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.”
… and so is the plaintiff.
… and so is the plaintiff.
It’s what Breitbart’s been itching for, and Shirley’s just dumb enough to do it.
It’s what Breitbart’s been itching for, and Shirley’s just dumb enough to do it.
Like Breitbart didn’t see this coming.
Like Breitbart didn’t see this coming.
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.
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.
“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…
“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…
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.
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.
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…
Interesting differences of legal opinion…
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…
Interesting differences of legal opinion…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
hmmmmmmmmmmm my comments were deleted at Weasel zippers btw shirley sherrod is a dumb beeyotch
hmmmmmmmmmmm my comments were deleted at Weasel zippers btw shirley sherrod is a dumb beeyotch
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.
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.
Y4E has a lot of nerve to tell us to stop playing ehte race card when democraps live to play the race card
Y4E has a lot of nerve to tell us to stop playing ehte race card when democraps live to play the race card
the*
the*
Far be it from me to get betwixt two lawyers, lawyerin’…
However; Attoney, Michael Yaki at City Brights thinks, Sherrod may have a case…
Interesting differences of legal opinion…
Far be it from me to get betwixt two lawyers, lawyerin’…
However; Attoney, Michael Yaki at City Brights thinks, Sherrod may have a case…
Interesting differences of legal opinion…
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).
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).
don’t bother the trolls with facts victor morton
don’t bother the trolls with facts victor morton
Y4E, projection is not just a river in Egypt.
Y4E, projection is not just a river in Egypt.
ya know you scared him off jeff
ya know you scared him off jeff
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
[…] 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 […]
Gramps, you need “intervention” but that is beyond mah areeeah ove experttease. Ugh, sew due eye.
Gramps, you need “intervention” but that is beyond mah areeeah ove experttease. Ugh, sew due eye.
#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.