Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:05 PM ET, 02/14/2011

Shirley Sherrod sues Andrew Breitbart over video

By Matt DeLong

Conservative activist and blogger Andrew Breitbart's weekend in Washington at the Conservative Political Action Conference was interrupted when he was served with a lawsuit filed by the subject of one of his infamous videos, the New York Times reports. Shirley Sherrod, the ex-Agriculture Department employee whose career was upended in a media firestorm when Breitbart released a selectively edited video of her in July, filed the lawsuit Friday in Washington. The video purported to show Sherrod, who is black, admitting to an NAACP audience that she had discriminated against a white farmer because of his race.

Sherrod abruptly resigned under pressure from the White House, but Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack later offered her an unspecified job at the department when a more complete version of the video surfaced, showing that Sherrod used the anecdote to illustrate how she recognized and overcame her own prejudices. The White House ultimately apologized to Sherrod, who declined to go back to work at USDA. In the lawsuit, Sherrod claims "the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work."

Breitbart said in a statement on his Big Government Web site that he "categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech and, to reiterate, looks forward to exercising his full and broad discovery rights."

(Via Huffington Post)

UPDATE: In an interview Monday with Slate's David Weigel, Breitbart said the timing of the lawsuit suggests it is politically motivated.

By Matt DeLong  | February 14, 2011; 12:05 PM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency, White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Budget 2012: State Department/USAID
Next: Budget 2012: Environment

Comments

I don't think Mr. Breitbart understands how the 1st amendment works. He is absolutely correct, his speech is protected under the constitution, the government has not attempted to shut him up. He is still free to say whatever he wants. The constitution does not; however, protect him from the actions of private citizens who may take offense to his comments as Mrs Sherrod has. This is would be the same thing as a liberal making comments about "W" at work and his/her conservative boss hears it a fires the employee. The employee's first amendment rights were protected, the government didn't try to silence them. Private citizen are under no obligation to let one say whatever one wants.

Posted by: Repub | February 15, 2011 11:13 PM | Report abuse

jackiewoods is a known racist who has been banned under several other handles, just FYI for anyone who didn't know

Posted by: ExConservative | February 14, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

==========================================

Is it ethical for employees of WaPo to post habitually? How would you have knowledge of jackiewoods' status on these boards, ExConservative? So, if you don't work for WaPo, my guess is that you fabricated the information (pretty much like the "ex-conservative" handle).

Posted by: bethg1841 | February 15, 2011 6:36 PM | Report abuse

g30rg3544 said:

"Sherrod claims "the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work.""

-------------------------------------
Ummm the White House apologized and she was offered her job back. Sounds like she is out for some easy money.


Hey... you ever lose your job because somebody slander you? Or somebody insinuates that you did something unethical? This isn't all about the job or the money, obviously. The only reason why we know who Shirley Sherrod is today is because of the controversy created because of Andrew Breitbart's political agenda, hence pushing of the video clip that had everyone in the media in a frenzy - so much so that once Agriculture and the WH heard about it, that bullied her into resigning, without even so much as a hearing.

1) Why would anybody want a job BACK after having to go through that? Not even hearing her out or checking the facts (Yes, it doesn't matter if it's Obama's White House or not; that's just plain awful).
2) Why shouldn't she sue that jackass for trying to making her a political casualty? Some pawn to play with in his quest to derail Obama, as are so many other "conservatives"? It's not all about her politics. It's about his methodology, which led to her dismissal. Not a lie per se, but he obviously implicated her in wrongdoing, which was false. Her name was sullied for no reason.

If anything, this suit should be used to teach people not to falsely accuse anyone of things, just because you don't like them. Conservatives do this a lot. They can get away with it, with Obama, because he's a pushover. Other people who have more to lose shouldn't have to put up with you trying to ruin their lives, because of your prejudice.

An apology isn't good enough when you mislead so many people. You deserve punishment. A financial penalty may be appropriate, but jail time is more useful. Maybe then, Fox News would get the message that it's not okay to lie to people, because it fits your own version of a story. And the WH needs to learn to get its facts straight.

Why does *anybody* trust Fox or Republicans to tell the truth for the past decade? How many times do they have to lie or cover things up noticeably before people stop falling for it?

Posted by: fbutler1 | February 15, 2011 2:04 PM | Report abuse

He's a punk. Period.

Posted by: jckdoors | February 15, 2011 1:27 PM | Report abuse

The fact that Shirley Sherrod lost her job in the meantime and that the negative publicity storm harmed her reputation is not undone by the act of offering her back the job.


The fact that Breitbart's edits had to be made purposely, and it was released with intent to cause harm (malice aforethought) also weighs against Breitbart.


I think she can rightfully nail Breitbart's lying race baiting arse to the wall and then (metaphorically) shove his head and editing fingers up it to the waist.

.

Posted by: DrainYou | February 14, 2011 6:29 PM | Report abuse
------------
The ignorance of the libs is astounding. Tell you what..I will take all bets that this is a slam dunk victory for Breitbart. The defense will have thousands of examples of the dame thing Breitbart did and the court will be tired of hearing them. Sherrod is looking for the free lunch payoff which will be denied in total to this racist. She is going to get EXACTLY what she deserves which of course is nothing.

Posted by: steelers01 | February 15, 2011 6:18 AM | Report abuse

Look, there is no doubt she's a racist, she admits it several times and then provides examples to prove it.

She is obviously lying about hating the white farmer because he was acting "superior to her" when shortly afterwards she became his friend and he supported her when the video was released.

However, she should be given some credit for realizing she was wrong and attempting to overcome some of her prejudices.

Posted by: hunter340 | February 15, 2011 6:16 AM | Report abuse

Finally!
Breitbart and his rightwingnut sidekick O'Keefe are deceptive and very dangerous - the type of liars that are praised on Fox & Frightwing radio.

Posted by: angie12106 | February 14, 2011 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Breitbart needs to be shown and known for what he is. It is not okay to distort and lie about another person. We need to stop seeing this sort of thing as "politics as usual" and start seeing it as wrong.

As a society, do we condone lies? Do we think anything goes as long as it is legal? Is there any moral responsibility we can expect from a person?

All this condoning of lies is part of what is wrong with politics. No one should defend this man.

Posted by: amelia45
==========================================
Believe it or not there is a precedent to allow lying by FOXNEWS (they won the right in a FL court). There is no precedent against slander and libel unless you show the whole truth missing from his video (17th century English law adopted by us).

Posted by: jameschirico | February 14, 2011 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Andrew "Goebbels" Breitbart was featured at CPAC for his wonderful work. That wonderful work will now cost him. I hope he gets a hanging liberal judge to do to him what he did to her.

Posted by: jameschirico | February 14, 2011 10:44 PM | Report abuse

This is Good. I hope he loses sleep, and money over it. Complete Dooshbag.

Posted by: porcelainproductions | February 14, 2011 9:27 PM | Report abuse

And the floodgates will open on lawsuits against 60 Minutes, the Washington Post, the New York Times (for its headlines alone), and every other news show going.

