Breaking on MSNBC - Shirley Sherrod to sue Breitbart

[blogslut]

Just heard on the teevee. No link yet.

UPDATE LINKAGE (not much there but confirmation): http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/07/ap-fired-usda-employee-sherrod-will-sue-conservative-blogger-andrew-breitbart/1

AP: Fired USDA employee Sherrod to sue conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart
11:32 AM

Ousted USDA employee Shirley Sherrod says she will sue conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, the Associated Press reports.

[RockaFowler]

1. Yeah!!!!

Go Shirley

[Dinger]

2. K & R (nt)

[meegbear]

3. YOU GO GIRL!!!

[joeybee12]

4. Call me as a witness...a hostile one...

hostile to Breitbart and Fox!!!!!

[AnArmyVeteran]

57. Me too! I hope she bankrupts that evil bastard.

I hope she doesn't get a right wing judge because they couldn't care less about justice. It would be great if her case was at it's peak at election time and faux noise was outed to the country for the fraudulent and evil propaganda channel that it is.

[awoke_in_2003]

59. some rich republican...

will handle his legal fees for him- they are good about protecting scumbags.

[Fleshdancer]

5. GOOD!

Life would be so much easier if all assholes were held accountable for their actions. Suing breitbart is a good start.

[Jackpine Radical]

37. Sueing assholes like that is a patriotic act.

Go, Shirley, Go!

[LostinVA]

6. Yay!

[Nite Owl]

7. Good

get 'em where it hurts. $$$$

[dipsydoodle]

8. Sounds good

:thumbsup:

[dgibby]

9. Excellent!

I was hoping she'd go after that racist pos. Way to go, Shirley!

Big K&R! Here's to justice being served!:toast:

[Kber]

10. Cool - if you hear details, let us know!

[fascisthunter]

11. Awesome!!!!

[Enrique]

12. that means we'll find out who edited the tape

etc. :thumbsup:

[Botany]

13. She is gonna own him (Breitbart)

Look likes Andrew who made his bones ruining others is going to get ruined.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

14. You go Shirley!

KICK HIS ASS!

[malaise]

15. Freaking perfect

You go girl!

[Blue Owl]

Seven. Fucking. Figures.

Put that fucking piece of shit out of business.

Permanently.

[icnorth]

70. For this particulary s.o.b.

I like even numbers, let's make it eight figures.

[EFerrari]

77. And his little dog, too.

[raouldukelives]

16. K&R

[laughingliberal]

17. Yay!!!!

:bounce:

[gratuitous]

18. Tough lawsuits to win

First, because whoever's bankrolling Breitbart will run up the costs of litigation in an effort to bleed Sherrod dry so she can't pursue the suit anymore. Second, one of the elements will have to be that Breitbart knew what he was peddling wasn't true. Third, that even though he knew he was putting falsehoods out there, that he did so out of reckless indifference to the truth. Fourth, that he did all this in an effort to hurt Shirley Sherrod. Fifth, that Shirley Sherrod sustained damage because of it.

If the suit gets derailed anywhere along the line by one of these elements, it will fail. Breitbart will claim that he's been vindicated, and Sherrod will be perceived (and the perception will be heavily reinforced by the usual suspects) as some bitter sore loser who can't take the rough-and-tumble of politics.

Good luck to her, but I'm not optimistic about her chances of prevailing in a lawsuit.

[TreasonousBastard]

21. First, I would hope Sherrod has some bankrolling of her own...

this being one of your basic "Big Fucking Deals".

The rest of it shouldn't be too hard to deal with if she has a good legal team-- remember how Carol Burnett nailed the Enquirer to the wall.

And, there's always the question or whether or not this asshole is a journalist and thus having any special press immunities. I don't remember if that was decided with Drudge years ago.

[wtmusic]

26. Not necessarily

1. If the case is solid enough there are any number of competent attorneys who would take it on contingency.
2. Correct, but if Breitbart had any hand in editing the video this is a slam dunk.
3. Knowingly publicizing falsehoods is by definition a reckless disregard for the truth.
4. Not necessary:

"Since proof of the writer's malicious intentions is hard to provide, proof that the writer knowingly published a falsehood was generally accepted as proof of malice..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice

5. Damages? She lost her job.

[Jackpine Radical]

38. There is also the issue of punitive damages.

A reasonable jury would most likely conclude that the public inqterest would be well served by clobbering the bastard.

[DBoon]

27. she doesn't have to prevail to "win"

just exposing the right wing propaganda machine through discovery will be incredibly valuable

Think of all the internal memos, emails, documents that could be subpoenaed

[tsuki]

32. First, Shirley Sherrod was a civil servant, not a politician. Big difference.

She is just a citizen who should not have to take the "rough and tumble".

