|
|
May 25, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Shirley Sherrod Strikes BackPosted on Feb 15, 2011
The former U.S. Department of Agriculture official is suing conservative webmaster Andrew Breitbart for defamation. Sherrod was forced to resign after Breitbart posted a heavily edited video of a speech she gave, setting off a right-wing hullabaloo.
Advertisement TAGS:
|
Truthdigger of the Week: Medea Benjamin
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Tobysgirl, February 16, 2011 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment
McTN, what’s amazing is the NAACP couldn’t wait to hop on the bandwagon to pillory Sherrod. What is it with people in this country? They apparently lack any ability to think clearly and consider something before joining in a vicious attack.
Every mean little white boy can do and say ANYTHING and it gets a pass—of a boy who blew up his family’s garage: “Oh, he’s a good boy”—but let women or anyone of color blink twice and it’s time for the inquisition.
Report thisBy aacme88, February 16, 2011 at 10:22 am Link to this comment
Well, Hallelujah! Finally.
Report thisIn the American system, the only thing that keeps creeps like Breitbart in line is the threat of lawsuit.
He DOES have a right to say what he wants. But Sherrod has the right to strip him of everything he owns for saying it.
I say go for it. Pass the popcorn.
By Salome, February 15, 2011 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I wish she would add Vilsack to the list of defendants.
Report thisBy McTN, February 15, 2011 at 8:05 pm Link to this comment
I do hope this goes to court, so I can hear all the dirty details. Breitbart apparently thought he’d gotten away with it; that he could doctor tape to suit his purposes. This is classic right wing media—make shit up. So what if it hurts someone?
I still can’t believe that Ms Sherrod was asked to resign over this story. That she wasn’t even allowed to defend herself. Did the people she worked with for months actually think she could say something like this? Didn’t they know her, consider the source? Why did they assume Breitbart right and Sherrod not even worth listening to?
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, February 15, 2011 at 5:03 pm Link to this comment
Magus12: You are kinder than me. You presume they’ll be able to get away with negligence or reckless disregard, rather than deliberate mis-representation.
Report thisBy magus12, February 15, 2011 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Oh, you go, girl.
Note to Inherit The Wind: unless I miss my guess, Breitbart’s defense will assert that Ms. Sherrod was a public figure, therefore they will assert that the NY Times “malice” defense applies, to wit: a reckless disregard for the truth of the matter asserted. Hoping like crazy the plaintiff attorneys portray that possible defense as the bootstrapping that it is - Ms. Sherrod was NOT a nationally known public figure at the time, therefore the common law standard should be negligence, not reckless disregard for the truth.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, February 15, 2011 at 7:35 am Link to this comment
Breitbart obviously has never heard of the slander and libel laws:
If you knowingly and deliberately say or publish something that is false with the intent of hurting someone by having people think it is true, and that person is hurt, they are entitled to force you to cease and desist, and to pay financial damages.
You cannot destroy someone’s career with lies and then claim that freedom of speech exempts you, anymore than you can cry “FIRE!” in a crowded theater and, after the ensuing panic, stampede, and inevitable injuries and deaths, claim freedom of speech to exempts you there, too.
Even THIS Supreme Court has never shown any inclination in overturning existing defamation of character laws.
Report this