Do liberals still believe in the First Amendment? They do not believe the freedom to practice religion as they quash its every public display and expression of religion. They do not seem to believe in freedom of assembly (outside of the Middle East) as they have condemned at the angry tea party participation in constituent meetings. And they certainly do not believe in freedom of speech that is not expressed by MSNBC and the New York Times.

Posted by: krush01 | February 14, 2011 8:50 PM | Report abuse

His "constitutionally protected free speech" - my hind end!
The editing required to make Ms Sherrod look 180 degrees from who she is took callous deliberation. Breitbart more than deserves this.

Posted by: nansev | February 14, 2011 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Been waiting for the day Shirley Sherrod sues his behind. Glad to see that day has finally arrived. How fitting that he was served at the event he was once again using selective editing and deliberately baiting people. I hope she wind big against this creep. He has shown that he is dishonest and not above lying in order to support his argument. I'm sure she has a great attorney and I look forward to them wiping the floor with him. Good luck Ms. Sherrod!

Posted by: alaskan2 | February 14, 2011 8:30 PM | Report abuse

It's about time Shirley because I thought you been sued. Watch out for those conservative-crooked-JUDGES who'll try and rule out-of-your-favor.

Posted by: clifton3 | February 14, 2011 8:27 PM | Report abuse

OK, folks, this shouldn't be about whether Breitbart is a conservative or a liberal and/or a shoe-fetishist and/or a collector of Pez dispensers. It should be about whether or not his actions (producing an obviously doctored video about Sherrod) legally constitute defamation. To me it looks like he's as guilty as sin. But of course I don't get to decide. So let justice be done through due process.

IF he's found guilty (actually, "liable," right?), I hope the judgment against him is severe enough to serve as an example preventing others from engaging in such slimy and despicable behavior. And for the record, I would hope that the same would be true if he had defamed Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, or Arianna Huffington (wide enough diversity of opinion for ya?). This isn't about the politics of the perpetrator OR the victim. Some of you think that the concepts of right and wrong in the moral sense are a function of political persuasion. You're full of crap.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | February 14, 2011 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: BigSea |
The lawsuit means one thing: Breitbart hit the bullseye.
You see, left-wing racism is OK in Amerika as long as they are just "getting even" in their quest for "Peace and Justice" (i.e. Revenge and Tyranny)
Encore! Encore!
------------------------------------------

I get it BigSea. Telling a big A$$ lie that slanders and defames a person is a right as long as it is slamming a liberal!

You are such a dumb A$$ because Breitbart's right to speech was never impeded ; hence, he was able to tell his f-ing lie. Now it is time for him to own up to the responsibility that comes along with him exercising his freedom of speech. I am sure the whole idea of being held responsible will go right over your head because taking responsibility for ones actions isn't something you lying f-ing right-winger understand!!!!

Posted by: SteelWheel25 | February 14, 2011 7:45 PM | Report abuse

What a pathetic loser,
UPDATE: In an interview Monday with Slate's David Weigel, Breitbart said the timing of the lawsuit suggests it is politically motivated.
Gee the release of his fail video WASN'T politically motivated? Like I said what a loser

Posted by: cartman1 | February 14, 2011 7:41 PM | Report abuse


"...you have the right to sue the person responsible for causing the termination in the first place."

The person responsible? Do you mean President Obama or do you mean Secretary Vilsack?


Posted by: Jeff_in_DC | February 14, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

****************************
That would be Breibart YOU POSTED THE VIDEO WHICH CAUSED HER TO BE FIRED!

Posted by: bobby20 | February 14, 2011 7:39 PM | Report abuse

The lawsuit means one thing: Breitbart hit the bullseye.
You see, left-wing racism is OK in Amerika as long as they are just "getting even" in their quest for "Peace and Justice" (i.e. Revenge and Tyranny)
Encore! Encore!

Posted by: BigSea | February 14, 2011 7:21 PM | Report abuse

I hope that she busts his chops big time. The guy is a fraud and his work is suspect. She deserves to roast his stuff in the biggest way and for the biggest amount possible.

Posted by: ronjeske | February 14, 2011 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Slander, libel, fraud, fabrication, whatever! He knowingly distorted the truth and caused the woman serious harm. Sue his butt!

Fear, Hatred, Distortion, Distraction and Division is all Republicans have to offer.

Posted by: thebobbob | February 14, 2011 6:57 PM | Report abuse

"Andrew Breitbart" is synonymous with "loudmouth liar and loser" - the vaunted Three L's. That people believe this clown is evidence of the gullibility of man.

Posted by: chop1 | February 14, 2011 6:47 PM | Report abuse

>Breitbart said in a statement on his Big Government Web site that he "categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech and, to reiterate, looks forward to exercising his full and broad discovery rights."

Um, get a clue Breitbart, you had your free speech. Its now time to pay for it.

Posted by: Fate1 | February 14, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Any ideas why Bush did not show up for a fund-raising in Switzerland last week?
Posted by: kishorgala
_____
Yeah Leftist nuts were losing their minds and were planning protests that would of course lead to violence. And Bush unlike them care about people getting hurt. BTW the Swiss would not have arrested Bush. But hey why wait for the Swiss.. if he committed war crimes why isn't Obama and Holder arresting Bush???

Posted by: sovine08 | February 14, 2011 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Sherrod should also sue Fox News and their talking heads from every news show. Once this edited tape surfaced everyone at Fox called this lady a hugh Racist before they even had the facts.

Posted by: sumo1 | February 14, 2011 6:30 PM | Report abuse

The fact that Shirley Sherrod lost her job in the meantime and that the negative publicity storm harmed her reputation is not undone by the act of offering her back the job.


The fact that Breitbart's edits had to be made purposely, and it was released with intent to cause harm (malice aforethought) also weighs against Breitbart.


I think she can rightfully nail Breitbart's lying race baiting arse to the wall and then (metaphorically) shove his head and editing fingers up it to the waist.

.

Posted by: DrainYou | February 14, 2011 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Now this is what I call a great Valentine's Day...."

Posted by: jmr012 | February 14, 2011 12:56 PM
======================================
Yup! Breitbart is gonna be someone's girlfriend soon. But, then that may be exactly what he is aiming for!

Posted by: kishorgala | February 14, 2011 6:19 PM | Report abuse

"...I'm guessing the people saying Breitbart will lose are the same ones who said Bush and Cheney will be arrested and charged with comitting torture!! How'd that work out for you???

Posted by: sovine08 | February 14, 2011 5:39 PM
======================================
Any ideas why Bush did not show up for a fund-raising in Switzerland last week?

Posted by: kishorgala | February 14, 2011 6:13 PM | Report abuse

One thing is very clear..Breitbart had no idea..not one clue who he was getting into a fight with.

This little lovely lady will clean his clock so fast it could be the fastest trial in history...his own tapes will hang him..

He is toast.....sure shows that he is not the brightest bulb on the tree...hung by his own work...

