Shirley Sherrod Files Suit Against Andrew Breitbart

cbsnews.com ^ | 2-14-11 | Lucy Madison

[soycd]

The ignorant and lazy (pick one) said the words on the tape no matter how you cut it. The MSM edits videos all
the time to shorten them for broadcast. No different here.

Her kind of lazy is what’s wrong with 80% of this once great country. The judge should slap her
with an extra fine for stupidity.

[beandog]

This conservative doesn’t agree with anything you said, but since I doubt you’re a conservative I think I’m on the right side.

[TigersEye]

If you want to anger a liberal play a tape of them speaking their own minds.

[boatbums]

If I remember the whole purpose of that video, it was in response to the NAACP’s assertion about the Tea Party being racists. He showed the video not primarily to shoot Sherrod down, but to show what kind of speakers the NAACP used at their events - and it WAS at an NAACP event where she was speaker. Breitbart also pointed out the laughter and cheers from the attendees in response to her statements about discriminating against a white farmer. They showed yet again how the NAACP, who cries racist every time they get a smidgen of a chance were racists themselves.

We may see Ms. Sherrod being hushed over this as they realize the context surrounding the video and the blatant hypocrisy of the NAACP being demonstrated over and over again. Perhaps she is secretly shaking THEM down and not Breitbart.

[Brown Deer]

"I'm not employed and no one's offered me a job anywhere, so I don't know where to look at this point,'' she told the Associated Press in an interview. "I'm just trying to survive.''

She ran out of money from her share of the $13 million settlement with the USDA, so now she is going to sue someone else.

[freekitty]

I understand she has earned millions. Kind of hard not survive on that kind of money.

[Tom_Ohio]

I have read a few attorneys posts about this today, and this will end just awfully for Shirley and whoever is backing her.
Of course they know she is bus-fodder and the lame-stream and make-believe media will ignore this whole case when it blows up.
The discovery phase of the litigation will complete with several people in the administration thrown under the bus, the suit withdrawn, and probably an apology to Bretibart, The Tea Party, and white people in general. (Well, don;t hold your breath for that third one) That is if it even gets to a discovery phase. The parties involved are just wanting some headline saying that Andrew settled and that the case is over, no details at all. Failing that means Shirley is toast, the head of the USDA is toast, and some other leftist organizations will be outed as funding this thing.
All funding of the suit itself will be discovered, whether it is Soros money or not will be determined, and OUTED on a national stage (breibart.com) and picked up by many legal sites.
This tort is only a headline and not even a very productive one, just enough to keep the left leaners in the game (firing up the base) and that is its only use.

[Ann Archy]

AMEN!! She’s a SERIAL SUER!! Isn’t she the one behind the PIGFORD MILIONS that WE PAID FOR????

[Michael.SF.]

Breitbart should sue her since she benefited from the publicity.

[Tzimisce]

"I'm not employed and no one's offered me a job anywhere, so I don't know where to look at this point,'' she told the Associated Press in an interview. "I'm just trying to survive.''

You're having trouble finding work in this roaring Obama Economy?

[Tublecane]

“If she shows that Breitbart made her a subject of public ridicule—when before she was an unknown—she will win easily.”

Truth has always been sufficient defense, and from what I understand Brietbart didn’t lie. All he did was excerpt. And like I said, if you can’t take things out of context anymore, goodbye journalism.

“Cutting/editing a tape to be misleading/misrepresenting/untruthful is grounds for defamation. Any conservative would agree.”

There’s editing and then there’s editing. Brietbart excerpted, which did not involve altering the truth of what she said in any way, except to isolate it from context. Which can be misleading, but is something journalists (not that Brietbart’s a real journalist, exactly, but in this case he’s actign no different than most of the industry) literally do every single day. The way it was edited may have been misleading, but it wasn’t untruthful. He represented her words faithfully, and what’s more, linked to the full video, right? Couldn’t he argue that it’s the audience’s responsibility to get the whole story before forming an opion on her as a human being, especially if it the whole story was a mouse click away?

Also, the initial controversy was nothing more than a blip. It wasn’t until the administration overreacted in anticipation of calls for her head that never came that Sherrod was truly injured. Couldn’t Brietbart argue that it was the White House’s tone deaf, knee-jerk response that hurt her, and it was their responsibility to take the excerpt in the manner it was presented (i.e. as evidence of her history of discrimination, if not her present discrimination)?

In summation, I have to again repeat how utterly normal it is for words to be taken out of context, and how utterly inconsistent it would be to penalize Brietbart for a tactic that will no doubt proceed to be exploited unabated on the internet, on tv, and in print for people with names other than Sherrod.

[Tublecane]

“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).”

You know how many of these throwaway meetings, speeches, dinners, banquets, etc. political organizations have? It’s a regular Wednesday night for them. If they weren’t gathered in a reception hall politely clapping and not actually listening to eachother, they’d be dead.

“Serious lies like posting her videotaped words without alteration? Who are you going to believe - her or your lying eyes and ears?”

I was talking about whether a public figure can be sued, not the merits of this particular case. I agree, Breitbart did not lie about Sherrod. He got the story wrong, and frankly none of this should’ve happened to her. But lying wasn’t involved.

[Bob]

You know how many of these throwaway meetings, speeches, dinners, banquets, etc. political organizations have? It’s a regular Wednesday night for them. If they weren’t gathered in a reception hall politely clapping and not actually listening to eachother, they’d be dead.

While organizations obviously hold many useless meetings with many boring speakers, we're not talking about your local city councilman or mayor showing up here; we're talking about a federal bureaucrat. How many of those are invited to speak at these many meetings? Darned few, I'd suspect.

I was talking about whether a public figure can be sued, not the merits of this particular case. I agree, Breitbart did not lie about Sherrod. He got the story wrong, and frankly none of this should’ve happened to her. But lying wasn’t involved.

I don't really think he got the story wrong. She proudly told her tale of screwing over a white farmer because he was white. The video clearly shows that the NAACP members present obviously approved of her doing so and laughed about it. To me, that's the story, not her later 'redemption' claim. The story was much more about the NAACP's blatant racism than it was about her, even though she was the catalyst who triggered it.

[SeeSac]

The White House later apologized to Sherrod for the handling of the incident, and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asked her to return to the USDA. (Sherrod declined the offer.)

Will be hard to prove damages ...

[SeeSac]

I thought the government offered her another job right after it happened?

It's buried way down in the article. Sentence six.

[Tublecane]

“She proudly told her tale of screwing over a white farmer because he was white”

Not proudly, no. The whole point of the story was that she had given up that sort of thing. Which is why I say Breitbart got the story wrong. The headline should’ve been something “Former Reverse-Discrimination Footsoldier Repents.”

“The video clearly shows that the NAACP members present obviously approved of her doing so and laughed about it.”

Maybe, but that is a weak point, considering no one—not even the trusty conservative apologist racket—picked up on it. Frankly, no one cares what makes the NAACP hoot and holler.