Whomever is bankrolling Breitbart will try to run up the costs, but Sherrod is not standing alone. And Breitbart will probably be defending on several fronts.

Considering the link between O'Connor and Breitbart, I believe he will have to prove he absolutely did not know, because O'Connor did.

Breitbart's malice can be demonstrated by the many drunken video clips on the web. "I just like doing things wrong"...That's an admission.

Breitbart will be hurt, and hurt hard.

[DirkGently]

53. Civil laws vary, but that's not generally the way it works

You're right about the money, although I think Breitbart has his own.

Sherrod need not prove Breitbart knew for certain the video was false or that he did it with the deliberate intent to harm her. If he simply didn't bother to make an obvious inquiry as to what the rest of the video showed, which is likely what he'll claim, that's good enough. Damages are pretty easy where she was exposed to nationwide condemnation as a racist and fired from her job.

Common law defamation has two elements: 1) Negligent (or worse) publication to a third party of false information which 2) can either be assumed or proven to damage reputation.

Times v. Sullivan public figure law just raises the negligence standard to "reckless disregard for the truth," or, of course actual malice. Reckless disregard should be easy to show with this heavily doctored video, and actual malice isn't much of a stretch for the man who is on record saying both that he was out to prove the NAACP racist and that he wants to be known as the man who destroyed the "institutional left."

False light theories may also be available here.

I think she should sue, long and hard, and not take an easy settlement. Bullies never quit until they get a solid sock in the nose.

[mdmc]

67. exactly

He edited video for effect on his web site. Cable news and the government did all the damage..

I don't think it would be wrong of me to edit an Obama video that makes it look like he still smokes pot. However, if CNN run it as gospel 24/7 and congress votes to impeach, I would find blame with CNN and Congress..

[66 dmhlt]

71. Somewhat agree - but $$$ may not be what she's actually after

Sherrod’s most likely course will be to sue under the “False Light” and Defamation. Restatement Second defines the tort of false light:

Restatement (Second) of Torts

§§ 652A-E (1997)

652E. Publicity Placing Person in False Light

One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if

(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.

http://www.tomwbell.com/NetLaw/Ch05/R2ndTorts.html

It would seem that any reasonable person would agree that Breitbart’s actions were intentional, reckless and highly offensive.

It's also fairly evident that Sherrod would make it pass summary judgments and be able to get to discovery – which would most likely prove extremely embarrassing to Breitbart et al. Whether she prevails in a monetary judgment is another matter – but I’m not sure that’s what she’s really after in this matter.

John Dean has an excellent review critiquing legal options that are available to Ms. Sherrod. It’s quite long, so under the Fair Use Doctrine I’m just quoting from his summary:

Frankly, if I found myself in Shirley Sherrod's situation, I would file a lawsuit next week. But I could represent myself in court, and would take delight in going after a jackass like Breitbart, not to mention Fox News, to expose what they are doing. For me, the reward would be holding them accountable for even nominal damages and making their lives miserable.

(Snip)

Sherrod should be advised (and I say this based on a lot of personal experience) that conservatives like Breitbart will not play nicely merely because they have been taken to court. These authoritarian personalities, and those who share their thinking, go ballistic when confronted with legal actions. They resist being held accountable, and feel particularly threatened by legal actions. What Breitbart will do if Sherrod files a lawsuit against him is to quickly create a legal defense fund, with the support and financing of like-thinking conservatives, and he will hire as nasty an attorney as is available in his tribe. Soon, he will be using the legal process to harass Sherrod by digging into every inch of her life, and perhaps even countersuing Sherrod for claims as to which she has no knowledge. It will be ugly, and she must plan on several years of intense unpleasantness.

(Snip)

Hopefully, Sherrod will not proceed with a lawsuit for it will involve much more unpleasantness, and much of her time, with little reward. On the other hand, Andrew Breitbart, the Obama Administration, and the NAACP have given her a meaningful public presence. She has an important and timely message to send, and now, she also has a commanding presence on the public stage through which to share it. She should write a book and lecture, and share her experiences. Even thinking conservatives must acknowledge that Breitbart made himself look more the jerk, so I would hope that Sherrod gives her malevolent detractor no more of the negative attention he so craves.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20100723.html

[gratuitous]

72. Dean's second paragraph from your snip sums it up well

And that is, Breitbart won't play nicely. He will indeed find the nastiest, most pettifogging lawyer available, and he will have virtually unlimited funds to draw out any litigation. For just a smidgen of a taste of what Shirley Sherrod can expect, there is the fact of her father's lynching at the hands of the local constabulary when she was young. Already, the Mighty Republican Wurlitzer has sprung into action, denying that Sherrod's father was lynched because he wasn't hanged, denying that the perpetrator did anything illegal because he was acquitted in a criminal trial, and so forth. Decent people are rightly repulsed by such meanness, but it's the very lifeblood of the movement that spawned such vermin as Breitbart.

