Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Shirley Sherrod says she'll sue Andrew Breitbart

By AP

Associated Press

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

By AP  | July 29, 2010; 11:37 AM ET
Categories:  44: Obama's Washington, Administration  | Tags:  Shirley Sherrod, USDA  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: National Parks waive entrance fees for August weekend
Next: GAO: DHS lacking in foreign language skills

Comments

As well she should for demamation of character!! As that was CLEARLY his intent..

Posted by: Angryman | July 29, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Great news. Instead of taking the high road (i.e., her job back), she decides to take the American way out and sue. Sorry, Ms. Sherrod...you just lost points on the respect meter. Move on.

Posted by: ANCLvr | July 29, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

There is zero chance of this suit succeeding on the merits. It's just an attempted shakedown. Sherrod should have been content with her vindication, now she's just throwing herself into the mud. She's not much better than Breitbart himself right now.

Posted by: WashingtonDame | July 29, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

It's about time these cowardly so-called bloggers be held accountable for the slander that they disseminate. She should sue the pants off the liar Andrew Breitbart.

Posted by: pcc7407 | July 29, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

As Breitbart has few funds to take, this isn't some shakedown. It's a straightforward defamation of character lawsuit. Sherrod was not a public figure and thus has standing. She was clearly damaged and the editing and posting of the video were malicious.

He might have to apologize. Never mind. A conservative blogger ever apolotize? Inconceivable!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 29, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

One more right-wing hack to bite the dust! I hope Sherrod bankrupts him...never allowing him to have the public's ear ever again.

Posted by: BasicInstinct | July 29, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse


Great,


Brietbart, that nasty Tea Party miscreant, in this and several other dispicable acts,

will surely be made to pay through the NOSE. (you should excuse the expression)

And others of his rotten ilk should take note and refrain if not in decency, then at least in fear.
GO GIRL!

Posted by: whistling | July 29, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Good for her. Breitbart is a character assasins and should face the consequences of his actions.

More importantly, he should be stopped from ruining anybody else's life.

Posted by: nisleib | July 29, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

she should get 1 year of his pay.... and 100% of his retirement.

Posted by: newagent99 | July 29, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Good for her. Somebody needs to find a way to make it uncomfortable to the right wing hit men to do their dirty deeds. Right now they feel they can get away with ruining people's lives. It couldn't happen if our press acted responsibly, but they don't. It seems to be up to us to protect ourselves.

Posted by: bgormley1 | July 29, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

No funds? Fine. Take his domains. That'll cut the size of his megaphone, and it's the worst damage one can inflict on a troll like Breitbart.

Posted by: mattintx | July 29, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

She sure is enjoying her ten minutes of fame.

Maybe she should sue NAACP and DOA while she's at it?

Posted by: silencedogoodreturns | July 29, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Good!

It's about time these bloggers were put in check and Breitbart deserves to be made an example of.

Breitbart's intent was clearly to defame and cause harm. Fine. He got what he was looking for. Now let him pay. I hope she cleans him out.

Posted by: ceefer66 | July 29, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

WashingtonDame writes:
"Sherrod should have been content with her vindication, now she's just throwing herself into the mud. She's not much better than Breitbart himself right now."
---------------------------------------------------------

I disagree. The analogy to this would be that, if I decide to take a robber to court (even though he was caught and I got my merchandise back), I am lowering myself to his level. This is untrue. The robber committed a crime.

Posted by: iamweaver | July 29, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Never underestimate the ability of a Republican to say and do stupid things. Comments on this thread all the proof one needs.

Posted by: elderbetty | July 29, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Sue someone who posted a video?

Regardless of your viewpoint, this is simply wrong.

Now to sue someone for an unjust firing is a more reasonable suit but you won't see that......

Posted by: jeffreid1 | July 29, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Why didn'e she make her announcement at the WHITE Journalists Association. Oh, that's right....there IS no such thing. Why? Because THAT would be racist. And so why isn't the Black Journalists Association racist?

Posted by: cfitzpatrick2 | July 29, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Good for her. What Breitbart did was nasty, mean spirited and dishonest.
He deserves the full force of the Law against him.
All these bloggers want to pretend they are citizen journalists, and thats fine. But they lack basic journalist standards of operation and often cross the line. When they break the law, they should be punished. The citizens they injure should all seek restitution.

