Shirley Sherrod To Sue Andrew Breitbart
I’m sure you remember the case of Shirley Sherrod, the USDA employee who lost her job when Andrew Breitbart released a highly edited video of her remarks to a NAACP group. Here’s the post that Andrew Breitbart made when he released the video:
We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.
In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.
Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.
Of course, that turned out to be completely untrue. Her tale was actually a heart-warming tale of overcoming prejudice and redemption. After a few days, the NAACP found the full video and released it. Shirley Sherrod had been deceptively edited and her story abruptly cut off.
By the time the video was released, Sherrod had lost her job and had been called a racist by many news commentators. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack did ask Sherrod to return to USDA, which she declined. The story has a coda, Sherrod is now suing Breitbart.
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.”
I hope she owns Breitbart’s empire before this over. I’m no lawyer or expert in law but I think she has a case. Defamation law states that four elements must be present:
1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.
I think #3 is where Breitbart’s defense will lie. He’s already stated that he received this video as is but he trusted the source. It should be interesting to find out how he got the video in the discovery phase, if it comes to that.
Tags: Andrew Breitbart, libel, Shirley Sherrod
GOOD for her!
Hit ’em where it hurts the BLUNT-SKULLS the MOST!
In their wallets.
Breitbart blames the institutional left:
I can’t wait to see this one!
Clear cut case of Defamation. She will take him to the cleaners.
I’m glad you weighed in, DD. I’m no lawyer but I think it’s a strong case. Even his defense on #3 is not good. If you read through the Media Matters timeline link, you’ll see some people started questioning the video early on because of the way the edit ended.
The only possible defense is the one you mentioned, where he claims ignorance of how the tape was doctored and just republished it. Sherrold is a public figure, and under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the US Supreme Court established that for a public official to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth. While Breitbart may not have known the tape was doctored, he should have, and he should have investigated whether it was.
I find it highly unlikely Breitbart will be able to prove that he did not act with reckless disregard, as his defense is “hey I just received this tape and then published it,” and that proves reckless disregard.
I’m not sure Sherrod qualifies as a public figure. I guess that’s for the courts to decide and the burden is much higher if she is considered one.
Cool beans, UI, this post is tops of the rec list at DKos right now.
Nice seeing a DL cross post on my first venture over there since they removed the orange from the Big Orange Satan (really?). I don’t like the layout more than the old one. Where are they going to put the ads?
The new dkos layout is growing on me. I wasn’t a fan in the beta testing but it does offer some new features. I wonder if you could add a Twitter feed on the sidebar.
Breitbart’s in trouble…
From Breitbart:
On CNN’s John King USA, Breitbart said to host John King: “If the other video (unedited version) is so important to you in order to push this story, why aren’t you doing your reporting?” Breitbart then said: “You’re going off of [Sherrod’s] word that the farmer’s wife is the farmer’s wife. What type of extra reporting have you done on this?” (desperate answer from desperate man)
From the NCAAP:
“With regard to the initial media coverage of the resignation of USDA Official Shirley Sherrod, we have come to the conclusion we were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart into believing she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias.”
From Donna Brazile CNN: “On CNN’s Situation Room, Donna Brazile said, “I listened to the tape. I took time-out today to listen to the entire tape, unedited, in context. And I can tell you that her statement was taken out of context.” She explained that Sherrod “went on to say that her life was about — not about black and the white but the haves and the havenots” and that “when you listen to her speech and listen to the Spooners, she went out of her way to help this man save his farm just like she helped many black farmer save their land as well.”
On Hot Air: Morrissey reported that Breitbart posted his heavily edited video without having seen the entirety of Sherrod’s speech. Morrissey stated: “Sherrod and others can complain about Fox News and the editing of the tape, but two points should be remembered. First, Andrew Breitbart made it clear to me last night that this was the entirety of the speech he had in his possession. He also wants to find the whole speech and is trying to get it.” (Implies he was aware at this time of his crime)
TPM: Talking Points Memo reported that “[t]he Douglas, Ga., company which filmed the banquet for the local NAACP has refused to release” the video until the national NAACP gives him “permission” to post it. However, Johnny Wilkerson, the owner of the video company, told TPM “that the full speech is exactly as Sherrod described, and that she goes on to explain learning the error of her initial impression and helping the farmer keep his farm.”
