Shirley Sherrod sues Breitbart over that video -- and he gets served papers right at CPAC.

[Dappleganger]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/politics/13cpac.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

Lawsuit Over Video

Andrew Breitbart, the owner of several conservative Web sites, was served at the conference on Saturday with a lawsuit filed by Shirley Sherrod, the former Agriculture Department employee who lost her job last year over a video that Mr. Brietbart posted at his site biggovernment.com.

The video was selectively edited so that it appeared Ms. Sherrod was confessing she had discriminated against a farmer because he was white. In the suit, which was filed in Washington on Friday, Ms. Sherrod says the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work.

Mr. Breitbart said in a statement that he “categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech.”

******************************



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[XanaDUer]

1. Huh? Slander is now protected speech?

nt.

[pasto76]

34. according to dumbshits, yes, it is.

[Capitalocracy]

37. as long as they're doing it.

if it's not them doing it, then free speech is slander.

[EV_Ares]

2. Was wondering if she was going to pursue this & it is really great that she is

doing it.

[formercia]

24. It was probably a matter of catching up with Breitbart

No matter how slippery a perp may be, eventually, the attorneys will find a weakness.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Awesome!!

Go Shirley!!!

[sufrommich]

4. WooHoo! Go Shirley! nt

[xchrom]

5. Now that's what you call -- timing. Nt

[michreject]

6. This one's going to get dirty

Not condoning the cut job on the video. So let's not go there.

Problem I see is that the agency offered to let her stay on the job and she refused. The contention that it hinders her ability to get a job is going to be contested as she was offered a position and turned it down.

[bettyellen]

7. not sure it matters, damaged rep is true enough, and it's to be seen

if she could have effectively continued her work after such a smear. It's not just about cashing a paycheck.

[pacalo]

14. Exactly. The word "effectively" is key. After having gone through a media blitz

with the release of the doctored video, Shirley will have more than ample evidence that her effectiveness in the same capacity was indeed harmed.

[barbtries]

36. agreed

i think the damage done was very, very plain. and all over the news.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. No, that is not accurate. She was fired full out.

They later tried to take it back, and offer her another job, not the same job, after her name and reputation had been made famous and destroyed at the same time. Andy's huge error is that he treated her, a civil servant not a public figure, by the rules for writing about 'celebrities' and politicians.
She was unknown and he made her known by slandering her falsely. He bestowed on her career baggage she can not put down. He did so using lies and manipulation of facts. He did this to a person who was not in the public eye, not a politician and not even a celebrity.
This is like taking a random person, editing their comments, publishing them and opining on them as if they were true. This is not like paraphrasing the President, or wondering if Lohan is on drugs. It is as if I started writing about you or your kid, private people, just for my own agenda. It is an act of aggression, and he is going to lose his case one thousand ways.

[pacalo]

15. Beautifully put.

:thumbsup:

[michreject]

16. I realize it wasn't the same job

It was a job, period.

Is her suit over not getting her old job back or a job, period.

[localroger]

20. The term of art is "harm."

It's only tangentially about the job at all. The court will ask three important things. First, was Sherrod a public person? There is a long and specific list of examples which the Supreme Court issued of people who are well known enough (politicians, actors) or of enough interest (circus performers, child prodigies) that they have significantly less expectation of privacy than ordinary people. And there is absolutely no doubt the answer will be that until Breitbart released the video, Sherrod was an ordinary person. That really lowers the bar for Sherrod's lawsuit, and is the single stupidest thing about what Breitbart did to her. (One day Glenn Beck is going to step over this line too, I think.)

Second question: was there malicious intent? This is necessary if you are a celebrity but only a mitigating factor if you are a private person. The editing hatchet job will probably be considered proof of malicious intent. Oops, damages just trebled.

Finally, was there "actual harm." Again, if you're famous you pretty much have to show you lost something reckonable in dollars to meet this, but for a private person having your feelings hurt can do it. Getting dragged from private to public status alone is enough to solidly meet the test, because the law itself recognizes that that reduces your privacy rights, an actual harm which Sherrod did not seek out herself. Losing her job is just cake on top of that.