Posted by: MarilynManson | July 29, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

That's a novelty, a Republican being held responsible for lies and dirty tricks. Might make the rest of them think twice. Fox News, beware.

Posted by: DaveHarris | July 29, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Shouldn't you write "...what appeared to be racist remarks..." It's writing and comments like these that are misleading to people who don't know the whole story.

Posted by: rlj611 | July 29, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

shirley sherrod was quite obviously slandered here. this edited video was designed and created to ruin her career and defame her character. that is the classic, legal definition of libel and slander.

also, a media organization can be sued for slander for a "lie of omission" if the information left out of the report would change the general perception, so i think she should sue Fox as well.

the difference between the people who know that and who do not might be the fact that those in the know are professional journalists as media law is required to get the degree.
given that breitbart and fox don't seem to understand such things, i think that says something...

Posted by: lestro | July 29, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I'll contribute to cover her legal bills. Sue him until he's flat broke paying his legal bills and then sue him some more.

Posted by: DatMel | July 29, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

GOOD! What Breitbart did is clearly defamation per se. Although Ms. Sherrod may have been a "public figure," all one has to do to find proof of actual malice is to watch the Breitbart videotape excerpt, read the accompanying commentary and then watch the entire speech. He deserves to be body slammed for his reprehensible misconduct.

Posted by: ejs2 | July 29, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

When Breitbart posted it, his text said something like "her humanity finally compelled her to help the guy."

The context was there. There is zero chance of her winning the suit. She's just making herself radioactive. As a professing Christian, she could have just turned the other cheek and looked like she's taking the high road. But she already said on camera that she thinks Breitbart wants the blacks back in slavery. Sheesh!

Posted by: yourstruly1991 | July 29, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Breitbart is just another lying bottom-feeder who thinks he's God's gift to right-wing "journalism" where the end justifies any means. Twisting facts until they're unrecognizable is just part of the game. He has plenty of role models - the ones who make the best-seller lists on the back of bulk sales to the faithful. We know who they are.

To paraphrase Goldwater, "I would remind you that taking liberties in the defense of extremism is no vice! And let me remind you also that justice in the pursuit of moderation is no virtue!"

Posted by: st50taw | July 29, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

To all of you who are imputing greed and racial "get back" to Ms. Sherrod because she has decided to sue Andrew Breitbart:

You're wrong.

This is not just a case of a journalist passing on unsubstantiated rumors or embroidering the truth. This guy was hands-on; he edited the tape to show something that didn't really happen.

He wasn't negligent; it wasn't an "oops!". It was entirely intentional and premeditated.

He absolutely deserves to be sued, and it boggles the mind that the kind of fraud he committed isn't considered criminal.

Ms. Sherrod has wisely refrained from suing every possible entity in the case. She is calling to account only the person who committed the fraud, not those who acted as a result of beliving it. While they are certainly culpable for their parts in the incident, only Breitbart set out to defame an individual by creating lies about her and publishing them on the Internet.

Let us hope that others like Andrew Breitbart will think a little longer and harder next time they have the urge to play God with someone else's life.

Posted by: haveaheart | July 29, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

yourstruly1991 said:
"When Breitbart posted it, his text said something like 'her humanity finally compelled her to help the guy.'"
If that's true then it proves that Breitbart lied when he said all he ever saw was the edited portion of the speech. How could he have known that Sherrod helped "the guy" unless he had seen, or was aware of the entire content of her speech? Breitbart is also "the guy" who questions whether the the Spooners are really who they say they are. Maybe back when Obama was born the same nefarious forces who had the foresight to plant a birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper also deposited Spooner-like clones in Georgia so they could serve as Manchurian Candidate farmers to vouch for Sherrod at the appropriate time.

Posted by: ejs2 | July 29, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I was hoping she would. Breitbart is finished.

Posted by: blazertaco | July 29, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, the video was posted by a conservative blogger to underhandedly oust an official he considered liberal. There must be consequences for that kind of thing. We cannot allow citizens to subvert our system of government to serve their own ideals!

