The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Shirley Sherrod’s Lawsuit Threat Against Andrew Breitbart Is Still Just a Threat

Posted on | July 29, 2010 | 56 Comments

It’s the easiest thing in the world to say, “I’ll sue you for defamation!” Actually filing such a lawsuit is another and far more drastic step. A government official successfully pursuing a defamation suit against a private citizen is quite nearly impossible.

Any responsible lawyer would provide three words of helpful advice to Shirley Sherrod: “Discovery’s a bitch.”

Category: Andrew Breitbart

Comments

56 Responses to “Shirley Sherrod’s Lawsuit Threat Against Andrew Breitbart Is Still Just a Threat”

  1. richard mcenroe
    July 29th, 2010 @ 7:08 pm

    … and so is the plaintiff.

  2. richard mcenroe
    July 29th, 2010 @ 3:08 pm

    … and so is the plaintiff.

  3. William
    July 29th, 2010 @ 7:12 pm

    It’s what Breitbart’s been itching for, and Shirley’s just dumb enough to do it.

  4. William
    July 29th, 2010 @ 3:12 pm

    It’s what Breitbart’s been itching for, and Shirley’s just dumb enough to do it.

  5. Red
    July 29th, 2010 @ 7:25 pm

    Like Breitbart didn’t see this coming.

  6. Red
    July 29th, 2010 @ 3:25 pm

    Like Breitbart didn’t see this coming.

  7. Robert Stacy McCain
    July 29th, 2010 @ 7:27 pm

    It’s what Breitbart’s been itching for, and Shirley’s just dumb enough to do it.

    No responsible attorney would advise her to go forward with a case like this. Breitbart didn’t fire Shirley Sherrod, Tom Vilack did. If Vilsack hadn’t panicked, and had merely waited 24 hours before acting, Sherrod never would have been fired.

    In the newspaper business, if you publish an inaccurate story, it is your responsibility to correct the inaccuracy in the next edition after being informed of the facts. Vilsack acted so hastily that Breitbart didn’t even have 24 hours to correct what was proved to be an inaccuracy caused by the tendentious editing of the video. Given that Breitbart has admitted and corrected the error, and Vilsack has since offered Sherrod another job, it’s hard to see how even the most vindictive tort lawyer could see a case like this yielding a triumph for Sherrod.

    I’m not saying a lawsuit is impossible. I’m just saying it would be extremely ill-advised.

  8. Robert Stacy McCain
    July 29th, 2010 @ 3:27 pm

    It’s what Breitbart’s been itching for, and Shirley’s just dumb enough to do it.

    No responsible attorney would advise her to go forward with a case like this. Breitbart didn’t fire Shirley Sherrod, Tom Vilack did. If Vilsack hadn’t panicked, and had merely waited 24 hours before acting, Sherrod never would have been fired.

    In the newspaper business, if you publish an inaccurate story, it is your responsibility to correct the inaccuracy in the next edition after being informed of the facts. Vilsack acted so hastily that Breitbart didn’t even have 24 hours to correct what was proved to be an inaccuracy caused by the tendentious editing of the video. Given that Breitbart has admitted and corrected the error, and Vilsack has since offered Sherrod another job, it’s hard to see how even the most vindictive tort lawyer could see a case like this yielding a triumph for Sherrod.

    I’m not saying a lawsuit is impossible. I’m just saying it would be extremely ill-advised.

  9. young4eyes
    July 29th, 2010 @ 7:41 pm

    “Breitbart didn’t even have 24 hours to correct what was proved to be an inaccuracy caused by the tendentious editing of the video.”
    OMG. So when Breitfart said that he asked his source for only the “relevant” parts of the video, that absolved him of any responsibility.
    And to my knowledge, Breitfart never apologized( keeping in line with Conservative ideology and lack of accountability).
    I know, with all that egg on his face ,and by virtue of your brown-nosing, the egg on all your faces, your only recourse is to pile on Sherrod for your mistakes.
    It’s too late. You morons exposed yourselves for the race-baiting fags that you are…

  10. young4eyes
    July 29th, 2010 @ 3:41 pm

    “Breitbart didn’t even have 24 hours to correct what was proved to be an inaccuracy caused by the tendentious editing of the video.”
    OMG. So when Breitfart said that he asked his source for only the “relevant” parts of the video, that absolved him of any responsibility.
    And to my knowledge, Breitfart never apologized( keeping in line with Conservative ideology and lack of accountability).
    I know, with all that egg on his face ,and by virtue of your brown-nosing, the egg on all your faces, your only recourse is to pile on Sherrod for your mistakes.
    It’s too late. You morons exposed yourselves for the race-baiting fags that you are…

  11. Robert Stacy McCain
    July 29th, 2010 @ 7:52 pm

    Y4E, you don’t seem to understand U.S. libel law. I state as a fact that a case such as Sherrod’s is almost certainly unwinnable, and would be extraordinarily expensive to pursue even if it could be won.