Posted by: meyer390 | February 14, 2011 5:59 PM | Report abuse

One thing is very clear..Breitbart had no idea..not one clue who he was getting into a fight with.

This little lovely lady will clean his clock so fast it could be the fastest trial in history...his own tapes will hang him..

He is toast.....sure shows that he is not the brightest bulb on the tree...hung by his own work...

Posted by: meyer390 | February 14, 2011 5:59 PM | Report abuse

"I will contribute to the Brietbart fund."

Save your money for the "Ilitirites for Palin" bake sale next week.

Posted by: mattintx | February 14, 2011 5:58 PM | Report abuse

As usual Breitbart, who knows better, claims the video is constitutionally protected speech.
Wrong! Wanker Boy! Defamation is not protected!
Posted by: BBear1
____
How did he defame her?? He showed a video of her OWN SPEECH!!! If you think not showing a whole speech but just part of it is illegal you are about to learn a hard lesson. Besides what damage?? He didn't fire her and she got her job back anyway. I'm guessing the people saying Breitbart will lose are the same ones who said Bush and Cheney will be arrested and charged with comitting torture!! How'd that work out for you???

Posted by: sovine08 | February 14, 2011 5:39 PM | Report abuse


Breitbart needs to be shown and known for what he is. It is not okay to distort and lie about another person. We need to stop seeing this sort of thing as "politics as usual" and start seeing it as wrong.

As a society, do we condone lies? Do we think anything goes as long as it is legal? Is there any moral responsibility we can expect from a person?

All this condoning of lies is part of what is wrong with politics. No one should defend this man.

Posted by: amelia45 | February 14, 2011 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Well, well, well...good for her! He is a creep and a sleaze. But what else is new? He is doing the same thing HB Gary was going to do to progressive groups on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce and Bank of America. They planned to plant fake documents, investigate their families, etc. to discredit and smear them. People like Glenn Greenwald, Chamber watch, and other reporters were targeted.

Breitbart would fit right into these unscrupulous security firms and corporations. Why aren't you writing about this WAPO?

Posted by: sandnsmith | February 14, 2011 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Breitbart is a punk and is going to lose. Although it would be more satisfying to see her kick his butt. But that would be too easy.

Posted by: COLEBRACKETT | February 14, 2011 5:05 PM | Report abuse

And she deserves every dime she gets from him!!

Posted by: gitouttahere | February 14, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

This is awful. I hope she wins! You cannot use your "freedom of speech" junk to ruin people's careers and lives. Even though she received an apology and was offered her job back, the damage was done. How can she ever trust anything again? One word taken out of context could do the same to any one of us.

Posted by: hebe1 | February 14, 2011 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Politically motivated? Why? Because it happened around CPAC? As if the majority of Americans care about that far right dog and pony show that produced a whole lot of yelling and blame shifting, and not one substantive policy that offered a genuine alternative to the president.

Breitbart is a pathetic character, who uses carnival tricks and sloppy editing to "prove" his dubious points, an irresponsible goon whose frat boy antics have finally caught up with him. From reading some of the smut on this thread, it's obvious he has his defenders, who are even more tragic than he is, ten steps farther away from the real business of politics to their position in the bleachers.

Posted by: Koko3 | February 14, 2011 4:47 PM | Report abuse

The laws governing libel and defamation are quite different for politicians and ordinary folk like you and me.

Its true that video's are cut and sliced all the time, and that the words of politicians often if not usually quoted out of context by people with opposing views.

However, those in the 'public eye' have basically agreed to this happening to them as they assume the right to do it to others.

Essentially, the video in question was a deliberate attempt to libel and defame a private citizen. The consequences (her losing her job, ability to gain it back, etc.) relate to the remedy phase of a judgement, not the finding portion.

He has clear standing to sue, and will likely win if she can demonstrate that her speech to the NAACP did not constitute political speech. I have no idea about that portion.

However, the video WAS clearly constructed to defame her character. I suspect that there really isn't anyone who could disagree with that. I also suspect that it is unlikely any court would disagree about that either.

Posted by: reussere | February 14, 2011 4:44 PM | Report abuse

this guy Breibart needs to get a clue. this issue shouldn't be raising attention again. this is like reopening a wound after it has almost healed.

Posted by: katydid3363 | February 14, 2011 4:37 PM | Report abuse

this guy Breibart needs to get a clue. this issue shouldn't be raising attention again. this is like poking a wound after it has almost healed.

Posted by: katydid3363 | February 14, 2011 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Now she should offer to resolve the dispute through a Bet Din under the halachah of Lashon ha-Ra.

Posted by: williamwertman | February 14, 2011 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Shirley Sherrod is a race-hustler, whose product is victimization and political correctness. That's how she makes a living, and you can bet the Federal Gov't in DC is absolutely the best place to earn that kind of living.

Discounting her involvement with Breitbart - look at Sherrod's history prior to that.

Posted by: pgr88 | February 14, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I will contribute to the Brietbart fund.
Posted by: skinsfaninIndy

Why? This lady clearly, in no way shape or form, deseved to be Okeefed. For heaven's sake the white couple in the story pratically nominated her for sainthood for helping save their farm.

Posted by: willandjansdad1 | February 14, 2011 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Politically motivated?!

Every breath that creep breitbart takes is politically motivated. How pathetic that he believes he can use that as a pejorative.

Posted by: veritasinmedium | February 14, 2011 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Ha! The teachable moment is going to sue Breitbart. Breitbart ought to sue Sherrod and Jealous over the con they pull on the people claiming Sherrod was invited to talk about the white farmer to a audience of the NAACP. The NACCP is used to hearing Jealous speak in the racist manner he always does and we're to believe Jealous as racist as he is would invite Sherrod to talk about a white farmer. Even the thought of Sherrod talking about any white person goes against the manner in which the NAACP is used to hearing their guest speak. Name the place and time the NAACP cheered their invited speaker for talking about a white person. The teachable moment the Democrats and the MSM were fast to create hasn't been recreated has it. Has Sherrod been invited to speak about other white people. No she hasn't. If she had, then the teachable moment was have stuck as valid. The teachable moment was thought of in the spur of the moment to get Sherrod out of the racist hole she dug for herself when she boasting about how she treated the white farmer, not about how she helped him. It was the white farmer who later came back to Sherrod and it was Sherrod who was over the barrel if she didn't help him. After Sherrod was forced to help the white farmer, it was then she turned it into a teachable moment. Before it was a teachable moment, it was racism on the part of Sherrod.

Posted by: houstonian | February 14, 2011 4:20 PM | Report abuse

This will only make this tool an even bigger hero to the cretin right, as evidenced by many of the comments we're all seeing. You go, Shirley. And if the courts don't work, remember, you can always fall back on 2nd Amendment remedies.