Conservatives who would mock her decision need to question whether the integrety of our government is worth sacrificing to score a momentary political victory is worth it. Defamation lawsuits exist for a reason.

Posted by: joshlct | July 29, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I haven't read every post in detail, but what part of what was posted by Breitbart was untrue? You can't sue someone for telling the truth. What she should have been upset about is the exposure of her racist attitudes in other parts of her speech to the NAALCP.

Posted by: groovercg | July 29, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Once again the Right Wing has egg on its face.

Posted by: blazertaco | July 29, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

I am definitely for it. She should sue that little rat pr*ck for every cent his insurance company has. Then he won't be able to get insurance anymore, and the next person to sue him can take his personal money!

Posted by: nicekid | July 29, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Breitbart was wrong for posting the video, but it seems that DOA and President Obama were the ones who fired her. If Breitbart had shown the video and the administration and DOA did their due diligence and uncovered that it was a cheap shot at a black Democrat (which it was), that would be one thing. But the whole thing was blown so out of proportion because of her firing. Had she never been fired, it's likely her character wouldn't have been "defamed" as badly (if at all).

And Breitbart didn't edit the tape, he didn't show the whole thing - they are two different things.

Posted by: JG08 | July 29, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

She apparently has a great deal of experience with lawsuits so this should be walk in the park. HOwever, Breitbart didn't make up the clip, and it wasn't Breitbart who fired her or maligned her it was NAACP and HUD.
Precisely because Breitbart is a conservative blogger he is being castigated - when nobody pays any attention to the JournOlists or foul mouthed progressives at MSNBC et.al.

Posted by: sandynh | July 29, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

She apparently has a great deal of experience with lawsuits so this should be walk in the park. HOwever, Breitbart didn't make up the clip, and it wasn't Breitbart who fired her or maligned her it was NAACP and HUD.
Precisely because Breitbart is a conservative blogger he is being castigated - when nobody pays any attention to the JournOlists or foul mouthed progressives at MSNBC et.al.

- - -

He did "make up the clip". Learn the facts.

The light of facts and truth kill the right-wing slander vampires.

Posted by: pcc7407 | July 29, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Good for her, and I hope she also names Fox and Limbaugh and many of the rightwing sociopaths who jumped on the bandwagon gleefully as co-defendants.

There is absolutely no possible doubt that the tape was selectively and maliciously edited, that the Breitbart arranged for it to get distributed, and that he has a history of doing this.

Can anyone rationally doubt that the tape was done maliciously in order to damage Ms Sherrod's career and her standing in the community? And, in fact, it succeeded. The fact that the rest of the tape was available to completely exonerate her is irrelevant.

Posted by: edallan | July 29, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Andrew Breitbart and his masters finally overreached and maligned upstanding public servant.

I hope she sues him for defamation of character for every bunny he has and shuts down his evil website.

Posted by: JHigginss | July 29, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Where can I send in some money to help with this suit? And why isn't Shirley suing everyone else who is involved with this? Simple -- THEY APOLOGIZED (Fox's apology was just kinda-sorta). It's too late for that waste of space not-so-Breitbart to apologize. I hope he ends up on the streets.

Posted by: EAHarrison | July 29, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Good luck with that suit Sherrod.

You're going to have to prove damages. This incident propelled her from a complete nobody to a saint of the racist left. Her income potential has soared.

If one could get damages for dissemination of misleading excerpts of ones statements, not a single mainstream media outlet would remain in business.

Posted by: ronStrong | July 29, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Sue, Shirley, sue! Take the bum down!

Posted by: Lefty_ | July 29, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Good for her. The discovery process alone should be verrrrry interesting.

Posted by: solsticebelle | July 29, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

My desire to see Sherrod take the high road is trumped by my disappointment in seeing relatively no consequences so far for Breitbart posting the clip that unequivocally savaged a person's professional reputation without taking any steps to make certain the video was not an edited hitjob.

Anyone more offended by Sherrod's decision to sue than Breibart's actions needs to take a long look at themselves in the mirror.

Posted by: sirocco23 | July 29, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Since there no longer appears to be an overriding sense of social responsibility or journalistic integrity guiding people like Breitbart, perhaps legal action is a good way to hold them accountable. I don't like litigiousness, but there appears to be no existing means of checks and balances against people who willfully slime innocent people and cause them harm. Best of luck to her.