If the video company owner says the sent the unedited version to Breitbart, then Breitbart will have to face perjury charges on top of the lawsuit if he insists he was given a chopped up version..
If one adds motives, what incentive would the video operator have for slicing and dicing the tape? What Incentive would Breitbart, the Tea Party, Fox News, Sean Hannity, Laura Inghram, Rush Limbaugh have for editing, and replaying, and featuring the same tape? A big one, obviously.
I would recommend the negligence clause be extended up the conservative media chain as far up as possible. And that would have to include the NCAAP as well, who were quick to disown her…
All of these could be prevented with this brief pre-statement: We have received this video clip from Breitbart, and are showing it, but viewers should be aware that with video, anything is possible and viewers should not believe anything they see on television. (especially on this channel… lol)
How about…”This program is entertainment. Nothing you see or hear should be regarded as true or factual.”.
@Jason – good disclaimer – maybe FOD “news” should run it as a ticker at the bottom of their screen as the permanent disclaimer for the truth…
She will have a tough time proving damage, since she was offered her job back and she probably has more speaking opportunities now, in addition to book deals, etc.
Mongo has been been sued for libel before, and had to learn the law inside and out for all the wrong reasons. The suits were never even close to successful, by the way.
Mongo still hopes she wins, though.
Actually she wasn’t offered her job back, she was offered a different job.
Mongo, it is irrelevant that she was offered a job after Breitbart’s fraud was discovered. It is a but-for test. But for the video, would she had been fired? Obviously, no. There are your damages.
I hope she ends up with Breitbart’s nads in a jar.
I’m not a lawyer, but I am a journalist, so being careful about libel is second nature. On first glance, Breitbart seems to meet the four criteria laid out by UI. Whether or not he trusted the video to be true the way it was given to him is, I think, irrelevant. If I get a tip from a source that is potentially libelous and I print it because I trust the source to tell me the truth, I am not shielded. Breitbart would have needed to do his homework.
And damages need not be tangible or financial damages. The damage could be that done to Sherrod’s reputation.
No worried for Andy. Like their racist predecerors during the First Boer War, the thugs will circle the wagons to protect one if there own.
Wingnut welfare won’t leave one if theirs behind!
I’ll wager Breitbart doesn’t lose this lawsuit unless he edited the tape before posting it online. He says he didn’t and my guess is he can prove it.
Sherrod should have sued the Department of Agriculture who fired her and/or NAACP who threw her under the bus. My guess is she eventually will, after paying for Breitbart’s lawyer.
I’m actually suprised to see the long knives out here for Breitbart on this, since DL could potentially be accused of the same behavior.
Politics before principles I suppose.
” since DL could potentially be accused of the same behavior.”
yeah, like that time DL went on national TV and maliciously and intentionally ruined someone’s life in order to back up insanely racist conspiracy theories posed by ass wipes with a TV show.
oh wait….
keep steepin, teabag
Ben,
Here is what NAACP’s Jealous had to say the day the Sherrod tape appeared online.
9:10 p.m.: NAACP’s Jealous tweets that “NAACP is appalled” by Sherrod’s comments. In a Twitter post that has since been deleted, NAACP president Ben Jealous wrote: “Racism is about abuse of power. Sherrod had it at USDA. She abused a white farmer because of his race. NAACP is appalled. Go to naacp.org.”
Sherrod will have a tough time convincing a jury that comments like that from NAACP officals weren’t at the root of her subsequent firing by the Whitehouse.
For the record, Breitbart claims he didn’t edit the roughly 2.5 minutes of Sherrod speaking before he posted it. Unless Sherrod can prove otherwise she’ll lose.
-btw thanks for demonstrating what a kneejerk reaction is…
Comments made by the NAACP before they got the clue that Brietbart had edited the footage. Comments Jealous and others at the NAACP have walked back and apologized for. Repeatedly.
Unlike Breitbart, who fabricated this story and spent days flogging it. And still hasn’t apologized. Like the NAACP did.
What does that say about Boxwood since he/she/it so wishfully hopes that Breibart gets off and uses out of context quotes to justify it?
Creepy!
“I’m actually suprised to see the long knives out here for Breitbart on this, since DL could potentially be accused of the same behavior.”