Posted by: Mountaineer87 | February 14, 2011 4:20 PM | Report abuse

If Breitbart apologized & worked on righting his wrong, I'd be wondering about the lawsuit. But he didn't do that. In fact he's continued his smear campaign:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102100023

He says he has "proof" of her wrongdoings, but won't tell us what his "proof" is. Maybe he's learned that you don't actually have to back up accusations to get some people to take them seriously. She deserves the right to force him to put up or shut up in court.

Posted by: Uncle_Joe | February 14, 2011 4:15 PM | Report abuse

I will contribute to the Brietbart fund.

Posted by: skinsfaninIndy | February 14, 2011 4:07 PM | Report abuse


You'd contribute to someone who clearly went out of his way to mislead people and is now being called to account for it?

Posted by: mikem1 | February 14, 2011 4:13 PM | Report abuse

So everyone on this thread supporting Sherrod believes that Rand Paul should be able to sue and bankrupt every leftist news outlet for taking his words out of context and saying he wanted to repeal civil rights laws correct?
Posted by: Cryos | February 14, 2011 3:32 PM
====================
But he DID say that. He DID say (on Rachel Maddow's show - and I watched the entire interview; did you?), that restaurants should be free to serve whoever they want, when she questioned him as to whether he thought they should be able to discriminate.

He did NOT say that it should be illegal to refuse service to black customers. Rachel gave him NUMEROUS chances to clarify, and he utterly refused to state that restaurants should not be allowed to discriminate.

Translation: HE BELIEVES IN DISCRIMINATION.

Posted by: solsticebelle | February 14, 2011 4:11 PM | Report abuse

All you liberals are crazy, frothing at the mouth to silence a conservative voice. Video clips are edited and cut all the time. There burden of proof will be on Shirly Sherrod to win any punitive damages. This will likely wind up being an important case and the outcomes could affect how media is run for years to come. But, the liberals cannot claim that this is the only case in the world where words were taken out of context.

I am sorry for Mrs. Sherrod, but it was the white house which terminated her position. I don't believe that she will get any money from Breitbart, and if she does it will certainly not be one to bankrupt him. But, since there are those here who have said they will contribute to the sherrod legal fund, I will contribute to the Brietbart fund.

Posted by: skinsfaninIndy | February 14, 2011 4:07 PM | Report abuse

"Breitbart said in a statement on his Big Government Web site that he "categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech and, to reiterate, looks forward to exercising his full and broad discovery rights.""

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware libel or slander was now protected speech. Jeez, this Supreme Court is going crazy.

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | February 14, 2011 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Breitbart will win via summary judgement. This isn't his first rodeo. Just like the ultra-liberals, his supporters have deep pockets and this will not cause him any financial harm. Nice try Ms. Sherrod.

Posted by: lingering_lead | February 14, 2011 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Nobody has a problem with Free Speech in this country, or they should not. But people do have a problem with distortion of the truth that causes harm and the disruption of normal life to another. This is what was shown (after full investigation & disclosure) what was done in this instance. Breitbart (sounds a little like Black Bart) will certainly be able to continue with his free speech work in the future; but it will be after he pays dearly for this distortion of the truth!

Posted by: MikeV2 | February 14, 2011 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Libel and slander are not protected speech. The media has some protection because a suit would have to show malice aforethought, but Sherrod will have no difficulty proving that since he deliberately edited her words to make her appear to be a racist. Slam DUNK!

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 4:02 PM | Report abuse

As usual Breitbart, who knows better, claims the video is constitutionally protected speech.
Wrong! Wanker Boy! Defamation is not protected!

Posted by: BBear1 | February 14, 2011 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Libel and slander are not protected speech. The media has some protection because a suit would have to show malice aforethought, but Sherrod will have no difficulty proving that since he deliberately edited her words to make her appear to be a racist. Slam DUNK!

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Libel and slander are not protected speech. The media has some protection because a suit would have to show malice aforethought, but Sherrod will have no difficulty proving that since he deliberately edited her words to make her appear to be a racist. Slam DUNK!

Posted by: fingersfly | February 14, 2011 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Finish him!

Posted by: cymp65 | February 14, 2011 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Right idea... wrong person... She should be after Barack...

Wow... do you think the Obama administration might be funding the suit...

Say it ain't... Really Shirley

Posted by: DrMysterious | February 14, 2011 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Take Breitbart down! Take Breitbart down! Take Breitbart down! Take Breitbart down!

Posted by: humanelement | February 14, 2011 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Take Breitbart down! Take Breitbart down! Take Breitbart down! Take Breitbart down!

Posted by: humanelement | February 14, 2011 3:53 PM | Report abuse

The fact that Shirley Sherrod lost her job in the meantime and that the negative publicity storm harmed her reputation is not undone by the act of offering her back the job.


The fact that Breitbart's edits had to be made purposely, and it was released with intent to cause harm (malice aforethought) also weighs against Breitbart.


I think she can rightfully nail Breitbart's lying race baiting arse to the wall and then (metaphorically) shove his head and editing fingers up it to the waist.

.

Posted by: DrainYou | February 14, 2011 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Good for her. Maybe this will serve as a warning to him, and others, that a price may have to be paid for knowlingly lying.

Made my day.

Posted by: rlj1 | February 14, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

He deserves to be put through all of the grief and expenses of a major lawsuit. Sherrod wins even if the jury doesn't find in her favor.
____
If Breitbart was smart he would let the ACLU defend him on his freedom of speech. It wouldn't cost Breitbart a penny and the Left would be fighting the Left.. beautiful!!!

Posted by: sovine08 | February 14, 2011 3:46 PM | Report abuse

So everyone on this thread supporting Sherrod believes that Rand Paul should be able to sue and bankrupt every leftist news outlet for taking his words out of context and saying he wanted to repeal civil rights laws correct?
Posted by: Cryos | February 14, 2011 3:32 PM
___________________________________________
He can bring a lawsuit if he wishes. Rand Paul, unlike Sherrod, would not stand a chance of winning however. The words were spoken by his opponent and only reported by the media. How many politicians on both sides of the aisle say incorrect things about their opponents during an election? Paul wouldn't have a half a leg to stand on. Get your facts straight.

Posted by: Lefty_ | February 14, 2011 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Sherrod is going to have a difficult time winning this case. First, Breitbart's own comments about the video differ from how the video got subsequently played in the blogosphere and media. Elsewhere, Sherrod got played up as a racist, but Brietbart's comments were more muted, and he suggested that he air the video for a different purpose.

Second, Breitbart didn't fire Sherrod. Tom Vilsak did. If damages were done, they were done by the employer.

Third, the claim to damaged reputation is a bit far-fetched. Sherrod was thoroughly vindicated, and, if anything, she came out looking even better in the end.

Finally, while Sherrod was fired, she was immediately offered her job back again. She can't complain of loss of employment when it was her own choice not to continue in her same job.

Posted by: blert | February 14, 2011 3:43 PM | Report abuse

YES!


GO SHIRLEY!


Where can I donate to the cause?

.

Posted by: DrainYou | February 14, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Gee, I wonder if the ACLJew will come to Breitbart's aid and defend his free speech rights?