Posted by: Buddydog | July 29, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Good for You Mrs. Sherrod.. maybe this myopic thinking right wing air head will think twice before he tries to exercise his arrogance and blinded hatred again.

Posted by: sabrina2 | July 29, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Some posters have suggested that her suit would be without merit because she was not harmed (that in fact it might be viewed as having enhanced her career). I disagree. I think she was most certainly harmed with all the negative publicity. Negative stuff sticks in people's minds far more tenaciously than good stuff or vindications. That's just human nature. However, more importantly, the entire USDA was "harmed" by the negative publicity, as was the NAACP. and again that negative stuff will stick much longer than the vindication. But of course the USDA can't sue for defamation, and for all practical purposes neither can the NAACP. What Sherrod is doing is heroic -- she's vindicating not only herself but also the NAACP and the Obama administration. People will remember the lawsuit, even if the suit is dropped on a technicality. Breitbart's deceptive practice will be right there in front of the public eye, and his credibility will be pulled down, perhaps not as far down as it should be, but at least a notch.

Right on, Ms. Sherrod!

Posted by: incredulousinBoyntonBeach | July 29, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

If a suit is the only way to rein in Breitbart and others of his ilk, then so be it. Something needs to be done about these scumbags who use lies to achieve their aims. She won't win but it will leave Breitbart hanging out there for awhile.

Posted by: Diogenes | July 29, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Ms Sherrod is burning through her 15 minutes of fame. There's something strange about her, expecting a call from the president, finding something distasteful about new (and presumably better paid) position at USDA, half bragging about not doing all she could do. Here's a person who has been maligned but at the same time seems to be embellishing her importance. I would even like to see some of her life narrative substantiated by other sources. I'd be curious if it were all true.

Posted by: jhtlag1 | July 29, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Time to get rid of brightfart and fauxnews. We need to drain the LYING swamp that is the voice of the rethuglikkkon/teabaggers party.

Posted by: numbers28 | July 29, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

One more right-wing hack to bite the dust! I hope Sherrod bankrupts him...never allowing him to have the public's ear ever again.

Posted by: BasicInstinct | July 29, 2010 11:53 AM
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Amen to that!

And I hope she cleans him out--and the deep pockets who finance AB's shenanigans.

Posted by: mini2 | July 29, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

People have sued other people for slander for years. This is nothing new and what this guy did was nothing but slander.

Our court systems allows people to sue for birth certificates and other fictional things. Ms Sherrod should use her full extent of the law when she feels that a wrong has been committed against her. Thanks Ms Sherrod; maybe people will be more careful on what they present as truth.

Posted by: ronhamp | July 29, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Brietbart - he can dish it out, but can he take it? Like all blowhard conservatives (whose only real values consist of being a mouthpiece for multinational corporations intent on destroying our country for maximum profit), probably not. See "Sarah Palin" for example.

Posted by: usblues1 | July 29, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

She should have been content with the results of the situation????

Are you not aware that the woman's telephone number, house address, children's names, siblings names, all were common knowledge to any crazy person who loves making threats?

Breibart is in the pop journalism business, so should have a good lawyer on retainer.

Posted by: HookedOnThePost | July 29, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Why didn'e she make her announcement at the WHITE Journalists Association. Oh, that's right....there IS no such thing. Why? Because THAT would be racist. And so why isn't the Black Journalists Association racist?

The statement above is foolish in that it ignores the RACIST history of the USA. Here is bereszz01's rule. "A reaction to racism is not racist" Prime examples that proves the rule are Black Entertainment Television, Ebony Magazine and Historically Black Colleges and Universities. There are many more. If you ignore America's racist history these entities would be considered racist. But we all know that these entities were formed because the white print and TV media ignored black people and did not allow black students to attend their colleges and universities. Back in the day, we used to call MTV WMTV. Guess why?
Finally there is a "white journalist association". It is just not called that. And that "white journalist association" is at least in part why the National Association of Black Journalists was formed.