    This has nothing to do with any value judgment in regard to Sherrod or Breitbart. You need merely talk to any experienced lawyer to discover that 99% of threats to pursue a libel suit are empty, especially when those threats are made by a public official.

  12. Robert Stacy McCain
    July 29th, 2010 @ 3:52 pm

    Y4E, you don’t seem to understand U.S. libel law. I state as a fact that a case such as Sherrod’s is almost certainly unwinnable, and would be extraordinarily expensive to pursue even if it could be won.

    This has nothing to do with any value judgment in regard to Sherrod or Breitbart. You need merely talk to any experienced lawyer to discover that 99% of threats to pursue a libel suit are empty, especially when those threats are made by a public official.

  13. Gramps
    July 29th, 2010 @ 8:07 pm

    I’m not saying a lawsuit is impossible. I’m just saying it would be extremely ill-advised.

    It’s like I wrote JD over at… http://maaadddog.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/good-news-shirley-sherrod-is-no-longer-racist-bad-news-naacp-still-is-racist/#comment-5915

    Far be it from me to get betwixt two lawyers, lawyerin’…

    However; Attoney, Michael Yaki at City Brights thinks, Sherrod may have a case…

    Defamation law clearly puts Breitbart in a tough position. He deliberately aired a video that was edited in a way to put Sherrod in a very bad light. Breitbart even said on Fox News that the purpose of the tape was to show that racism existed in the NAACP, even though the speech Sherrod gave was precisely the opposite — it was about overcoming prejudice and stereotypes. Before the tape, Sherrod was not a public figure for whom a higher legal threshold of “actual malice” would be required, though in this case it would be hard to say that malice or a reckless disregard to the truth wasn’t present.

    Fox, by way of offering Breitbart a forum, may be similarly at risk. Under the “republication” doctrine, Fox may be as liable as Breitbart for recklessly running (and rerunning) the doctored footage.

    There is no excuse for those liberals who so quickly threw Sherrod under the bus without the benefit of hearing her side of the story. But while inexcusable, the fact remains that but for Andrew Breitbart, who deliberately manufactured this story and dressed it up with racist overtones, people today would have no idea who Shirley Sherrod is or what she does. And she’d still be at her old job.

    Sometimes in the law you get the perfect test case. Shirley Sherrod’s high tech railroading by Breitbart offers an unprecedented opportunity to make an example of the right wing’s repeated distortion and discoloration of the facts. At the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights I’ve watched my right-wing colleagues and their media friends misrepresent and inflame the paltry facts that constitute the New Black Panther Party investigation. But while my conservative colleagues flail around like psychotic berserkers in the Panther proceedings, they have yet to cause collateral damage to anything but the truth. That is not the case with Ms. Sherrod, who suffered public vilification, private harassment and humiliation, and who was pressured to leave her job.

    Interesting differences of legal opinion…

  14. Gramps
    July 29th, 2010 @ 4:07 pm

    I’m not saying a lawsuit is impossible. I’m just saying it would be extremely ill-advised.

    It’s like I wrote JD over at… http://maaadddog.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/good-news-shirley-sherrod-is-no-longer-racist-bad-news-naacp-still-is-racist/#comment-5915

    Far be it from me to get betwixt two lawyers, lawyerin’…

    However; Attoney, Michael Yaki at City Brights thinks, Sherrod may have a case…

    Defamation law clearly puts Breitbart in a tough position. He deliberately aired a video that was edited in a way to put Sherrod in a very bad light. Breitbart even said on Fox News that the purpose of the tape was to show that racism existed in the NAACP, even though the speech Sherrod gave was precisely the opposite — it was about overcoming prejudice and stereotypes. Before the tape, Sherrod was not a public figure for whom a higher legal threshold of “actual malice” would be required, though in this case it would be hard to say that malice or a reckless disregard to the truth wasn’t present.