Breitbart better whip out his checkbook. He has no leg to stand on.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. That's what I wanted to say!

I'm not sure Andy's checkbook is large enough. It could take him years to pay her. She could win big, big, big.

[spooky3]

42. I'm sure his buddies, such as the Koch brothers, will dig deep to help him out.

[CTyankee]

53. Maybe it will stop that bastard from ever doing this to anybody again!

I'm glad she's doing this and pursuing it with such fervor. I hope this guy pays until his dying day...

[Boswell]

60. that may be the reason for the timing

for the 2nd question the lawyers may have been waiting to see if he would publiclly continue the smear.

[The Green Manalishi]

70. Great post, great info.

My only question, and merely for my own interest, I think she was wronged and hope she wins big but playing Devil's advocate here: since she was giving a speech to a group wouldn't that possibly constitute at least acting in the capacity of being a "Public person"? It's not like she was sitting in a cubicle with no audience when she was filmed; she was speaking to a well known group of pretty good size and doing so at least somehow relative to her official capacity.
Again, hoping Brietbart gets his ass handed to him, curious about the degree to which it could be argued that by giving a speech she did, to some degree, "seek out" public status.

[northernlights]

23. the suit is not about getting "some job offer." She had a decades old career

that she built and that was deliberately destroyed. Her suit is likely about either slander or libel (not sure which an edited video falls under, but I'm inclined to think it would be libel) and defamation of character.

That she was offered some other job, later, by the people who fired her over the smear, is pretty irrelevent. In fact, it could be argued that the reason she was offered any job was so that those who fired her could protect themselves legally from wrongful termination.

Her reputation was publicly tarnished and she was publically humiliated. The horse left that barn. No putting it back in.

Not much different than if he'd physically beaten her to a pulp and then she'd been fired for looking like hell. Doesn't matter that the firer offered her some other job once they realized their stupidity. The beater still inflicted unprovoked pain and injury. The beater is still guilty of assault, battery and whatever other charges apply. Except that this is civil and injury is mental, emotional, career, damage to her psyche...

[bettyellen]

27. How much malicious career damage is okay with you? Seriously.

[CatWoman]

25. great post!!!!

I need you by my side when I argue with these ignorant local wingnuts :)

[11 Bravo]

29. Damn, I hope you wind up on that jury!

[fishwax]

32. great post, thanks n/t

[ProfessionalLeftist]

44. It should be no more acceptable or legal when done to a celebrity either

We need some serious media integrity laws in this country. Period.

[fasttense]

65. Or done to Dr Tiller.

Bill O'Reilly (no virgin when it comes to being sued) dragged that poor man out into the spotlight and got him murdered.

Yet Dr. Tiller's family never sued. I've always wondered why.

[SemperEadem]

64. well said.

breitbart crossed the line on this one and should have his ass whipped soundly for it. He was grown enough to do it, let him be grown enough to stand in that truth and take his ass whippin' for it. See, that's the problem with these sorts: they want to take a 2x4 to a hornet's nest while at the same time, reserving the right to complain for the ensuing stinging they'll get.

[Celebration]

30. Yes and no

She was not offered her same job, which she loved. She was offered a bs job she didn't want at the same salary. I talked to her cousin. Shirley only wanted a job helping farmers. It was her life, and that is what she misses. She did not ask for the infamy. She lost the ability to continue the career that she loved.

[MadMaddie]

40. The video still cost her damage to her reputation to function

in her role. People would always wonder and second guess any and all of her decisions.

[Sanity Claws]

55. that goes to damages

but the cause of action is still good.

[handmade34]

8. good

:applause:

[JoePhilly]

9. Excellent. Hope she takes every nickle he has.

[malaise]

10. Bankrupt him Shirley

Clean him out!!

:rofl: :rofl:

[pacalo]

11. Oh, I hope she chills his freedom to smear with big dollar signs.

[tabatha]

13. Expose him in public for all to see.

Thank you, Shirley.