Really? Please cite the example of, first, out-of-context video being posted, and second, when it cost the victim his/her job.
Cassandra M: what does the term edited mean to you? Do simple exerpted clips of someone speaking qualify? Was Breitbart required to post the entire 45 minute’s of Sherrod speaking or nothing at all?
Von Cracker: I carry no particular brief for Breitbart, my concern is for the concept that posting exerpts of someone’s speech is an acceptable practice even when you disagree with that person’s politics.
Geezer: Breitbart posted an unedited 2.5 minute exerpt from a Sherrod speech. That is at least 60 times as much context as is provided by the nightly news, and 600 times as much context as an Alan Grayson campaign ad.
Finally lets be clear, Breitbart doesn’t make personnel decisions at USDA. If anyone discriminated against Sherrod, it was the Federal government.
The damage to Sherrod was more than her job, it was also her name and professional reputation.
“and 600 times as much context as an Alan Grayson campaign ad”
so now we are using people who have lost their jobs to justify the actions of Teabags who CAUSE people to loose their jobs?
Brietbart posted up a video clip of Sherrod’s talk that was edited to make her look like an ass. And — if you go back to look at that clip — he also posted *text* over the clip to make sure that people knew that they were supposed to think of her as a racist. That counts as edited anyway you cut it. If he wants to be called a journalist (rather than a propagandist) he should have made clear that the entire 45 minutes told a very different story than the 2 or 3 minutes he edited (with his own narrative superimposed on it). Since you’ve apparently not seen this video, find it here.
Brietbart posted up a video clip of Sherrod’s talk that was edited to make her look like an ass.
Unless he snipped out portions in the middle of the exerpted video, then it was Sherrod who made herself look like an ass.
he also posted *text* over the clip to make sure that people knew that they were supposed to think of her as a racist.
Breitbart is entitled to his opinion. None of the so-called text edits made it onto the nightly news, and once it was established that Sherrod was speaking about her past actions and not in the capacity of her current position a correction was posted.
If he wants to be called a journalist (rather than a propagandist) he should have made clear that the entire 45 minutes told a very different story than the 2 or 3 minutes he edited…
You present a higher standard for a relatively small time blogger like Breitbart than you do for the national media, the NAACP, or the Whitehouse in this matter. You also assume Breitbart had accesss to the full 45 minute speech prior to posting the exerpt. (My understanding is the opposite. Breitbart tried to get hold of the entire speech a priori and the NAACP blew him off).
This is what Breitbart posted up. Note the Related part with another bit of the speech. He HAD the whole speech, which is why he is accused of editing it for his own ideological narrative. The text edits sure did make the nightly news, because I saw them there.
And there is no correction or retraction noted. Which is why his ass is being — rightly — sued.
All of the legit news organizations who breathlessly followed Breitbart down the yellow brick road on this corrected themselves with the context of the full story of her speech. Breitbart did not and continues to think that this selective editing somehow constitutes real reporting. Ms. Sherrod has apparently lawyered up with pretty big guns in the defamation business. Hope she takes him to the cleaners.
Ben (you ignorant slut),
Alan Grayson didn’t ‘lose’ his job, he was fired from it. In large measure because of the sleasy campaign tactics he employed against his opponent. I’ll have to check back and see if there was any rightous anger here at DL over that (the sleasy tactics that is, not his firing).
This is what Breitbart posted up. Note the Related part with another bit of the speech. He HAD the whole speech, which is why he is accused of editing it for his own ideological narrative.
No Cassandra M, that is what is currently up at the Big Government website. Breitbart makes no apoligies for his political bent and one of the reasons he wanted the full speech was his belief that there were more Sherrod nuggets to be extracted.
The text edits sure did make the nightly news, because I saw them there.
If you did, than it’s a further example of journalistic malfeasance and not Breitbart’s fault. He is still entitled to his opinion regardless of how it gets ‘portrayed’.
And there is no correction or retraction noted.
The correction is there and no retraction was necessary. The full speech provides addtional context but Sherrod’s pattern and practice of viewing everything from the prism of race is plainly evident and she knows it.
Ms. Sherrod has apparently lawyered up with pretty big guns in the defamation business.
Ms. Sherrod and her husband are professional plaintives, I’m sure she’ll get everything that’s coming to her.