    Fox, by way of offering Breitbart a forum, may be similarly at risk. Under the “republication” doctrine, Fox may be as liable as Breitbart for recklessly running (and rerunning) the doctored footage.

    There is no excuse for those liberals who so quickly threw Sherrod under the bus without the benefit of hearing her side of the story. But while inexcusable, the fact remains that but for Andrew Breitbart, who deliberately manufactured this story and dressed it up with racist overtones, people today would have no idea who Shirley Sherrod is or what she does. And she’d still be at her old job.

    Sometimes in the law you get the perfect test case. Shirley Sherrod’s high tech railroading by Breitbart offers an unprecedented opportunity to make an example of the right wing’s repeated distortion and discoloration of the facts. At the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights I’ve watched my right-wing colleagues and their media friends misrepresent and inflame the paltry facts that constitute the New Black Panther Party investigation. But while my conservative colleagues flail around like psychotic berserkers in the Panther proceedings, they have yet to cause collateral damage to anything but the truth. That is not the case with Ms. Sherrod, who suffered public vilification, private harassment and humiliation, and who was pressured to leave her job.

    Interesting differences of legal opinion…

  15. Steve in TN
    July 29th, 2010 @ 8:24 pm

    Sherrod would be very misguided to file a suit wherein she will be proven to have stated racist things and where her admission to acting on that racism as a bureaucrat is not only on the record, but is the matter under consideration.

    But, then again, progressives think their ideology is a defense and they sometimes find jurists who are buy into the progressive bent.

  16. Steve in TN
    July 29th, 2010 @ 4:24 pm

    Sherrod would be very misguided to file a suit wherein she will be proven to have stated racist things and where her admission to acting on that racism as a bureaucrat is not only on the record, but is the matter under consideration.

    But, then again, progressives think their ideology is a defense and they sometimes find jurists who are buy into the progressive bent.

  17. just a conservative girl
    July 29th, 2010 @ 8:56 pm

    Let’s see:

    Sherrod has said that Obama is not a black man, during the little speech she said that republicans are against healthcare “reform” because they are racist, all the while people are agreeing with her. Brietbart’s fans are racist, Breitbart wants to go back to the days of slavery. Yes, she has gotten past her issues with race.

    I hope she does file a suit, her belief as a victim will be there for all the world to see.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see a lawyer take her suit, there are plenty of huckster attorney’s out there.

  18. just a conservative girl
    July 29th, 2010 @ 4:56 pm

    Let’s see:

    Sherrod has said that Obama is not a black man, during the little speech she said that republicans are against healthcare “reform” because they are racist, all the while people are agreeing with her. Brietbart’s fans are racist, Breitbart wants to go back to the days of slavery. Yes, she has gotten past her issues with race.

    I hope she does file a suit, her belief as a victim will be there for all the world to see.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see a lawyer take her suit, there are plenty of huckster attorney’s out there.

  19. filbert
    July 29th, 2010 @ 9:05 pm

    I’m curious–maybe some lawyer-type could answer this . . . if Sherrod proceeds, does she open herself up to a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) counterclaim from Breitbart?

  20. filbert
    July 29th, 2010 @ 5:05 pm

    I’m curious–maybe some lawyer-type could answer this . . . if Sherrod proceeds, does she open herself up to a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) counterclaim from Breitbart?

  21. BLBeamer
    July 29th, 2010 @ 9:39 pm

    In re: Y4E

    texting shorthand? Check.

    Juvenile revision of someone’s name? Check

    Referring to a bodily function? Check

    Ignoring/denying widely known facts? Check

    Homophobic name-calling? Check

    Accusations of racism? Check

    Accusing those who do not share your fantastic version of the facts as unintelligent? Check

    Obviously a progressive. Is that you Matthew Yglesias?

  22. BLBeamer
    July 29th, 2010 @ 5:39 pm

    In re: Y4E

    texting shorthand? Check.

    Juvenile revision of someone’s name? Check

    Referring to a bodily function? Check

    Ignoring/denying widely known facts? Check

    Homophobic name-calling? Check

    Accusations of racism? Check

    Accusing those who do not share your fantastic version of the facts as unintelligent? Check

    Obviously a progressive. Is that you Matthew Yglesias?

