PDA

View Full Version : Sherrod Threatens to Sue Breitbart



Cuyahoga Chuck
07-22-2010, 06:52 PM
Shirley Sherrod has threatened to sue Andrew Breitbart over his edited posting of a a speech Sherrod had made some time ago which suggested she engaged in racist practices in her work for the Dept. Of Agriculture.
It is my very imperfect understanding of the libel laws that the injured party has to show intent to do harm in the promulgation of untrue information. Is that correct?
Has this lady got a case?

boatbuddha
07-22-2010, 07:17 PM
If she sues in the UK she can win. In the US probably not.

Paul Pless
07-22-2010, 07:24 PM
Doesn't sound, to me, like she's got a case. I agree, her real claim to millions will be against the Federal government. Especially given the recent retraction, official apology (at white house levels no less) and offer of a new position.

Keith Wilson
07-22-2010, 07:26 PM
Basics of libel law, abridged from Wikipedia:


Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.

Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. For a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice).Whether Breitbart edited it himself or got it already edited from someone else, "reckless disregard for the truth" would seem to be quite accurate. The fellow is scum.

boatbuddha
07-22-2010, 07:36 PM
I agree, her real claim to millions will be against the Federal government. Especially given the recent retraction, official apology (at white house levels no less) and offer of a new position.

I believe her position was a political appointment, they have less protection than civil service workers.

BA.Barcolounger
07-23-2010, 08:19 AM
Here's her quote...


She told CNN's morning news magazine that she would like to "get back" at the blogger and see his website shut down.

"That would be a great thing. He's doing more to divide us," she said.


She told NBC News that Breitbart "knew his actions would take Shirley Sherrod down. It would be hard for me to forgive him at this point."


I'm not sure this constitutes a "threat to sue".

John Smith
07-23-2010, 08:27 AM
Here's her quote...



I'm not sure this constitutes a "threat to sue".

I saw the interview, and I wouldn't consider it a threat. Just something she hasn't ruled out.

I do disagree with those above, though. I think a jury seeing the edited and the unedited videos would have to agree it was intentionally altered. More than just this case, their charge would be to send a message that the public as a right to know THE TRUTH, not some altered version of it presented as truth.

Someone needs to stand up and say this is unacceptable, and it is NOT covered as free speech.

How about we try to get a law that simply required a video to be identified as edited every time it is shown?

Soundbounder
07-23-2010, 08:53 AM
I am sure there are entire right wing staffs at this moment going over every decision she has ever made, and every word she has ever spoken to find anything that can be used against her. If there is a borderline case where a white man did not receive the maximum amount of aid, Hannity will proclaim "Aha! We have proof that she hates white people just like Obama does"

Soundbounder
07-23-2010, 08:56 AM
How about we try to get a law that simply required a video to be identified as edited every time it is shown? The problem is that every tape is edited; even the honest ones.

perldog007
07-23-2010, 09:11 AM
I won't for a minute disagree that Breitbart must have crawled out from under a rock.... but as you can see from the right wing comments here, irespective of the context of her complete speech, those folks will continue to insist that she is indeed a racist... and so will some jury members, if it ever gets that far.

Right now, I'd prefer to see her take the job and end the TV face time. She can't improve her credibility by doing the talk shows.... but she COULD do herself some damage.

Well that's because she makes racist comments apart from and separate from her story of redemption. Keith pointed out on another thread that Brietbart did initially say that she discriminated against a white farmer while a federal employee, in fact she was working for a non profit that has reportedly received federal money and she was under the impression that her client was referred by USDA or Georgia Dept of Ag according to her statements on the video of the full speech.

Breitbart did post a correction of that on his blog, but stands by his story. Presumably he has access to counsel. I think Sherrod should proceed with a cause of action. That's the proper way to settle a beef like this.

Keith pointed out that it only took him a minute to find out where Sherrod had been employed, but at the same time since the link to Brietbart's post was in the thread, it wouldn't have taken Keith that long to see the correction before he called Breitbart a liar.

I understand that Keith disagrees with this man and his world view, not sure calling him scum and otherwise deriding him doesn't say more about his own intolerance for diverse opinions than it does about the character of this publicity seeking pundit.


Many think she has damaged her position with 'face time' especially the remark about Fox news wanting to take blacks back to the time when they couldn't look blacks in the face... etc, etc. Now that's a slur, a smear, and then some.

I am curious Norman, in light of her comment " it IS about black and white" and her assertion that the opposition to the health care bill is due to the presidents skin color ( during the Clinton administration presumably those anit health care republicans were on a bender against whitey back in the day) how is she not displaying unacceptable racial bias ?
We will get to the comment about Fox later,

perldog007
07-23-2010, 09:40 AM
I am sure there are entire right wing staffs at this moment going over every decision she has ever made, and every word she has ever spoken to find anything that can be used against her. If there is a borderline case where a white man did not receive the maximum amount of aid, Hannity will proclaim "Aha! We have proof that she hates white people just like Obama does"

Hannity says he's green because he hauls two kids around in an Escalade Hybrid. Apparently they don't sell Sonatas where he lives..... You don't have to go over every word, you just have to listen to her whole speech and the comment about Fox being racist and wanting to take blacks back to the time when they couldn't look white people in the face and couldn't get jobs.

Presumably all the black people working for Fox and appearing on their programs are some sort of shills?

I don't think the President hates white people, but it's hard to understand why he spent so long listening to Wright. I am not sure Sherrod hates white people, but she appears to see the world in terms of racial division.

Kaa
07-23-2010, 09:41 AM
Sherrod doesn't have a case. Even nothing remotely resembling a case.