Posted by: bereszz01 | July 29, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Sherrod is trying to shake down Breitbart the same way she and her husband shook down the US government for $13 million in bogus Pigford claims.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=pigford+scam&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGLL_enUS358US358&ie=UTF-8

Posted by: pmendez | July 29, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

She is a public person. They have a very high bar to hurdle to get to defamation. She will lose unless she can prove he personally edited the video. As a member of the press he can protect his source.

And you should hope that she does lose too. Because is she wins, then defamation claims of Internet bloggers -- like the Washington Post bloggers -- will become quite the rage.

Posted by: krush01 | July 29, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

WHAT A JOKE. WHERE WAS ALL THIS EXPRESSION OF CANDOR WHEN THE BLOGGERS WERE ATTACKING GEORGE BUSH? IT IS THE SAME OLD STORY. IT WOULD EEM THAT BUSH WAS AN EASY TARGET AND THAT NO ONE WOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHATEVER THEY WROTE. NOW THIS WOMAN IS LIVING IT UP IN THE LIMELIGHT AND SHE WILL ATTEMPT TO GET WHAT EVER SGE CAN. THE OLD AMERICAN WAY, SUE, SUE, SUE. WE PROBABLY WILL HEAR ANOTHER BID FOR REPATRIATION OF DEEDS COMMITTED IN THE 1088'S. AFTER A WHILE IT GETS TIRESOME.

Posted by: MALBENNET | July 29, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"WHAT A JOKE. WHERE WAS ALL THIS EXPRESSION OF CANDOR WHEN THE BLOGGERS WERE ATTACKING GEORGE BUSH? IT IS THE SAME OLD STORY. IT WOULD EEM THAT BUSH WAS AN EASY TARGET AND THAT NO ONE WOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHATEVER THEY WROTE. NOW THIS WOMAN IS LIVING IT UP IN THE LIMELIGHT AND SHE WILL ATTEMPT TO GET WHAT EVER SGE CAN. THE OLD AMERICAN WAY, SUE, SUE, SUE. WE PROBABLY WILL HEAR ANOTHER BID FOR REPATRIATION OF DEEDS COMMITTED IN THE 1088'S. AFTER A WHILE IT GETS TIRESOME."

Posted by: MALBENNET | July 29, 2010 1:49 PM |
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

You look pretty in pink (I betcha!), typohead.

Posted by: mini2 | July 29, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Some posters have suggested that her suit would be without merit because she was not harmed (that in fact it might be viewed as having enhanced her career). I disagree....

Right on, Ms. Sherrod!

Posted by: incredulousinBoyntonBeach | July 29, 2010 1:20 PM |
===============================
I disagree too.

But I have to suggest first, that there may be a Public Service she can still render. The little people would certainly appreciate it ...

What led to her firing was a Slander. This was Discrimination plain and simple, and against existing law. She was a nobody, and a public slander caused her to be punished by her employer. This is no different than any Employer going on line and making a decision about your future based upon what your Ex said about you on their Facebook page. Yet this sort of discrimination is largely overlooked by the DOJ's Civil Rights Division as "not our thing".

This is a clear case where Breitbart and FoxNews conspired to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater and Shirley Sherrod's employment was collateral damage. But it is not a matter of Free Speech, it is a matter of induced discrimination in employment.

If the DOJ fails to pursue this [18 USC 242] as a criminal matter it will prove for all to see that in fact they are wedded to race as the sole criterion for discrimination and not, as Shirley Sherrod pointed out "It's all about the money, y'all"

Posted by: gannon_dick | July 29, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Breitbart was definitely wrong when he posted the video, but how was she damaged? They offered her job back, she refused. The most she lost is a few weeks wages and benefits. I don't see how she can prove damages when she rejected a remedy. My guess is she was ready to retire anyway, why not sue? Typical of our litigious society. Sue the pants off everyone, kick back and enjoy.

Posted by: WindyCity | July 29, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

When you fraudulently change information that defames another person you are slandering them. I hope she kicks his azz. Her doing this has increased my admiration of her. It's time the right wing slander machine has people standing up to them. They have been getting their way much too long. I want to see that pig sweat and pump out lawyer fees. His video days are over.

Posted by: billr40229 | July 29, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Ridiculous lawsuit.

The only editing of the video was that it was truncated - not cut and spliced. Therefore, it was an actual video of Shirley Sherrod speaking before a public gathering.