  23. Kojocaro
    July 29th, 2010 @ 10:09 pm

    hmmmmmmmmmmm my comments were deleted at Weasel zippers btw shirley sherrod is a dumb beeyotch

  24. Kojocaro
    July 29th, 2010 @ 6:09 pm

    hmmmmmmmmmmm my comments were deleted at Weasel zippers btw shirley sherrod is a dumb beeyotch

  25. JeffS
    July 29th, 2010 @ 10:19 pm

    I state as a fact that a case such as Sherrod’s is almost certainly unwinnable, and would be extraordinarily expensive to pursue even if it could be won.

    Well, there ya go, Stacey, confusing Y4E with all those messy facts. It’s a good thing Y4E isn’t an attorney, or he/she would be broke. Or working for the goobermint.

  26. JeffS
    July 29th, 2010 @ 6:19 pm

    I state as a fact that a case such as Sherrod’s is almost certainly unwinnable, and would be extraordinarily expensive to pursue even if it could be won.

    Well, there ya go, Stacey, confusing Y4E with all those messy facts. It’s a good thing Y4E isn’t an attorney, or he/she would be broke. Or working for the goobermint.

  27. Kojocaro
    July 29th, 2010 @ 10:35 pm

    Y4E has a lot of nerve to tell us to stop playing ehte race card when democraps live to play the race card

  28. Kojocaro
    July 29th, 2010 @ 6:35 pm

    Y4E has a lot of nerve to tell us to stop playing ehte race card when democraps live to play the race card

  29. Kojocaro
    July 29th, 2010 @ 10:36 pm

    the*

  30. Kojocaro
    July 29th, 2010 @ 6:36 pm

    the*

  31. Gramps
    July 29th, 2010 @ 10:41 pm

    I’m not saying a lawsuit is impossible. I’m just saying it would be extremely ill-advised.

    Far be it from me to get betwixt two lawyers, lawyerin’…

    However; Attoney, Michael Yaki at City Brights thinks, Sherrod may have a case…

    Defamation law clearly puts Breitbart in a tough position. He deliberately aired a video that was edited in a way to put Sherrod in a very bad light. Breitbart even said on Fox News that the purpose of the tape was to show that racism existed in the NAACP, even though the speech Sherrod gave was precisely the opposite — it was about overcoming prejudice and stereotypes. Before the tape, Sherrod was not a public figure for whom a higher legal threshold of “actual malice” would be required, though in this case it would be hard to say that malice or a reckless disregard to the truth wasn’t present.

    Fox, by way of offering Breitbart a forum, may be similarly at risk.

    Under the “republication” doctrine, Fox may be as liable as Breitbart for recklessly running (and rerunning) the doctored footage.

    There is no excuse for those liberals who so quickly threw Sherrod under the bus without the benefit of hearing her side of the story. But while inexcusable, the fact remains that but for Andrew Breitbart, who deliberately manufactured this story and dressed it up with racist overtones, people today would have no idea who Shirley Sherrod is or what she does. And she’d still be at her old job.

    Sometimes in the law you get the perfect test case. Shirley Sherrod’s high tech railroading by Breitbart offers an unprecedented opportunity to make an example of the right wing’s repeated distortion and discoloration of the facts. At the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights I’ve watched my right-wing colleagues and their media friends misrepresent and inflame the paltry facts that constitute the New Black Panther Party investigation. But while my conservative colleagues flail around like psychotic berserkers in the Panther proceedings, they have yet to cause collateral damage to anything but the truth. That is not the case with Ms. Sherrod, who suffered public vilification, private harassment and humiliation, and who was pressured to leave her job.

    Interesting differences of legal opinion…

  32. Gramps
    July 29th, 2010 @ 6:41 pm

    I’m not saying a lawsuit is impossible. I’m just saying it would be extremely ill-advised.

    Far be it from me to get betwixt two lawyers, lawyerin’…

    However; Attoney, Michael Yaki at City Brights thinks, Sherrod may have a case…

    Defamation law clearly puts Breitbart in a tough position. He deliberately aired a video that was edited in a way to put Sherrod in a very bad light. Breitbart even said on Fox News that the purpose of the tape was to show that racism existed in the NAACP, even though the speech Sherrod gave was precisely the opposite — it was about overcoming prejudice and stereotypes. Before the tape, Sherrod was not a public figure for whom a higher legal threshold of “actual malice” would be required, though in this case it would be hard to say that malice or a reckless disregard to the truth wasn’t present.