Keep dancing for Breitbart on this thing. You haven’t even bothered to watch the full video, otherwise you would know how utterly wrong you are. Her story is not about the “pattern and practice of viewing everything from the prism of race” — it is about how useless that prism is. Which is the malfeasance here — Breitbart was hot to try to tar some African American — it didn’t matter who — with *racism*. (You can see that African Americans are a particular problem for the guy since he has had to misrepresent the entire Pigford case recently to make his point.) If you were to watch the whole thing, you would know what a spectacular mistake he has made here and why he is going to be taken to the cleaners.
But then, no one ever went broke in lying to conservatives. They absolutely thrive on it, as you demonstrate for us here.
“Unless he snipped out portions in the middle of the exerpted video, then it was Sherrod who made herself look like an ass.”
No it wasn’t. If you knew what the controversy was about, you would realize that Sherrod was misrepresented because she was contrasting her earlier ignorance with her later understanding that class, not race, was the more important common denominator.
“Context” does not depend on the length of a video clip. You can post 8 seconds that sum up a situation accurately, or 2 1/2 minutes that don’t. Your failure to understand that goes a long way to explaining your obtuse take on this.
We get it: You think Breitbart is innocent. So what? Unless you’re on the jury, BFD.
my my,
SOMEONE woke up on the wrong side of the Palinistic Altar. you arent even inventive with your insults. *yawn*
“Unless he snipped out portions in the middle of the exerpted video, then it was Sherrod who made herself look like an ass.”
that is EXACTLY what he did, you ignorant little pile of pond-scum. Man, you really main-line the Fox Koolaid doncha?
This is so elementary. Breibart cleverly edited a portion of Ms. Sherrod’s speech. Both the NAACP and the White House failed to investigate and instead, had her fired over the phone while she was driving her car in rural Georgia.
Sec. of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, in conjunction with the Obama administration, acted improperly in their zeal to ‘cover up’ some alleged sordid ordeal without doing an investigation.
Even the transcripts from the woman who had to do the dirty deed over the phone told Sherrod, “we are getting a lot of pressure from the WH…and Fox News will probably pick this [story] up.” Therefore, we have to dump you on the side of the road like a sack of corn. Sherrod tried to reason, but to no avail!
Breitbart, in all of his ignomious glory, simply provided an edited tape for political purposes, sensationalism and web traffic. Remember: all this was occurring during the HCR debate and the push by the NAACP and the MSM to villianize Tea Party folks as racists.
Breitbart got angry and provided an edited tape of Ms. Sherrod at a forum sponsored by the NAACP. Obama and company caused the harm by denying her her civil and legal rights as a federal employee (no face-to-face meeting, no adjudication meeting among her peers, nada). She was tossed aside and thrown under the bus because of the White House’s idiotic hyper-focus on Fox News and conservative media in general and the perceived negative political fallout that would ensue.
They all had to appologize for their rush-to-judgement (Obama, Vilsack and the NAACP). And the president had the audacity to offer Sherrod a ‘new,’ better job within the Dept. of Agriculture. Even Ms. Sherrod thought it was Pathetic, but of course, one can’t really sue an “administration” now can they? Thus Breitbart.
I have edited tape of Newshound and Boxwood talking in length about how they plan to seduce their boss’s spouses and commit hate crimes…. so naturally when they get fired over it, it will be their bosses fault and theirs. not mine. because no one is responsible for their actions in conservativeland.
OMG!!!!! NEWSHOUND, BOXWOOD LOOK!
From AolHuffPost
Andrew Breitbart and Jim Hoft are sponsoring a rally to support Governor Scott Walker, in an effort to counter the pro-labor protests rocking the state. Their demonstration is planned for Saturday from noon – 3 p.m. on the south steps of the capitol building in Madison. Herman Cain is billed as a guest speaker. Details here.
Your HERO will be leading the charge against those filthy rich fat cat union workers! hope to see ya there!
I have edited words out of Boxwoods comments which make him appear to be saying that he loves to fuck goats.
well it must be true…. also, according to the goatfucker’s own logic jason, you have done nothing wrong.
SB – I suggest you learn to write, pursue some form of higher-education and/or research what an ‘Irrelevant Thesis’ is or what an “Incorrect Statement” or “Irrelevant Argument” constitutes.