He will indeed dig into every inch of Shirley Sherrod's life, holding up every detail to be wielded as a bludgeon to be used against her. Looking like a jerk doesn't scare the likes of Breitbart in the least. He is a jerk.

[lpbk2713]

19. Break him.

And that lowlife outfit he works for too.

[mdmc]

20. bad idea

He has no cash and does have free speech.

Sue FOX or Freedom Work or his parents - whoever funds him..

[ConsAreLiars]

29. You are wrong. He got a half million $$$ advance for a bookful of lies and slanders.

http://www.observer.com/2009/media/drudges-henchman-hits-big-time-book

[mdmc]

69. didn't know that

perhaps she can get some cash,,

[Kalyke]

30. Free speech does not include malicious lying.

Libel is a tort and can all a private person (as Sherrod was at the time of the Breitbart story) has to do is prove the statement about him/her was a lie.

Sherrod must show:

• That the publication was read by at least one other person besides the author (true).
  
• That the publication made a statement which it claimed to be fact and not identified as an opinion. (true)
  
• That the statement would do harm. Proof of malice is not necessary since Sherrod was not a public person at the time of the story (it's only necessary with public officials or public figures who are open to fair comment). However, that she can prove she was fired and smeared, the tort does allow the defamed party to sue for general damages, including to reputation, or specific damages, such as loss of business (true).

Basically, Breitbart yelled "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when no fire was present.

I agree she should also sue Faux Not News for their participation - or more specifically, O'Reilly, Hannity and the other buffoons who aped this crap without checking it out, but since Breitbart was the party who initiated the malicious story, she has to START with him.

[sabrina 1]

58. He has plenty of cash all earned from lying about good people.

The Rightwing Noise machine is behind Breitbart. He is just one of their frontmen, insane enough to do their dirty work for them.

Every dollar someone takes from him, comes from this evil, propaganda machine whose sole goal is to destroy this democracy.

I'm sure from now on they will hire more 'responsible' liars. Breitbart and O'Keefe, while sharing their hateful viewpoint about this country, were not the kind of people any responsible employers would hire. Both were far too careless when they slimed people, breaking laws and leaving themselves open to civil lawsuits.

Slander and libel are civil offenses and not 'free' by any means. In fact when someone engages in libel or slander, they often find out how very expensive that can be.

Shirley Sherrod was harmed by these people. Her impeccable reputation was smeared and even though she was lucky that these creeps were so stupid it was easy to correct their claims, there will always be a segment of the population that missed those corrections, or didn't want to hear them.

I hope everyone they ever harmed sues them back into the miserable oblivion where they used to reside until this society decided to take such morons seriously.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. She may go after them too.

[Arkana]

22. Good. I hope she soaks him for every last red cent.

[jpak]

23. She should sue FOX and Limpballs too

yup

[Stinky The Clown]

24. Good. Now, has the administration given her job back?

I know they offered her some desk job, but she was a field agent. I have no idea what she wants in the way of a job to cap off her career, but if that "civil rights" desk job isn't it, then give her her old job back.

I hope she puts Brietbart in the poor house and takes Fox Nooz with him. I hope a criminal complain against BrietFox is sworn out, too.

But at the end of it all, EVERYBODY who had a paw in this needs to make this woman whole again. And that includes the Secretary of Jump The Gun and whoever ordered/okayed his actions (no, I do NOT think he acted unilaterally).

[unapatriciated]

25. Thank you again Ms Sherrod.

[crazyjoe]

28. she doesn't have a case against him. why isn't she suing the people

that fired her???? is it illegal to take a video of someone and edit it? i don't think so.
it was the reaction that was the problem, not the friggin video.
stupid

[Kalyke]

35. Actually, she does have a very valid case against him.

See my post above regarding the rules for libel.

I was a reporter for many years and studied both Constitutional and Communications law in college - I know my libel and slanders torts up, down, left and right.

Ms. Sherrod was NOT a public official or a public figure at the time of the story, so she only has to prove that Breitbart's claim was false - which it was. It helps that she can show that her name was sullied and that she lost wages as a result of the story.

For the most part, governmental agencies are immune to libel lawsuits on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity (only once has a government been successfully sued for libel), so she can't really sue the federal government.