    Fox, by way of offering Breitbart a forum, may be similarly at risk.

    Under the “republication” doctrine, Fox may be as liable as Breitbart for recklessly running (and rerunning) the doctored footage.

    There is no excuse for those liberals who so quickly threw Sherrod under the bus without the benefit of hearing her side of the story. But while inexcusable, the fact remains that but for Andrew Breitbart, who deliberately manufactured this story and dressed it up with racist overtones, people today would have no idea who Shirley Sherrod is or what she does. And she’d still be at her old job.

    Sometimes in the law you get the perfect test case. Shirley Sherrod’s high tech railroading by Breitbart offers an unprecedented opportunity to make an example of the right wing’s repeated distortion and discoloration of the facts. At the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights I’ve watched my right-wing colleagues and their media friends misrepresent and inflame the paltry facts that constitute the New Black Panther Party investigation. But while my conservative colleagues flail around like psychotic berserkers in the Panther proceedings, they have yet to cause collateral damage to anything but the truth. That is not the case with Ms. Sherrod, who suffered public vilification, private harassment and humiliation, and who was pressured to leave her job.

    Interesting differences of legal opinion…

  33. Victor Morton
    July 29th, 2010 @ 10:49 pm

    The fact that someone else fired Sherrod is irrelevant, legally speaking. The impact necessary to prove defamation (“damage to reputation”) is almost by definition the acts of others.

    Nevertheless, Y4E, Stacy is simply correct on this. US libel law sets the bar very high for public figures. Unless Sherrod can prove Breitbart (or someone acting on his instructions) edited the tape or chose the excerpt while in possession of the whole (and Breitbart has insisted he did not), she will have a VERY VERY VERY hard time proving “intentional deception” (which is not at all the same thing as “deception”).

    She’s also going to have a hard time proving damages, even though for approximately 24 hours, she was known as America’s worst racist and lost her job. But she was vindicated so swiftly that there can be little damage to her reputation (indeed, her reputation has arguably profited; she’ll be known for the rest of her life as a martyr to conservative raaaaacism). And she was offered a new job by the same employer, almost certainly at a hefty raise (ditto previous parenthetical; she’s taking book-deal calls as we speak or American book agents need to be fired en masse).

  34. Victor Morton
    July 29th, 2010 @ 6:49 pm

    The fact that someone else fired Sherrod is irrelevant, legally speaking. The impact necessary to prove defamation (“damage to reputation”) is almost by definition the acts of others.

    Nevertheless, Y4E, Stacy is simply correct on this. US libel law sets the bar very high for public figures. Unless Sherrod can prove Breitbart (or someone acting on his instructions) edited the tape or chose the excerpt while in possession of the whole (and Breitbart has insisted he did not), she will have a VERY VERY VERY hard time proving “intentional deception” (which is not at all the same thing as “deception”).

    She’s also going to have a hard time proving damages, even though for approximately 24 hours, she was known as America’s worst racist and lost her job. But she was vindicated so swiftly that there can be little damage to her reputation (indeed, her reputation has arguably profited; she’ll be known for the rest of her life as a martyr to conservative raaaaacism). And she was offered a new job by the same employer, almost certainly at a hefty raise (ditto previous parenthetical; she’s taking book-deal calls as we speak or American book agents need to be fired en masse).

  35. Kojocaro
    July 29th, 2010 @ 10:55 pm

    don’t bother the trolls with facts victor morton

  36. Kojocaro
    July 29th, 2010 @ 6:55 pm

    don’t bother the trolls with facts victor morton

  37. Jeff Weimer
    July 29th, 2010 @ 11:12 pm

    It’s too late. You morons exposed yourselves for the race-baiting fags that you are…

    Y4E, projection is not just a river in Egypt.

  38. Jeff Weimer
    July 29th, 2010 @ 7:12 pm

    It’s too late. You morons exposed yourselves for the race-baiting fags that you are…

    Y4E, projection is not just a river in Egypt.

  39. Kojocaro
    July 29th, 2010 @ 11:16 pm

    ya know you scared him off jeff

  40. Kojocaro
    July 29th, 2010 @ 7:16 pm

    ya know you scared him off jeff

  41. John Doe
    July 29th, 2010 @ 11:25 pm

    I am a lawyer. To prove defamation you need to prove that someone said something UNTRUE about you that was defamatory. To merely play your own words, that you said, is not 1) untrue and 2) defamatory.

