Posted on 02/14/2011 2:51:49 PM PST by Justaham
(For the record, I do, and I support Brietbart over this racist government leech.)
It may not have been perfectly fair, but from what I understand all Breitbart did was show what she actually said, albeit in a truncated manner. He didn’t use editing to misrepresent her so much as give the wrong impression by taking one part of her speech out of context.
You can’t sue someone for being misleading, intentionally or not. Especially if Breitbart linked to the full video, as I assume he did. If that sort of thing is forbidden, say goodbye to that thing they call “journalism.” Even if you think Breitbart’s a clown, in this instance what he did was not fundamentally different than what the New York Times et. al. has done thousands of times.
“She’s a public figure. No cause of action.”
Well, she only became a public figure because of the story. Who the heck knew who she was before that? I don’t want to dub every government employee a public figure, given that there are (not literally) billions of ‘em.
By the way, public figures can sue for libel, slander, defamation, etc. It just depends on the circumstances. If it’s a cartoon insinuating Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother, that’s one thing. Satire must be free. But serious lies in serious sources might be a different matter.
She was offered her old job back...if she sues and wins, then I guess Palin and any one else, who is portrayed in a video, with parts n pieces, would be able to sue as well...
She is either the stupidest person who ever lived or she is a bald faced liar.
She was NOT a public figure before this. This will cost fool Breitbart a bundle in legal costs, even if she does not win ultimately.
|
“I'm not employed and no one’s offered me a job anywhere.
It appears she is not being truthful.
If she shows that Breitbart made her a subject of public ridicule—when before she was an unknown—she will win easily.
Cutting/editing a tape to be misleading/misrepresenting/untruthful is grounds for defamation. Any conservative would agree.
Breitbeardy is merely a scandal monger.
Sounds like she’s just unhappy about not being in the spotlight any longer.
I disagree that she wasn't already a public figure before the incident. The NAACP knew who she was. She was a fairly high ranking government bureaucrat who was asked to speak to a national civil rights organization (or at least a branch of it).
But serious lies in serious sources might be a different matter.
Serious lies like posting her videotaped words without alteration? Who are you going to believe - her or your lying eyes and ears?
discovery may be a booger here for Sherrod.
Smells like $oro$.
Pray for Breitbart
Just following the thread to 30 or some posts, and I’m curious as to why nobody seems to remember that SSherrod threatened to sue back when the incident ocurred.
I’ve been waiting for this to happen, and have been wondering why it took so long for her to take action.
It seems we're there.
You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. The portion of the tape shown was both uncut and unedited. According to your new standard, the full words and context of anything said by a person speaking in public need to be shown, for fear of being sued.
As I said, though, luckily you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
Shirley you can’t be serious.
Don’t call me Shirley.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.