That said, the federal government was not the catalyst for her firing: her good name and reputation were being wrongfully sullied by Breitbart, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al., so the government, without more complete knowledge, acted out of its own best interest and has corrected its participation by offering her her job back.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

56. What was the case where a governmental agency was successfully

sued for libel? I'm very interested. Thanks.

[wtmusic]

36. Yes it is illegal, if the video after editing portrays a person

in an untruthful and negative light.

[Kalyke]

40. Well, it's not illegal, technically.

There's no criminal charge associated with it: it's against tort, a non-contractual and non-criminal "wrong."

[wtmusic]

43. A violation of civil law is not illegal? nt

[slampoet]

49. Yes. In this country we have laws that have criminal penalties if violated....

...and then we also have laws that have no criminal penalty associated with their violation so there fore we remedy this through lawyer-ing up and awarding damages and or proscribing mandated actions from a judge who THEN backs up that order with a criminal penalty for violating a judge's order.

[wtmusic]

55. I hope you're not an attorney

Illegal:

1. Prohibited by law.
2. Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.
3. Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation.

http://www.answers.com/topic/illegal

In the United States, defamation is illegal.

[slampoet]

60. Use the Juris Corpus Sencundum if you are looking for legal definitions.

Or you can use Answers.com as your expert.

[crazyjoe]

79. I don't see it, the video was not "altered", it was edited to make

it seem Ms Sherrod was something she is not, a racist. I see much worse commercials all during the political seasons. This stuff happens all the time on the cable news stations, regular people too, not always a celebrity or politician. While his actions were despicable, I just don't see us going down that slippery slope.
IMO

[Pab Sungenis]

80. Illegal, but

not criminal. There is a difference.

[spanone]

48. i believe she does have a case. the video was altered.

[Oregone]

31. Can she win?

He cut and played a tape of her, while implying a context to make viewers see the worst. We see this EVERY political season with campaigns. He didn't actually claim she said anything she didn't, explicitly. Are there solid grounds here? Any lawyers?

[tsuki]

34. She was not a politician or celebrity. That is in her favor.

[slampoet]

50. Good point i hadn't thought of.

[Joanne98]

33. YAY!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

39. In my first post about Ms. Sherrod, I said that I hoped she sued Breitbart and Fox's asses off.

Good for her!

[spanone]

41. where do i contribute?????

[NodQuestion]

42. awesome

hope he loses everything

[tavalon]

44. Yes!!!!

[political_Dem]

45. I hope she takes everything. Clean him out.

[blondeatlast]

46. SUPERB! I'll donate time and/or money to her legal team! Woo-effing-hoo! nt

[Kurovski]

47. That's what you call a "remedy."

K&R

[Scurrilous]

51. K & R

:thumbsup:

[spinbaby]

52. The office wingnut says...

...she should sue Obama for firing her. :puke:

I've got to see if IT can shut off his Internet propoganda radio.

[DCBob]

54. Very very good.

get that bastard!

[flamingdem]

61. Great news, thanks nt

[Bobbie Jo]

62. K&R!

:applause:

[Kingofalldems]

63. The discovery phase should be interesting

[Citizen Worker]

64. Is this what the right wing calls a frivolous lawsuit? I'm all in for this frivolity

[tsuki]

65. Oh, Pleeze, Pleeze, Pleeezeee, I want to read the depositions. nt

[Liberal_in_LA]

66. good

[MadMaddie]

68. I was listening to Big Eddie and he had Norman Goldman

on an Norm said that because Shirley was a private citizen plucked out of her privacy and forcibly thrust into the public eye for scorn by Breitbart and Faux she definitely has a case.

It going to be an important case...Faux has been doing this for years, Rev Wright, Vance Jones, Acorn, NAACP...Shirly....Faux has a history of making false accusations..

[EmeraldCityGrl]

73. Off topic, I just have to say I love listening to Shirley Sherrod's

voice. It's quite lyrical and has an extremely calming effect. I could
listen to her speak for hours.

That being said, kick butt Ms. Sherrod !

[Warren Stupidity]

74. Dems who fight back vs dems who go belly up.

I like the ones that fight back, the others: not so much.

[EFerrari]

76. You GO, my dear sister Shirley.

:woohoo:

[pleah]

78. K&R

[DailyGrind51]

81. Count on Breitbart receiving help from a multi-million $$$ "legal defense fund" from Beck, Limbaugh,

Hannity, Gingrich, Armey, etc. With that kind of money, Breitbart can appeal this thing to the SCOTUS where the RW majority will claim it is a "First Amendment issue".