    Further, since Shirley is considered a “public figure” she has to prove “actual malice” (as apposed to constructive malice where you just acted negligently).

    She is just blowing smoke.

  42. John Doe
    July 29th, 2010 @ 7:25 pm

    I am a lawyer. To prove defamation you need to prove that someone said something UNTRUE about you that was defamatory. To merely play your own words, that you said, is not 1) untrue and 2) defamatory.

    Further, since Shirley is considered a “public figure” she has to prove “actual malice” (as apposed to constructive malice where you just acted negligently).

    She is just blowing smoke.

  43. Gramps
    July 30th, 2010 @ 12:23 am

    Hey JD…

    If yah don’t think my comment @12 is unreasonable and not totally inflammatory…?

    If yah think it adds anything or even some miniscule additional, insight, with respect to the present discussion…?

    Can or would, you exercise a little “professional courtesy” and intervention, here…?

    Gramps sends, all the very best!

  44. Gramps
    July 29th, 2010 @ 8:23 pm

    Hey JD…

    If yah don’t think my comment @12 is unreasonable and not totally inflammatory…?

    If yah think it adds anything or even some miniscule additional, insight, with respect to the present discussion…?

    Can or would, you exercise a little “professional courtesy” and intervention, here…?

    Gramps sends, all the very best!

  45. Mary Rose
    July 30th, 2010 @ 1:23 am

    What is so amazing about this story is that it showed an African-American woman admitting that at one time, she actively pursued a racist response to someone who needed her help.

    A scenario where it was an African-American who “had the power” and the White person was dependent upon their generosity. That is what fascinated me about the story. The fact that she was admitting it was wrong did nothing to lessen the reality that it happened to begin with.

    And yet crickets are chirping from the Misery Merchant Corner, home to Jackson, Sharpton, and the whole sorry lot of them. Perhaps I missed it?

    “We admit that what Shirley originally said was wrong and that we all must continue to strive for equal treatment of all races…”

    Hmm.

  46. Mary Rose
    July 29th, 2010 @ 9:23 pm

    What is so amazing about this story is that it showed an African-American woman admitting that at one time, she actively pursued a racist response to someone who needed her help.

    A scenario where it was an African-American who “had the power” and the White person was dependent upon their generosity. That is what fascinated me about the story. The fact that she was admitting it was wrong did nothing to lessen the reality that it happened to begin with.

    And yet crickets are chirping from the Misery Merchant Corner, home to Jackson, Sharpton, and the whole sorry lot of them. Perhaps I missed it?

    “We admit that what Shirley originally said was wrong and that we all must continue to strive for equal treatment of all races…”

    Hmm.

  47. Shirley Sherrod Threatens to Sue Andrew Breitbart :: The Lonely Conservative
    July 29th, 2010 @ 9:42 pm

    […] her lawsuit will probably be thrown out of court if she can even find a lawyer to take her case. The Other McCain: It’s the easiest thing in the world to say, “I’ll sue you for defamation!” Actually filing […]

  48. John Doe
    July 30th, 2010 @ 2:49 am

    Gramps, you need “intervention” but that is beyond mah areeeah ove experttease. Ugh, sew due eye.

  49. John Doe
    July 29th, 2010 @ 10:49 pm

    Gramps, you need “intervention” but that is beyond mah areeeah ove experttease. Ugh, sew due eye.

  50. BLBeamer
    July 30th, 2010 @ 4:35 am

    #16: Attoney, Michael Yaki at City Brights thinks, Sherrod may have a case…

    Under the “republication” doctrine, Fox may be as liable as Breitbart for recklessly running (and rerunning) the doctored footage.

    I thought it has been established that Fox didn’t run the video until after Sherrod had already been fired. If that’s so, I don’t see how Fox damaged her.

    It’s pretty obvious she’s a tool. If she was really interested in getting who damaged her, she’d sue Vilsack and “the White House” who, according to Sherrod, pushed for her sacking.

    It’s also obviously not about restoring her damage, but ever and always about damaging those with whom she disagrees politically.

    Even if she does sue, I doubt it will go far, but there are still people who insist that Valerie Plame won her lawsuit.

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin