Posted on 08/01/2011 1:50:05 PM PDT by Beaten Valve
Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart has failed in his attempt to knock out a defamation lawsuit by former U.S. Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod, who is suing on grounds that a video of her was deceptively edited to portray her as racist.
Breitbart attempted to leverage DC’s new anti-SLAPP law by claiming Sherrod’s lawsuit was an impingement on his free speech, but a federal judge has denied that motion as well as another to move the case to California.
Sherrod is suing Breitbart, Breitbart’s colleague Larry O’Connor and an unnamed defendant over the release of a video clip and accompanying text on Breitbart’s Web site claiming the video offered proof that Sherrod, who is black, discriminated against white farmers. Sherrod, in her complaint, argues Breitbart made defamatory accusations of racism based on a “deceptively edited” clip that was taken out of context.
Breitbart and O’Connor had argued that they were engaging in protected speech under the First Amendment when they posted the clip and comments online. They also argued that if the case is not dismissed, it should be moved to U.S. District Court for Central California because it’s where Breitbart and O’Connor live and work on the Web-based businesses in question.
O’Connor’s attorney, Bruce Sanford of Washington’s Baker & Hostetler, in a statement this morning, reiterated his client’s belief that Sherrod “cannot form the basis of a libel action under longstanding American defamation law.”
“Anyone who looks at the tape of her speech or the excerpts put up by Andrew Breitbart can see that we are in the realm of pure opinion,” he said.
Breitbart and O’Connor are among the first parties in Washington to invoke D.C.’s new anti-SLAPP law, which went into effect March 31 and offers an early remedy, in the form of a special motion to dismiss that stays discovery pending resolution, for defendants who believe they are being sued over protected speech.
Sherrod challenged the applicability of the law in federal court and also argued that the defendants were time-barred from filing.
No.
Other than attorney fees.
Which maybe he can get Shirley to pay out of her Pigford settlement when she loses.
He can now force her to turn over all kinds of records, etc.
Yes. The courts are corrupt and in the pocket of the DNC.
Breitbart just may be toast.
If it were a member of the LSM who asked to have charges filed by a Republican or Tea Party member dropped, then the charges would be dropped. Justice no longer exists in this nation, as Leo Donofrio has found.
When justice no longer exists, tyranny rules.
Well, if the case is tried in DC and goes to a jury—he’s toast.
He can still file some motions to have the judge throw it out, but failing that—there’s always the appellate courts.
What records?
Beat me to it. They feds will stack the jury — not that they really have to there — and he’ll get his butt handed to him. The appeals court is his best shot but they may send it back to DC. Cycle repeats. They’ll break him with legal fees.
He didn’t seem afraid when I saw him in St. Louis on Saturday.
This means Breitbart can release more of his videos and other information on the Pigford swindle. He said he was holding it back, with the lawsuit pending.
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.