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were him!

Posted by: vince33x | February 14, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Andrew Breitbart video made Shirley Sherrod a hero on the Left. Sherrods frivilous lawsuit will make Breitbart a hero on the Right!!!

Posted by: sovine08 | February 14, 2011 3:41 PM | Report abuse

RIGHT ON, LADY!
Kick the sh.it out of these right-wing bsterds.
Some right-wing imbeciles want to equate this case with that of Juan Williams. No Way!
Williams not only broke the rules of who paying him but also came up with scare tactics saying that he gets nervous when he sees a Muslim. Well, how many people get nervous when they get into an elevator when there is a black man inside? But the fricking idiot wouldn't acknowledge that.

Posted by: analyst72 | February 14, 2011 3:38 PM | Report abuse

He deserves to be put through all of the grief and expenses of a major lawsuit. Sherrod wins even if the jury doesn't find in her favor. Go Shirley!

Posted by: Lefty_ | February 14, 2011 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I hope Murdoch, Ailes & Fox News get a lot more scrutiny over there falsehoods:

Posted by: wave06 | February 14, 2011 3:35 PM | Report abuse

The facts here do not look good for Mr. Breitbart.
He "published" a video that identified Ms. Sherrod and damaged her reputation.
Damages will have to be determined but the loss of a job, being tagged as a racist and undergoing the humiliation as a result of the publication look like real losses. the fct that someone else called for her resignation because they saw the video shows the damage caused by the video.
Fault appears on its face to be evident. Picking out parts of the larger video which show the opposite of what Breitbart published shows knowledge of falsity which is a pretty high standard of fault.
This will be an interesting topic of discussion for my media law classes along with the similarly instructive case of Memphis Press-Scimitar v. Nichols in which facts of a shooting story were left out of a story to create the false impression that the plaintiff, Mrs. Nichols, had strayed outside the bounds of her marriage.

Posted by: profloving | February 14, 2011 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Let us just see what a judge and jury feels about a guy who knowingly publishes his 'doctored' big fat racist lie. In the end, my guess is that Sherrod will OWN Breitbart;s income forever and that is how it should be.
Posted by: mJJ2
_____
Doctored means changed.. he didn't doctor a thing.. what you just said is a LIE.. I guess Breitbart can sue you now huh??? He took something out of contex.. yeah like that NEVER happens in news coverage. If Sherrod succeeds than every clip (where not the whole event is shown) news shows will be open to lawsuits. Sherrod will get NOTHING.. this case will be thrown out of court. But IF they do find a Liberal judge nutty enough to take it on there is NO way a jury will be seated that will not be divided.. so HUNG JURY!!!

Posted by: sovine08 | February 14, 2011 3:33 PM | Report abuse

UPDATE: In an interview Monday with Slate's David Weigel, Breitbart said the timing of the lawsuit suggests it is politically motivated.
Can one state disingenuous.

Posted by: ntmcdowell | February 14, 2011 3:32 PM | Report abuse

So everyone on this thread supporting Sherrod believes that Rand Paul should be able to sue and bankrupt every leftist news outlet for taking his words out of context and saying he wanted to repeal civil rights laws correct?

If not you're a total hypocrite.

Posted by: Cryos | February 14, 2011 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Interestingly there is a parallel between Shirley Sherrod's firing and Juan Williams. Both were taken out of context to appear racist. Both were unfairly fired. Both Liberals and Conservatives should be ashamed when they do this and be appropriately held accountable.

That said the real fault lies with NPR and the Department of Agriculture for not following due diligence before they reacted.

Breibart lost credibility by only showing a snippet that implied something else than what she intended - unfortunately something I see regularly at both Liberal and Conservative media outlets.

Her reputation, I believe, is actually enhanced, not damaged, as a result of this incident.

Posted by: Narnian | February 14, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Selective editing and pointing finger at her by selective editing resulting in an untruth should make him an outcast! by GOP STANDARDS HE IS HERO...makes me glad I am an Indepentent who rarely vote GOP.
He deserves to be sued and she deserves to WIN!

Posted by: SpotlessCrab | February 14, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Lots of irrational, angry liberals on this thread.

Get a grip and use your logical brain stop letting the chips on your shoulder run you like puppets.

She quit and then she refused the offered job. This is her fault.

Even recently she was complaining about how there were not enough blacks in the dept even though there was a higher than average ratio to the population. SO don't try saying she's not biased if not still downright racist.

Posted by: Cryos | February 14, 2011 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Sherrod claims "the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does anybody believe that this statement is true? Her reputation was enhanced, and she was offered several promotions.

I think Breitbart is a skunk, but this is a frivilous lawsuit.

Posted by: HuckFinn | February 14, 2011 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Go gett'em gal.

Posted by: LawyerTom1 | February 14, 2011 3:27 PM | Report abuse

To Cryos who claims that what Breitbart did is merely "use her own words." What he did was to selectively create a statement that was 180 degrees away from what she did say and had the effect of fitting perfectly the biases of his fact-deprived audience. Here is Cryos' post and there follows a selctive use of his words.
Is Cryos a necrophiliac? Is he really unhappy that he can't defame people by using selective quotes? What a moron!

CRYOS: I love the zombies posting "defamation, defamation, defamation" and can't even answer my post.

He used a clip of her own words against her how is that defamation? So everytime the media quotes someone do they have to include the whole interview segment?

AND HERE IS HOW BREITBART MIGHT "QUOTE" CRYOS:
“I love zombies. I can’t even clip someone using defamation.”

Posted by: gratianus | February 14, 2011 1:38 PM
'==========
There is a difference between using a snippet of something and splicing together pieces of something.

Apparently you're too stupid to know the difference. I expect no less from a liberal.

Posted by: Cryos | February 14, 2011 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Mr Brietbart--- can you say DC jury

Posted by: FRDH | February 14, 2011 3:20 PM | Report abuse

In the end, Sherrod had a right to decide NOT to return to her job after all the muck that Breitbart put her through. Sherrod looks like a principled persona and Breitbart looks like the dishonest, manipulative fool that he is. Actually the posts about being offered her job back have nothing to do with the issue. Breitbart knowingly published a lie and he alone is responsible for that. Let us just see what a judge and jury feels about a guy who knowingly publishes his 'doctored' big fat racist lie. In the end, my guess is that Sherrod will OWN Breitbart;s income forever and that is how it should be.

Posted by: mJJ2 | February 14, 2011 3:18 PM | Report abuse

What were her damages??? She got her job back, with almost a certainly she can do anything now and not be fired, and became a HERO to the Left!!! Not to mention the White House FIRED her.. if she had damages it was with them!!! Sherrods FIRST impluse was to DISCRIMINATE.. the fact she didn't go though with it and just did HER JOB instead does not to me make her any kind of hero. She SHOULD GET NOTHING!!!

Posted by: sovine08 | February 14, 2011 3:18 PM | Report abuse

He's lying, racist, scum.

I hope she takes him to the cleaner's.