[chelsea0011]

17. Oh, how I would like to be a fly on the wall at his deposition. He will have

to explain (or testily to)all his editing decisions. Would be great entertainment that may never see the light of day.

[Tsiyu]

18. Nice

Funny the liberties he took with someone else's speech, but his own is somehow terminally unique, special and sacred?

Tool...

[southernyankeebelle]

19. I hope she gets her justice. I am sure it isn't about the money either.

[CatWoman]

21. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:rofl:

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Andy's statement, and the edit.

Mr. Breitbart said in a statement that he “categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech.”
Breitbart said he "Categorically rejects Constitutionally protected free speech."

[fascisthunter]

28. AWESOME.... hahahahahahaha!

[Iwillnevergiveup]

31. To Andy from Shirley

with love.

K&R

[LongTomH]

33. Karma can be a bitch sometimes, right Andy?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[suffragette]

35. Hopefully this will expose both Breitbart and those sponsoring him

Hearty K&R

[bloomington-lib]

38. Anything a CONservative wants to do is constitutionally protected.

On the flip-side, it's the exact opposite if you're a liberal.

[Ricky Ricardo]

39. Protect those farmers and keep 'em off small planes. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

41. Smart process server! Knew exactly where to find the schmuck. eom

[Firebrand Gary]

43. Served at CPAC? Bwahahahaha

This is a great post, thank you.

[SpiralHawk]

46. This has truly been a Conserv-o-Crapfest of the stankiest order

The Repubbies & allied Fear&FAIL Freaks have really outdone themselves organizing a disasterous, unAmerican crapfest -- and this is just a Cherry to top off their Massive CrapHeap (R).

[DiverDave]

45. Ever notice the bad guys are

always winning these days?

He wont pay a cent, he'll pull a chaney and just ignore all of the paper...

I HOPE to hell he does have to pay, but I aint holdin my breath

[rurallib]

47. I hope she gets the best lawyer out there -

maybe John Edwards could help out a bit??

[toddwv]

48. Free speech isn't always free.

It would be hilarious if Sherrod ended up with a controlling stake in Breitbart's media enterprises. I know that it's unlikely to happen but that would make my day.

[RBInMaine]

49. I hope she soaks the fucking bastard.

[The Doctor.]

50. These lying sacks of crap have to be destroyed.

Utterly.

They are a poison to civilized society. I look forward to this asshole having his life capsized.

[Rex]

51. Good! She should be able to get a lot of money out of the idiot.

I hope he ends up with about 100 bucks to his name.

[democrank]

52. Go Shirley!

[Kingofalldems]

54. Breitbart fans won't like this one

[DeSwiss]

56. K&R n/t

[Raine]

57. Good for her! nt

:thumbsup:

[Cherchez la Femme]

58. Good for her, I hope she wins!

She certainly should!

& on top of that, there should be many many more lawsuits against Breitbart, IMHO

[demmiblue]

59. Ha... brilliant!

:rofl:

[northofdenali]

61. Did hims get his widdle panties in a wad?

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Thanks for the only laugh I've gotten today.

Andy, sweetie - go to the bafwoom and mama will wipe our widdle heinie for us................

[47of74]

62. I hope she gets to take every penny she can from him

[GoCubsGo]

71. I hope she gets to take every penny he has from him.

[SemperEadem]

63. dude.. you might want to investigate that a little further

your "constitutionally protected free speech" doesn't apply to slander of a private person, who does not have to prove actual malice.

The government hasn't tried to "chill" your "speech".

Damn! Learn what the constitution protects and from what.

Stupid will get you killed in the wild.

[Enthusiast]

66. I think she is on solid grounds.

I hope she wins and I hope part of the ruling is that Breitbart must be publicly humiliated.

[mstinamotorcity]

67. Good

for her!!!!

[Chimichurri]

68. Good for her!

[lupinella]

69. This!

Go Ms. Sherrod!
:applause: