recorded statements regarding this can reinforce the malice claim

[Kweli4Real]

86. My fantasy ...

(on this matter, anyway) would have breitbart, when faced with the prospect and reality of a ruinous $100,000,000 judgment, confusing during the deposition that he is a paid agent of fox"news." He, then, reaches into a briefcase and produces a terms of service agreement, on fox"news" letterhead indicating that he was specifically contracted to sow racial discord, "for the purpose of mobilizing the republican base of rubes and racist." And, my happy ending would be when he produces 62 hours of unedited video where murdoch and aimes are lounging around in a BP paid for condo, handing out bonus checks to breitbart, limbaugh, o'reilly, beck, hannity and that chick on fox and friends, for a job well done ... and the audio clearly has ann coulter banging on the door begging to get in.

[ejbr]

94. it's too bad the judicial system is slanted in favor of conservatives n/t

[wordpix]

97. Facts? What facts has Faux ever broadcast? Very few

Great that Sherrod is going after Breitbart. He smeared her. Maybe he and his ilk won't be so quick with the smear tactics next time.

[klook]

100. Best news I've heard all day!

Only one way to deal with bullies like this -- punch 'em right back in the mouth.

[Sanity Claws]

101. Damages

I hope she wins and I hope it's not a Pyrrhic victory.
As an attorney, I see the problem as damages. The lies were refuted early and she was offered another position, even though she was forced to resign. This means she will not have hard damages. (Even if she chooses not to take the position, it can come in as evidence of failure to mitigate damages.)
Presumed damages may be recoverable in defamation. However, the last I researched it, the amounts awarded as presumed damages tend to be token amounts.

I really would like to see the Acorn workers sue Breitbart and Fox. They have lost wages, emotional distress, and ruined reputations. I could see them recovering substantial sums.

[Romulox]

105. Put me on the jury! Can you say, "Exemplary* Damages"?

*Read: "punitive damages".

Breitbart's actions are outrageous such that he will have no choice but to beg Ms. Sherrod for a settlement. I wouldn't give it to him , Shirley!

[Faith No More]

110. Back to the stone age baby, back to the stone age

Make these bastards think twice before they try stuff like this again.

[Ramulux]

111. I wonder

if once this is all over and he loses the case, whether Fox news and other prominent conservatives will be willing to stand up for him.

Can you imagine, him being introduced as lying, felon Andrew Breitbart? I want to see this clown eat shit so bad.

[rateyes]

112. Hope she goes after Fox News, too.

[kiapolo]

114. Public official = public figure.

Her pleading will have to show some kind of actual malice, which will be very hard to prove, and if she does get to the trial stage, she will have a hard time proving actual malice. A mistake isn't actual malice. The evidence shown so far doesn't show actual malice ("knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."). I know this may be unpopular here, but Sherrod has the burden of showing the actual malice. Where is the evidence that Breitbart knew what he posted was false or that he acted with a reckless disregard whether it was false or not? Sure there is plenty of assuming and assigning what we think he did...but what evidence that actually shows that malice?

by-the-way, when I was in law school, you couldn't take civ. pro and con. law in the same year ;)

[Kweli4Real]

118. Again ... It would depend on how she framed the issue ...

As I commented in post #93, if she framed the questions as whether intentional and/or knowingly editting and/or presenting video in such a manner as to lead the reasonable viewer to believe that the video truthfully represents the editor's subsequent commentary, constitutes a recklessness or a wanton disregard for the truth?" The Courts would likely put that question to the jury, especially if she argues public policy.

And again, I don't think this case will be litigated ... it will likely be settled.

And BTW, I did take civ. pro and con. law in the same year, I wish I hadn't; but none the less, I did.

[Caretha]

129. "A mistake isn't actual malice"

Yeah, right. ROFLMFAO. That was no mistake, and if you're basing the defense of the accused of this suit on a "mistake" as in oopsie, you would be a horrible representative in court for the defendant.

But who knows, maybe he is so stupid he will hire attorneys that they would try that defense. :shrug:

[rhett o rick]

135. Let me get this right. You dont like Ms. Sherrod and think she should drop the case?

Did I get that right? You think mr. asshole not-so-brightbart made a mistake? Whose side are you on?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

115. She should get Mike Papantonio to take her case

Make this trial the show of the century and leave the rightwing looking as pathetic as William Jennings bryan did at the hands of Clarence Darrow

[chelsea0011]

116. Should be interesting when he is deposed.

[PinkFloyd]

117. GOOD!!!!

'Bout damn time people started holding this guy responsible for his bullshit. I hope she gets many millions for it.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

120. Bury this pathetic fraud.

Not by any means, but by telling the truth. It's all that needs to be done.

[RainDog]

121. I hope she bankrupts him n/t

[Ross K]

122. Good!

Take the fucking twerp to the cleaners!

[rhett o rick]

125. Dipshit Vilsack should be offering her his job. The man is terrified of Glen Beck. nm

[alp227]

132. Definitely a case.

Breitbart twisted Sherrod's words in an effort to smear Sherrod. Definitely a strong legal case exists right there. Given that the NAACP recently criticized the Tea Party earlier, Breitbart's motive must have been retaliation. Good luck, Ms. Sherrod.

[martymar64]

134. Actually Breitbart was caught on camera saying that this was retaliation for the NAACP resolution

If that ain't malice, I don't know what is. Also I heard a statement from him that when presented with knowledge about the video, he did not ask to see the whole video, only the "relevant parts" (his words). This shows his disregard for any context that her statements were framed in. Again, this shows a willful recklessness or negligence, and could further reinforce the claim of malice.

[The Wizard]

136. The GOP will provide cover (NT)

[Freetradesucks]

137. Good

That SOB has some Karma 'bout to kick his ass.

[guitar man]

138. Good!!

It's about time somebody stood up to these lying thugs. Whether he's got any money to get or not, and even if she doesn't win, it will be delicious to see some of these lying thugs on the stand under oath. Hopefully this suit will bring to light how these cretins have been operating.

[customerserviceguy]

139. He's loving this

The guy is certainly no household name like Limbaugh or even Hannity, and this lawsuit may well bring him up (down?) to that status. He joins the reich wing pantheon of those who make the Obama Administration jump through hoops.

He's a happy man tonight.

[orbitalman]

140. I Hope She Gets Every Penny She Asks For

BriteFart must be buried once and for all. :spank:

[Provincial Elitist]

141. Breitbart really blew his load on this one...

...and it went right in his own face.

[pleah]

143. K&R

[efhmc]

144. Love it. Made my day.

Wish we had more of this action.

[PADemD]

145. K&R

[pinto]

146. Go for it.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

[defendandprotect]

148. Best wishes to Shirley Sherrod -- !!

Tough go, but she came thru it --

[Autonomy]

149. I like when we hate on kooky konservatives

on DU. it feels like the good old days.

[spooky3]

157. Mediamatters: 3 attorneys say Sherrod has a good case

http://mediamatters.org/strupp/201007290047