I'm in full agreement with jeffreid1 - Think about this for a moment before you want someone sued for simply posting a video. Bad idea, bad precedent.

She certainly has a case against the government for wrongful termination, but even that is moot, because they offered immediate reinstatement.

Posted by: pilsener | July 29, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

"This is a clear case where Breitbart and FoxNews conspired to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater and Shirley Sherrod's employment was collateral damage."


How many times must you idiotic liberal dunces be told that Fox had nothing to say about Sherrold until hours AFTER she was fired by the Obama regime. Why are facts not imported to liberals?

Posted by: groovercg | July 29, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Let me make clear of a few things some of your people fail to understand or know...

1) Sherrod was a government "employee". She was not a public figure. So please stop saying this. Career "employees" of the govt are not elected or appointed.

2) Just because anyone apologized DOES NOT mean the crime (or the defammation) was not commited. I see her hardest proof is convincing the court that Brietbart was responsible for the editing. He claims he received it like that. That could be a show stopper unless they can prove otherwise.

3) Fox News WAS also responsible. because they are the ones that promoted Brietbart's blog and ultimately got Sherrod fired.

4) Attacks on George Bush were jusutufued because there was no slander or lies. HE and Cheney were the lieing creatures; and everyone knows it except a few right-wingnuts that still defend those traitors!

5) For the clown that would like to see Sherrod life narrative... YOU CAN'T! Why? Read item #1 above! She isn't a public figure!

Posted by: darbyohara | July 30, 2010 7:08 AM | Report abuse

Well, it's about d*mn time! Why are we seemingly being so lenient with these people who deliberately abuse their victims and defraud the public? If you're in violation of someone's rights you should have to face the consequences: this was a national embarrassment for Shirley Sherrod at the hands of this "Spin Master" Andrew Brietbart.

Forget about blaming the administration's lack of judgment (which we should: they should be looking for jobs also), but let's get to the root of the problem: Brietbart deliberately intended with malice and succeeded in significantly harming Sherrod’s reputation.

Not only was her name damaged, but she suffered monetarily as a result of these actions resulting in the loss of employment which warrants monetary punitive reprisal for this dastardly act on behalf of Andrew Brietbart.
Therefore, he should bare the consequences to the fullest extent of the law for his well thought out attack to intentionally harm Sherrod!

Posted by: JayeHarding | July 30, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

I WAS SYPATHETIC TO SHIRLEY'S PLIGHT UP UNTIL SHE SAID SHE WOULD TRY THE LITIGATION LOTTERY.

BREITBART SAID HIS INTENT, WHICH WAS PROVEN, IS THAT THE NAACP IS RACIST.

THE NAACP VIDEO CLIP, OF NAACP AUDIENCE MEMBERS LAUGHING, WHEN WHEN SHERROD SAID SHE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST A WHITE FARMER, WAS PROOF OF RACIAL BIAS ON THE PART OF THE ATTENDING NAACP MEMBERS.

GOOD LUCK WITH THE LAWSUIT SHIRLEY....YOU ARE A PUBLIC FIGURE ENGAGED IN A PUBLIC DEBATE AT A SEMI-PUBLIC MEETING, WHICH WAS BEING RECORDED.

Posted by: KrisinAL | July 30, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

I guess the facts that she has no grounds to sue hasn't occurred to any of these blogers. But, she made millions by suing the 'fedrl gubmnt' (translation = we the taxpayer) over a false farm subsidy ruse years ago ... so she knows how to game the system.

Posted by: IQ168 | July 30, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Sadly, I am not surprised the reaction is now to sue somebody over this. It's unfortunate that she was fired, yet the responsibility for that lies with her employer. How stupid does one have to be really, to fire someone based solely on something seen on the internet? I still do not understand how they took the time to fire her, then blamed it on a blogger? Are they serious? What about their personal responsibility to make sure they have the facts before they react. Also, this tape was only edited to leave things out, there was nothing falsified in what she actually said. In addition, a conservative blogger has just as much right to say what they want on the internet as a leftist one, or anyone. When she gave this speech, she chose to put her words on public display. And, please remember, it's the internet, it can be a useful tool, however, it cannot replace independent thinking. Who seriously believes everything they read on the internet anyway? Shame on you if you do!