Posted by: solsticebelle | February 14, 2011 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Shirley was offered an unspecified position, not her old job back. I see a bunch of racist have jumped on this story so that they can relieve their built up hate. Breitbart chose a snippet of a video to purposely and wrongly depict Ms Sherrod as a racist when she was using her story as an example of how one can overcome their negative feelings. The White House and Ag Secretary clearly overreacted to the initial public reaction and fired the lady. How is it that you dimwits can't see that as defamation. Even if she was offered some job in the department, she still had to go through all the negativism and hate that Breithart brought down on her by his incorrect and I would say dishonest article. He could have and should have apologized and that might have been the end. She suffered the damage and he moves on to something else. She should sue his a$s and I hope she wins big.

Posted by: jfoster13 | February 14, 2011 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Excellent! It is way past the time for Breitbart to wake up call about slander.

Posted by: tansymoth | February 14, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

The U.S. Constitution does not protect one's free speech when one either slanders or libels another. It is time to pull the plug on people who lie at will. Today, telling lies seems to be virtuous. I didn't grow up with this philosophy. I hope that Andrew is sent to the poor house. So much also for the character of CPAC to even let him in the building.

Posted by: EarlC | February 14, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Sherrod's case is a good one, except for the harm. My guess is that she wins a $1 award, PLUS her attorney's fees and court costs, which should take a nice bite out of Breitbart's wallent.

Breitbart deserves to pay for a blatant act of defamation of character.

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | February 14, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

You don't have a constitutionally protected right to lie. You don't have a right to edit someone so it appears they are saying the exact opposite of what they actually presented.

BragBart is going down.

Posted by: minstrelmike | February 14, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

You go girl. Andrew Breitbart is the type of dirtball who doesn't deserve to live.

Posted by: wrw01011 | February 14, 2011 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Good. I hope that she sends the liar to the poorhouse.

Posted by: klakey1 | February 14, 2011 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I think that Sherrod's attoreny's will have to prove that Breitbart knew that what he was putting up was untrue. He will probably win by alleging his ignorance. It is a reasonable question whether someone who posts something like this has the obligation to check to see if it is actually true.

Posted by: BookGuy | February 14, 2011 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Watch out for blacks crossing the street. They want to be hit so they can sue you.

Posted by: ravitchn | February 14, 2011 2:52 PM | Report abuse

She thinks she's hit the lawsuit lottery. Take it to trial and she will walk away empty-handed. She may even have to go back to work for a living.

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | February 14, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

ball licker evelyn wood:

"The Blacks should know that the White/Arab Muslim in the White House is really on their side after he wrongfully terminated Shirley Sherrod. Yah, sure, ya betcha!"

______________________________

so the kenyan is now an arab. you must be taking geography courses from the sub-moron "africa is a country" sister sarah. way too funny.

Posted by: joeblow111 | February 14, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

It's about time Rove's Christocons who lie and deceive be held accountable.

Posted by: areyousaying | February 14, 2011 2:49 PM | Report abuse

she should get everything he , his spouse, his paramours, and his children own.
every last house, boat , car , bank account and stitch of clothing.

Posted by: newagent99 | February 14, 2011 2:42 PM | Report abuse

He should be sued for defamation of character. Regardless as to whether she was offered a job back, it was not her job which she would have found difficult to perform after the defamation.

It will be interesting to see what her lawyers have but the fact is he used that snippet of video which he knew was only a portion of her speech at the very least to defame her. That all by itself rests the case. If he tries to pull the "journalist" card then he will have to show definitively that he did not know it was just a part of a speech which makes no sense or that he tried and was unsuccessful in finding the entire speech. Which clearly was doable as we have watched it on television.

However, I suspect he had seen the entirety of the video though in order to pick and choose exactly what part would do the most damage if played by itself.

He crossed the line as many of this ilk do these days. Unfortunately not enough of those damaged by these bottom dwellers are being sued for defamation of character. I hope she bankrupts him.

Posted by: KarenLS | February 14, 2011 2:41 PM | Report abuse

jacquelynwoods wrote:
"The Blacks should know that the White/Arab Muslim in the White House is really on their side after he wrongfully terminated Shirley Sherrod. Yah, sure, ya betcha!"
___________________________________________________
joeblow111 wrote:

nice trick channeling simple sister sarah, you racist cracker pig.
___________________________________________________
Who'd of thunk WaPo was "simple sister sarah, you racist cracker pig."?

Washington Post wrote:

"Shirley Sherrod, unfairly dismissed"

Thursday, July 22, 2010

"By nightfall, after the Obama administration became aware of the video, Ms. Sherrod found herself unemployed; an official from the Agriculture Department tracked her down by phone and ordered her to resign."

"But most of the blame must fall on the Obama administration and Mr. Vilsack. It is unconscionable that no one in the administration demanded to see the full video or text of the speech before ordering Ms. Sherrod's dismissal. Instead, officials rushed to respond to an Internet video of questionable authenticity to insulate themselves from political fallout. Cowardice prevailed over principle; panic obscured common sense and decency. In the process, a woman who has worked all of her life to help victims of poverty and discrimination became the latest casualty of a cruel and mindless political game of gotcha."
"But most of the blame must fall on the Obama administration and Mr. Vilsack. It is unconscionable that no one in the administration demanded to see the full video or text of the speech before ordering Ms. Sherrod's dismissal. Instead, officials rushed to respond to an Internet video of questionable authenticity to insulate themselves from political fallout. Cowardice prevailed over principle; panic obscured common sense and decency. In the process, a woman who has worked all of her life to help victims of poverty and discrimination became the latest casualty of a cruel and mindless political game of gotcha."

Posted by: jacquelynwoods | February 14, 2011 2:40 PM | Report abuse

This is BS. So great, she over came her racism, but that doesn't mean she wasn't racist at one point. They Obama Administration jumped to conclusions without looking at all of the facts. She should be suing the Federal Government......

Posted by: Jsuf | February 14, 2011 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Breibart committed blood libel.

Posted by: dganderson13 | February 14, 2011 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Breibart committed blood libel.

Posted by: dganderson13 | February 14, 2011 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Breibart committed blood libel.

Posted by: dganderson13 | February 14, 2011 2:31 PM | Report abuse

ExConservative wrote:

jackiewoods is a known racist who has been banned under several other handles, just FYI for anyone who didn't know
____________________________________________________
The proof that you hate Native Americans like me.

Posted by: jacquelynwoods | February 14, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Didn't he just play the video of a public event? Shouldn't she sue the people who fired her and never investigated this issue? I would think a reasonable judge would toss this suit out.

Posted by: sarno | February 14, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

It does sound like she had the option of her old job back, but we don't know the details. she might have feared other harassment, or even violence, from someone who did not know the context of her comments. I hope Breitbart gets everything he deserves. It's about time these right-wing liars experienced some consequences.

Posted by: catbird500 | February 14, 2011 2:29 PM | Report abuse

usually these things don't work out for the plaintiff, the bar is pretty high for defamation, but i think with the right jury, she could win this one.

should be fun.