Moreover, I simply summarized, in narrative form, the basic jist of the timelines involved in the Sherrod case. I even point out that the videotape is edited to serve political purposes.
Likewise, how noble of you to ignore my statements (all proven and widely covered by the MSM, btw) and posit an immature Ad Hominum attack on both me and another commenter here. AH attacks usually result from 1) a lack of emotional intellignce; and, 2) a revelation that you are unable to argue persuasively against another’s argument or position and instead attack the person.
Moreover, I find it ironic that you use one last fallacy (actually 2 fallacies) – the ‘Guilt by Association” fallacy and the “Straw Man Argument Fallacy.” Nowhere did I opine, good, bad or otherwise that Breitbart is my “HERO.” And I certaintly did not use a whole other argument (i.e., Wisconsin protests) to bolster a completely different argument.
Finally, Breitbart of all people, was instrumental in the early behind-the-scenes success of the HuffPost. Think about that one while you read Arianna’s ‘sell-out’ website.
Elementary enough that NH has to reiterate what has already been argued here and claim he is adding something.
So in the spirit of elementary, I will repeat: the difference between Brietbart and the NAACP and the Administration = an apology and a correction. Ms. Sherrod herself is quite clear on this point.
It’s my own POV cassandra. Do you wish to assail me of my own thoughts and feelings? Where did I claim anything?
Obviously my different POV an a myriad of topics upsets you. I suggest that because I offer stylistic musings that differ from many others, including your own, I should not have the right to my own thoughts.
I suggest banning me. That would be priceless. How about I go away and hide like the Democratically-elected senators of Wisconsin in another state instead of doing my job. LOL!
So what.
You still reiterated what has already been established here without dealing with the issue at hand. Your POV is your problem. But don’t expect to be here and given a pass for when you are wrong or just plain trite.
obviously i hit a nerve.
Newshound, you come on here and makes these rediculous claims and proudly try and present your comments as “original thought” when at times it is word-for-word what Bill-o or Glenny blathered the night before. You arent original, you arent insightful, you arent even witty.
You are such a transparent hypocrite, it is almost impossible to mock you. Forget debating, or arguing. Your view of the world is obviously perfect and anyone who points out the very obvious flaws, or that you are just cutting and pasting Glenn’s talking points gets what i can only assume is your best attempt at pwnage it is pretty sad “get an education” “you liberals….fill in the blank”… (talk to cass, she is really good at pwning idiots)
just remember, you are defending a “man” who spent who knows how many days carrying out a planned attack on a woman’s reputation and job… not because he had anything personally against her, but because he wanted to make black people look racist towards old white people. THAT is who you are defending. i’ll thank you never to criticize me ever again because, wow.
Lol again…it’s funny that you reference a few cable commentators and attribute my thoughts or ideas as someone else’s ‘talking points.’ I don’t even watch the aforementioned idiots that you mentioned, just as I don’t watch Hannity or listen to Limbaugh, Maddow, Matthews and others. They are there as political infotainment, and look only to garner increased viewership so their employers can make a lot more money in advertising.
I base my world-view on personal life experiences, education and other factors such as reading tons of non-fiction. I watch C-Span, listen to local AM radio talkshow hosts and follow dozens of news sources throughout the state, nation and world.
I am an equal opportunity criticizer and enjoy pointing out hypocrites, liars and bloviators of all stripes. Nobody is perfect; the least of which is me.
I think Shirley Sherrod is a fine woman. Too bad the Obama/Vilsack duo added insult to injury by firing her. An apology is always nice. But obviously, the White House cannot put the toothpaste back into the tube.
Her story is not about the “pattern and practice of viewing everything from the prism of race” — it is about how useless that prism is.
“Oh its still about black and white..” -Shirley Sherrod -March 2010
Your HERO will be leading the charge against those filthy rich fat cat union workers!
Ben (you spineless weasel),
You might want to check out what Joe Klien has to say about Gov. Walker and the public unions.
And here you are, persisting in demonstrating how easy it is to lie to a conservative and get away with it. Because it is still clear that you 1) haven’t seen the full video and 2) you are still taking people’s words out of context.
You can keep fighting hard to be wrong, but you are still wrong.