Posted by: Pamela_43 | July 30, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

I'll be impressed when she names the ACLU, NAACP, the congressional Black Caucus, the Obama administration and her husband.

Until then please spare the B S weary citizens your hypocrisy.

Posted by: DrMysterious | July 30, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

The real story of the entire sorry incident is the knee-jerk reaction from Vilsak and 'The White House.' What poor judgment, to shoot from the hip and demand Sherrod's reesignation without any investigation of the truth. To take action on a know partisan blogger's false information - and Bill O'Reilly's rant, done on bad information- is the worst level of bad judgment for a government to display. By the way, I'm a Democrat.

Posted by: RMA1 | July 30, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

The real story of the entire sorry incident is the knee-jerk reaction from Vilsak and 'The White House.' What poor judgment, to shoot from the hip and demand Sherrod's reesignation without any investigation of the truth. To take action on a know partisan blogger's false information - and Bill O'Reilly's rant, done on bad information- is the worst level of bad judgment for a government to display. By the way, I'm a Democrat.

Posted by: RMA1 | July 30, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

LOL.. She opened her mouth, inserted her own foot by admitting to racist thoughts and actions on video (you really think the left would give a pass to a conservative who said the same things, even if they went on to say that they saw the error of their ways? Common'- get real) gets fired by an overreactive boss and pressure from Obama, and it's all Breitbart's fault. Yeah.. right.
I think maybe Sharon Angle should sue Harry Reid for slander, too, since what he's been saying in his ads is much more in line with the legal definition of maligning and defamation than anything Breitbart said.

Posted by: moonlitesonata2 | July 30, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Sherrod should perhaps be very careful about what she does going down the road. At the moment she has sufficient goodwill from Americans at large to come out of this as some sort of hero. Should she try to make a federal case out of it the episode may well come back to bite her and cast an entirely different look to the picture of the innocent woman caught up in a racial war between two groups.

Despite what some on here have said what she is trying to prove is extraordinarily hard in a court of law. She is a public figure in so far as she is a government official charged with the equitable distribution of some $300 million dollars in farm aid program money every year AND she took it upon herself to give a public speech as that administrator to the non-governmental private organization known as the NAACP. If she's smart she will remove herself from the battlefield with her honor and name secure.

I would ask that regardless of party affiliation that everyone should do some homework about Mrs. Sherrod and her husband over the years from the mid-80's up through the present. You might find yourself at least wondering just what is going on up in Washington and why are billions (not just millions) of dollars of taxpayer money being spent as a result of this persons career?

Check out the following:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/25/BAP01EIKK2.DTL

& this

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/real_sherrod_story_still_untol.html

and this one for a short video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrcJ3cBDS7Y

Posted by: Sproing | July 30, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Good for her!

He purposefully tried to screw her and will pay for it

The fact that people support this blogger show how many scumbags we have in this country

Posted by: Bious | July 30, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

She's better off now than before the video. She can make millions on the lecture circuit talking about how she was oppressed by The Man.

Posted by: jiji1 | July 30, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

To reply to one of Beibart supports:

She is taking the high road by hitting Beibart in his pockets. What makes you think he or anyone else who try to harm people should not pay for what they did. Sound like you are a Beibart supporter with that comment. Yes, she can move on but first hit him in the pocket. I applaud her for having courage to standing up.

Posted by: laj0321 | August 2, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

You all miss the point of the video. It had nothing to do with Sherrod. It was showing the NAACP crowd laughing when Shirley told them she screwed the white farmer.

It was the NAACP he was outing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wake up libs!!!

Posted by: 1951dewey | August 2, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Yep, just like I thought. This is not news. People sue all the time and look it didn't hurt her much, she's got an opportunity at a cushy new job.

Posted by: klassylady25 | August 2, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

In pirate lingo, Shirley was "foisted by her own petard."

Breitbart is just doing to the left what the left has done to the right for years: take scalps.

Posted by: bringsdogtowork | August 2, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

david sequeira fdic
I hope she shuts him down. There no longer appears to be any penalty for character assassination and defamation.