Posted by: silverfish1 | February 14, 2011 2:29 PM | Report abuse

surrealism 101 -- once again, you speak about something you know nothing about. can you say "d.c. jury". lmmfao. deal with it. you better get back to that maury episode.
________________________

ball licker evelyn wood:

"The Blacks should know that the White/Arab Muslim in the White House is really on their side after he wrongfully terminated Shirley Sherrod. Yah, sure, ya betcha!"


nice trick channeling simple sister sarah, you racist cracker pig.

Posted by: joeblow111 | February 14, 2011 2:27 PM | Report abuse

jackiewoods is a known racist who has been banned under several other handles, just FYI for anyone who didn't know

Posted by: ExConservative | February 14, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Breiby, baby, you are T-O-A-S-T !! stick a fork in 'im, he's done!!! What a pathetic wad that goober is.


Go Shirley!!!!

Posted by: osmor | February 14, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Everyone has the right to Free Speech. However, this also comes with the responsibility to avoid using this right to cover lies and misinformation. This is something that the conservative press has had a hard time understanding.

Posted by: JimZ1 | February 14, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

surrealism 101 -- once again, you speak about something you know nothing about. can you say "d.c. jury". lmmfao. deal with it. you better get back to that maury episode.
________________________

ball licker evelyn wood:

"The Blacks should know that the White/Arab Muslim in the White House is really on their side after he wrongfully terminated Shirley Sherrod. Yah, sure, ya betcha!"


nice trick channeling simple sister sarah, you racist cracker pig.

Posted by: joeblow111 | February 14, 2011 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Shirley over plays her hand. I was on her side until she decided to milk this cow until it screamed for mercy. Where are your damages, Shirley? YOU quit your job and YOU refused to take it back days later. You have been more than vindicated -- over and over and over, in fact -- and any financial loss is because you refused to take back your own job. I'd find in your favor and award you damages of one dollar.

Posted by: Jayne | February 14, 2011 2:18 PM | Report abuse

The Blacks should know that the White/Arab Muslim in the White House is really on their side after he wrongfully terminated Shirley Sherrod. Yah, sure, ya betcha!

Posted by: jacquelynwoods | February 14, 2011 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe someone would write this and then hit the submit button.
What a pathetic individual.
Why didn't you just write "White Power", or something to that effect? It would mean the same thing.
I'll bet you go to church every Sunday too, right?
Pathetic.
Go Heels.
KJO

Posted by: koneill8 | February 14, 2011 2:12 PM | Report abuse

So can anyone sue the media if they play just a snippet from a video clip?

Sherrod chose to play up the whole "hmmm I'm not going to help the white man" thing to the crowd. That is her fault.

Per previous reporting Breitbart didn't even have the whole video. Even if he did is he really required to play the whole thing?

Posted by: Cryos | February 14, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

------------------------------------------
Not that complicated, Cryos.

Breitbart produced and distributed a clip that grossly misrepresented Sherrod's intent in making the statements she made, intent that was clearly expressed in the context of the clip Breitbart selected.

The Breitbart clip was distributed and used with clearly defamatory intent, and with the effect of representing that she was unfit for her employment.

The Breitbart clip was distributed in a physically recorded form, by means of a public medium.

The Breitbart clip was the direct cause of her summary dismissal from her employment.

Because the Breitbart clip demonstrably caused the termination of Sherrod's employment, and because it was distributed in a recorded form, over a public medium, the willful production and distribution of this deliberately defematory material is a libel case.

Andy Breitbart's going to have a hard time buying himself a new pair of shoes after this.

Posted by: lonquest | February 14, 2011 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of whether this suit moves forward or not, and if it should whether Ms. Sherrod wins or loses, the whole affair demonstrates that Andrew Breitbart is just one be fat liar and nothing he produces in the future can be taken as truth (not that it ever could). Ms. Sherrod is to be commended for showing how conservatives pick and choose comments and manipulate them into making people out to be someone they are not. Sort of like Fox News being exposed for using b-roll video from one event and claiming it was taken during another.

I hope the suit is able to move forward just so Mr. Breibart can be deposed under oath and we can find out what his definition of "is" is. ;-)

Posted by: dlpetersdc | February 14, 2011 2:12 PM | Report abuse

would someone finally explain the first amendment to these ball lickers. dumbbart will now pay handsomely for his so-called
"first amendment rights." all those lawyers on the clock right now and for a long time to come. even if shirley does not stay in superior court, she will have a d.c. jury. pay back is a[n expensive] bi... lmao

Posted by: joeblow111 | February 14, 2011 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I'm dismayed by the number of comments here suggesting Sherrod is shaking Breitbart down for money. She was terribly shaken about the incident and yes, her career was hurt. She ought to be naming Vilsack as a co-defendant, and possibly the WH, but they were merely punked by Breitbart. That jerk knew full well what he was posting. It was harassment, pure and simple, and there should be consequences for this kind of action. The First Amendment affords no protection for civil liabilities, so he can't scream "free speech" on this one. He can certainly claim that it's politically motivated. Like anything he does isn't? Hypocrite.

Posted by: fishellb | February 14, 2011 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Breitbart the Bankrupt. Has a nice ring to it, no?

Posted by: ExConservative | February 14, 2011 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"In an interview Monday with Slate's David Weigel, Breitbart said the timing of the lawsuit suggests it is politically motivated".

One should expect Snutty Andy to know when something is politically motivated.

Posted by: IpiTombi | February 14, 2011 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Wait until his karma catches up with him. It's gonna be U-G-L-Y. He's got Brietbart's Disease, for sure.

Posted by: TOMHERE | February 14, 2011 2:03 PM | Report abuse

So can anyone sue the media if they play just a snippet from a video clip?

Sherrod chose to play up the whole "hmmm I'm not going to help the white man" thing to the crowd. That is her fault.

Per previous reporting Breitbart didn't even have the whole video. Even if he did is he really required to play the whole thing?

Posted by: Cryos | February 14, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Breitbart isn't the media. He's a lazy slob who thinks he can write whatever he wants and then hide behind the 1st amendment.
I see your loser hero didn't even have the whole video but still decided to create news out of it. That's quality reporting.
You should get a job on the faux channel. They're used to twisting the truth and making stuff up. Your feeble mind would make a great addition.
Go Heels.
KJO

Posted by: koneill8 | February 14, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Sherrod's actions are "politically motivated"? Gosh, Andy, you say that like it's a bad thing.

Posted by: mattintx | February 14, 2011 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Breitbart is done. Stick a fork in him. SO much for his childrens' college funds.

Posted by: ExConservative | February 14, 2011 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Generally speaking:

Defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm.

Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation.

Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a fixed or medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

The typical elements of a cause of action for defamation are:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party;
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.

There is a penalty to be suffered for purposely misrepresentating the Facts.

Posted by: wave06 | February 14, 2011 1:50 PM | Report abuse

The Blacks should know that the White/Arab Muslim in the White House is really on their side after he wrongfully terminated Shirley Sherrod. Yah, sure, ya betcha!

