Skip to comments.Right Wing Blogger (Breitbart) Must Face Sherrod Claim
Posted on 02/17/2012 4:36:32 PM PST by epithermal
WASHINGTON (CN) - Former U.S Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod's lawsuit against right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart survived a motion to dismiss, clearing the way for her to pursue the high-profile defamation suit she filed against him and a colleague last year. Sherrod Sued Breitbart and associate Larry O'Connor in February 2011, charging the two men posted a heavily editor clip of her online that led to accusations of racism and ultimately got her fired. Breitbert filed his motion under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act, which provides that if a defendant can show the claim at issue arises from an act in furtherance of the right to free speech - and if the it is also related to an issue of public concern-he can file a special motion to dismiss. But in a terse decision, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon tossed the motion, pointing out that the D.C. law that the motion was based on did not take affect until more than a month after Sherrod filed her defamation suit.
(Excerpt) Read more at courthousenews.com ...
Breitbart is a socialist?
Her proper beef would be with the people who fired her with no warning and no recourse.
Her beef is with Obama. Or should be.
They dont like thier own medicine
Still, why did Sherrod quit so quickly in the wake of the uproar, if the news coverage was a purposeful smear made with actual malice (which is what the lawsuit would need to prove)? Was Obama himself pushing her in the direction of the underside of the bus?
Which makes it kind of hard for the case she’s trying to make. Surely if nobody else was on top of the “facts,” one would expect the President to be.
Sherrod and her husband have made a huge fortune suing people and receiving undeserved financial settlements. This included money received by claiming to have been a “farmer” who was discriminated against by the Dept of Agriculture (the infamous Pigford case boondoggle.
They called her on the phone, on her way in to work, and told her to resign immediately.
They were getting calls from the White House telling them to make this go away.
If it really was “heavily edited” as all the MSM was saying (sure didn’t appear to be), then she has a point.
I suspect the heavily edited version simply included a start and an end.
This was a huge fraud and one neither the government nor the press have had any interest in pursuing.
She is a selfish piggish a-hole.
She should be grateful for all she got for doing nothing.
May financial ill will fall upon her.
Breitbart and Horowitz know the innermost workings of the Leftist machine.
They don't roll over like good establishment pubbies.
They politically slice Leftist throats at every opportunity.
This should also not be overlooked.
A) She was a public figure.
B) Though edited, the remarks were her own.
C) There is no “greater context” argument in a defamation lawsuit. He did not defame her in any way.
D) Even if this was taken out of context with some other statement that seemingly changes it, it still *legally* stands on its own, and Breitbart’s minimalist comments, added to it, are in no way slanderous.
This is what Shirley Sherrod said.
“You know, the first time I was faced with helping a white farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing. But he had come to me for help. What he didn’t know, while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.
“I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland. And here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he... I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that, or the Georgia Department of Agriculture, and he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him.
“So I took him to a white lawyer that had attended some of the training that we had provided because Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farm. So I figured if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him.
“That’s when it was revealed to me that it’s about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white it is about white and black, but it’s not, you know, it opened my eyes because I took him to one of his own.”
As far as the lawsuit goes, if there is a finding against Breitbart, it will be a miscarriage of justice, and will be overturned on appeal.
Tragically, the judge is right. This is a SLAPP lawsuit, and whoever is funding it is doing so solely to financially harm Breitbart; but the event happened a month before the anti-SLAPP law was passed, so it is not in effect.
They had better tread carefully, though, because if they give Breitbart’s lawyers enough ammunition, they could very well file a counter lawsuit against Sherrod, and hopefully whoever is backing her lawsuit.
That heavy editor should probably see the First Lady about some tips for healthy eating.
This is going to be a load of fun for Breitbart. Iirc, he said in his book that he has video and other documentation ready to release in this situation.
The point of the Breitbart story was the audience reaction during her “remarks”.
This segment of her speech was not edited,in that she made her point clear.
So did Breitbart. :>)
Sounds like the judge has an axe to grind against Breitbart. Not good.
Unless the omitted part is her saying that she thought she was a total turkey for having acted like that towards a hated poor white farmer, and that she thoroughly repented, I can’t see how it misrepresented her to omit it.
It was a technicality, that the anti-SLAPP provision being claimed had been enacted only after the filing of the lawsuit. Unless this provision provided for the nullification of such lawsuits already in progress, the technicality won. The law has to mean something, as all conservatives ought to agree, even if it does not always mean what we wish.
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.