Posted by: davidsequeirafdic | August 2, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

She should sue the Liar in Chief and Comrade Vilsack. She has a much better case against the US Govt; oh wait she already did that under another administration.

Posted by: dcharlson | August 2, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I agree wholeheartedly with comments made by pcc7407. For those others who think Ms. Sherrod is in the wrong, you are so mistaken. This liar Breitbart needs to be held accountable for his actions. Taking away his self-esteem won't do it because he has none. Taking away his money will get his attention. Then.....get him off the airways.

Posted by: jiminjc | August 2, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"What makes you think he or anyone else who try to harm people should not pay for what they did?"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is nothing wrong with trying to harm someone's reputation if you are telling the truth. No one has said which part of the video that was posted was not true. In fact, she should be glad that the rest of her speech was not posted. That would have really shown her for the racist she is.

Posted by: groovercg | August 2, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Good Sue, and The American Taxpayer will paid again.

Posted by: akeegan2 | August 3, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

When one behaves as a scum-maggot, one earns the right to be sued. Breitbart' deliberate deception may have afforded him a moment of extreme-right satisfaction but it opened the window of scrutiny on his dastardly deeds. Hopefully Ms. Sherrod's lawsuit succeeds in making the scoundrel reap the consequences of his skullduggery.

Posted by: Chuckitoff | August 3, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Breitbart is a despicable human being!

Posted by: SpotlessCrab | August 3, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Let's see...Obama's people told Vilsack to throw her under the bus, then ordered him to fall on his sword; she was condemned as racist (even thouigh we know blacks can't be racist) by the the NAACP; so she sues Breitbart. Hmm. A public figure in an open venue, making the comments she made, in a tape released by "her own people". Not much of a leg to stand on in court, but some cards trump all others. She will probably get whatever money she wants, but, in the long run, victims never win anything, and ever remain the victims they see themselves as.

Posted by: ralphv2 | August 3, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

groovercg ... you need to see and hear the facts before you post your judgements. I do not follow your reasoning? Oh right ... there was none!

Posted by: heyjude2 | August 3, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

The posters attacking Sherrod while trying to defend this vile bucket of pig excrement are pathetic in their rationales.

No Republican act is too loathsome, too despicable, too far over the line to deserve criticism - never mind contempt - from these teabagging sycophants.

Republicans, as a group, are the most disgusting people on the planet.

Posted by: lorenabbey | August 4, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

She is not a public figure. She was MADE one by Brightfart. For those of you who think she did not suffer....for three days, while she was unemployed and going on the media circuit to campaign for her job back, she was suffering. If you or I had been done in like that (some right wingnut posting a small snippet of some speech you made to HS kids over all telling them to stay in school, but recanting about how you overcame your bias about the educational system based upon your experiences with good educators as an example), you BET YOUR A$$ you would want to sue. Defamation of character. Not everyone listens to the mainstream media and as long as there is one person out there who listened to brightfart and thinks poorly of Ms. Shirley (as this blog seems to still indicate, I hope she uses it as proof), she has grounds in my book.

And who cares if she has taken on the government before for wrong doing? What that tells me is that she is someone who has stood up for her rights over her lifetime, and not only once in a lifetime. That is probably why she went on CNN to fight back. The only way to beat right wing bloggers is in the media.
The government didn't publish that crap, brightfart did. She is suing the right person, the person who was the SOURCE of the harm, who pushed the first domino that led to this collossal mess.

A REAL media person would have checked the facts. That's journalism 101. He should pay the consequences for lacking journalistic integrity.

Where can I donate to the Shirley Shirrod Legal fund?

Posted by: changingfaces | August 4, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Sherrod may have standing for a suit against Breitbart as a responsible party. He did not do due diligence in confirming his source before publishing something that was untrue. What is arguable is his intention of doing that, but what is not is the damage done to Ms Sherrod by the actions of Breitbart, so she can claim damages from him and perhaps from his employer. Breitbart's damage to his own reputation was his own doing, so he has no one to blame but himself. Trying to fight the suit instead of settling out of court would be the other foot wounded also.

Posted by: DecoratedVeteranOfficer | August 4, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Some have referred to the journalistic integrity of Mr Beitbart. This could be an oxymoronism.

Posted by: DecoratedVeteranOfficer | August 4, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company