Posted by: jacquelynwoods | February 14, 2011 1:49 PM | Report abuse

i hope this takes this liar and circus promoter down, and his boyfried o'keefe also.

Posted by: calif-joe | February 14, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Generally speaking:

Defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm.

Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation.

Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a fixed or medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

The typical elements of a cause of action for defamation are:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party;
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.

There is a penalty to be suffered for purposely misrepresentating the Facts.

Posted by: wave06 | February 14, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

He used a clip of her own words against her how is that defamation? So everytime the media quotes someone do they have to include the whole interview segment?

Posted by: Cryos | February 14, 2011 1:24 PM | Report abuse


No, they shouldn't have to include the whole segment but if it's misleading than there is a valid defamation issue since you've taken it out of context.

If I say something like "Someone said all white guys are morons" and you clip the "Someone said" part and show everybody the rest where I say "All white guys are morons" then you are attributing speech to me that is untrue. Thus, defamation.

Of course, Breitbart is hardly the first to do this.

Posted by: mikem1 | February 14, 2011 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Who says that they don't print any good news? This article has me smiling.

Posted by: Lefty_ | February 14, 2011 1:43 PM | Report abuse

To Cryos who claims that what Breitbart did is merely "use her own words." What he did was to selectively create a statement that was 180 degrees away from what she did say and had the effect of fitting perfectly the biases of his fact-deprived audience. Here is Cryos' post and there follows a selctive use of his words.
Is Cryos a necrophiliac? Is he really unhappy that he can't defame people by using selective quotes? What a moron!

CRYOS: I love the zombies posting "defamation, defamation, defamation" and can't even answer my post.

He used a clip of her own words against her how is that defamation? So everytime the media quotes someone do they have to include the whole interview segment?

AND HERE IS HOW BREITBART MIGHT "QUOTE" CRYOS:
“I love zombies. I can’t even clip someone using defamation.”

Posted by: gratianus | February 14, 2011 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Andrew Breitbart = incoming bankruptcy

Posted by: ExConservative | February 14, 2011 1:38 PM | Report abuse

What a joke - her only shot at getting money is going after those that fired her......but they are democrats, so as an African-American Woman she feels compelled to sue Breitbart, which is not only racist, but deflecting from those that actually caused her harm.

She has as much chance to get money in this frivilous suit as Obamacare surviving Supreme Court review.

Posted by: Realist201 | February 14, 2011 1:33 PM | Report abuse

She offered her job back, with back pay. So what damages can she show?

She's just hoping that Breitbart throws some $$$$$$$$$$ at her to make it all go away. Obviously, she doesn't know Breitbart all that well. He'll drag this out for years.

Posted by: WashingtonDame | February 14, 2011 1:33 PM | Report abuse

This is a great thing. Best of luck to Mrs. Sharrod. I hope Breitbart goes bankrupt.

Posted by: ExConservative | February 14, 2011 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Good. Her suit isn't any more ridiculous than many lawsuits flying around, esp those politically driven. But Brightfart is a 1st Class, A-1, jerk of the highest order. I hope she wins or at least settles for A L O T !

Posted by: USA4ALL | February 14, 2011 1:26 P
=============
So you don't like frivolous lawsuits but you hate Breitbart so want her to win not on the facts of the case but on your hate of someone?

Congratulations you're a model liberal zombie.

Posted by: Cryos | February 14, 2011 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Good. Her suit isn't any more ridiculous than many lawsuits flying around, esp those politically driven. But Brightfart is a 1st Class, A-1, jerk of the highest order. I hope she wins or at least settles for A L O T !

Posted by: USA4ALL | February 14, 2011 1:26 PM | Report abuse

She certainly has recourse, as we all would, to file charges against the perpetrator of the alleged libelous act that helped tear her life apart. That's a simple fact of life in these United? States. Now, we let the court system come into play, folks, and IT will determine the outcome.

Posted by: janna2 | February 14, 2011 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I love the zombies posting "defamation, defamation, defamation" and can't even answer my post.

He used a clip of her own words against her how is that defamation? So everytime the media quotes someone do they have to include the whole interview segment?

Posted by: Cryos | February 14, 2011 1:24 PM | Report abuse

You go, girl!

Posted by: Garak | February 14, 2011 1:24 PM | Report abuse

This sounds like many edited versions of somebody's statement by the national press all of the time. The administation had a knee jerk reactions and the position was offered back to the Sherrod. She is now considered a hero by the liberals so it is hard to determine how her reputation was damaged. Now the administation's reputation was damaged by their reaction but what is new there.

Posted by: sales7 | February 14, 2011 1:15 PM | Report abuse

I don't like what happened to Ms. Sherrod and I hope this lawsuit keeps it from happening again but seeing as how she was offered her reinstatment and declined it of her own volition, it is hard to see what damages she can claim.

It will be interesting to watch.

Posted by: andrew23boyle | February 14, 2011 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Don't get Mad, get Even!

Mrs Sherrod is a godsend.

Posted by: wave06 | February 14, 2011 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Now this is what I call a great Valentine's Day. Andrew Breitfart is going to lose his sweaty, disgusting shirt. I truly hope this exposes the crooked operation that Breitfart has been running on behalf of the RNC. He messed with the wrong lady and committed text-book defamation against her. The only question is, just how much will he have to pay? God bless you, Shirley!

Posted by: jmr012 | February 14, 2011 12:56 PM | Report abuse

She resigned her position...she was not terminated !! People please read the article and get your facts straight before commenting.

Posted by: maddogjts | February 14, 2011 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I hope she bankrupts this lying, disgraceful, arrogant closet case!

Posted by: PepperDr | February 14, 2011 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Good for you Shirley, regardless that you were offered your job back after wrongful termination, you have the right to sue the person responsible for causing the termination in the first place.

Posted by: bobby20 | February 14, 2011 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Textbook example of defamation. Breitbart is going to lose everything.

Hurray!

Posted by: anarcho-liberal-tarian | February 14, 2011 12:42 PM | Report abuse


"...you have the right to sue the person responsible for causing the termination in the first place."

The person responsible? Do you mean President Obama or do you mean Secretary Vilsack?

Posted by: Jeff_in_DC | February 14, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

So can anyone sue the media if they play just a snippet from a video clip?

Sherrod chose to play up the whole "hmmm I'm not going to help the white man" thing to the crowd. That is her fault.

Per previous reporting Breitbart didn't even have the whole video. Even if he did is he really required to play the whole thing?

Posted by: Cryos | February 14, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Good for you Shirley, regardless that you were offered your job back after wrongful termination, you have the right to sue the person responsible for causing the termination in the first place.

Posted by: bobby20 | February 14, 2011 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"Sherrod claims "the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work.""

-------------------------------------
Ummm the White House apologized and she was offered her job back. Sounds like she is out for some easy money.

Posted by: g30rg3544 | February 14, 2011 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company