Kaa

perldog007
07-23-2010, 10:36 AM
I saw the interview, and I wouldn't consider it a threat. Just something she hasn't ruled out.

I do disagree with those above, though. I think a jury seeing the edited and the unedited videos would have to agree it was intentionally altered. More than just this case, their charge would be to send a message that the public as a right to know THE TRUTH, not some altered version of it presented as truth.

Someone needs to stand up and say this is unacceptable, and it is NOT covered as free speech.

How about we try to get a law that simply required a video to be identified as edited every time it is shown?

Remember what happened here in the bilge when I said the intentionally edited video that Contessa Brewer used to hype some hyperbole about angry white people with guns were out to harm the President was unacceptable?

John, his edited tape did include her saying she realised it wasn't about black and white.But it did not include this:


But they were trying to force a sale of all of it. They'll eventually get 62 acres of the 515. And guess what? They have a white man already lined up to buy it. And it's the man on [unclear 34:41], which is what he wanted.

or this
You know, I haven't seen such a mean-spirited people as I've seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried. Didn't it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bush's and we didn't do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.

Didn't those Republicans also oppose health care reform when we had a white President?


I would submit that these comments are demonstrative of an unacceptable prohibited bias for a civil servant. I would further be so bold as to posit that patronising this person by overlooking her obvious racially tinged world view is a more damaging form of racism than she, the NAACP, or any 'satirical' moron can manage.

None of us are equal until all of us are equal.

Michael D. Storey
07-23-2010, 11:23 AM
The problem is that every tape is edited; even the honest ones.
Speaking of, I know it's not a tape, but remember that pic of a white pick-up that was towing a boat and preceded it down the launching ramp? Well, I saw it last night, but this time there was an OBAMA sticker across the rear window, in letters big enough to be seen in the pic. Went from one side to the other. Made it difficult to see out the window. What? Skillful editing?

yzer
07-23-2010, 12:25 PM
I don't think Sherrod intends to sue Breitbart for libel. Sherrod may want to get back at him but I think she understands the magnitude of her victory over the conservative propagandist.

Breitbart and Drudge have been joined at the hip for years. The Breitbart product is classic political propaganda (lies and half-truths) disguised as news agency releases. The stuff is fodder for the conservative Republican media. Breitbart stories are about as far removed from the ethics of journalism or news reporting as anything could get.

I'm just happy Sherrod had the courage to stand up to Breitbart and the attempted lynching by her employers.

perldog007
07-23-2010, 12:54 PM
I don't think Sherrod intends to sue Breitbart for libel. Sherrod may want to get back at him but I think she understands the magnitude of her victory over the conservative propagandist.

Breitbart and Drudge have been joined at the hip for years. The Breitbart product is classic political propaganda (lies and half-truths) disguised as news agency releases. The stuff is fodder for the conservative Republican media. Breitbart stories are about as far removed from the ethics of journalism or news reporting as anything could get.

I'm just happy Sherrod had the courage to stand up to Breitbart and the attempted lynching by her employers.

I respectfully have to challenge that. Breitbart is a pundit with a blog, I don't think he pretends to be an objective journalist. That's not my impression YMMV. Breitbart wasn't after Sherrod, that's plain from his blog post that contained the video. Again, what lie?

He did initially say her act of discrimination occurred when she was a federal employee, when in fact she was employed by a non profit which has reportedly received federal money and in her own words believed that the client in front of her was referred by USDA or Georgia Dept of Ag. He has posted a correction of that point.

I see a lot of smoke, but where's the fire?

Speaking of journalism, what about the media repeating the allegations of CBC members like Carson concerning racist slurs being shouted by tea party protesters when all of the video evidence surfacing so far is to the contrary? Is that objective reporting?

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-23-2010, 01:32 PM
I respectfully have to challenge that. Breitbart is a pundit with a blog, I don't think he pretends to be an objective journalist. That's not my impression YMMV. Breitbart wasn't after Sherrod, that's plain from his blog post that contained the video. Again, what lie? ?

He said or suggested by editing that Sherrod, a black Women, had engaged in racial discrimination while working in a federal job.


He did initially say her act of discrimination occurred when she was a federal employee, when in fact she was employed by a non profit which has reportedly received federal money and in her own words believed that the client in front of her was referred by USDA or Georgia Dept of Ag. He has posted a correction of that point.

I see a lot of smoke, but where's the fire? ?


You certainly show alot of tolerance for propaganda and seem not to know how it works today.
The first shot counts. It's like an a-bomb once it gets onto the web. That 's what gets Breitbart's right-wing audience abuzz. Their belief that forces are afoot to allow blacks to commit racist acts against whites are suddenly prooven true! Blacks have gotten control of the levers of government thru' the agency of our first black president, and yada yada yada.
If Breitbart has to give ground later on it's s only noticed by those looking to screen him from charges he lied. He's launched his shot and nothing will deflect it. The majority of his believers don't see the lie because their gut suspicions have been prooven correct. God's own prophet, Andrew Breitbart, has shown it's the black people who are racist not me!


Speaking of journalism, what about the media repeating the allegations of CBC members like Carson concerning racist slurs being shouted by tea party protesters when all of the video evidence surfacing so far is to the contrary? Is that objective reporting?

C'mon! Are you trying to argue that Breitbart's sins are somehow lessened because others have committed those sins too? That doesn't work in religion and it doesn't work in law.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-23-2010, 01:35 PM
Sherrod doesn't have a case. Even nothing remotely resembling a case.

Kaa

Any "op cits" or "ibids"?

Kaa
07-23-2010, 01:38 PM
Any "op cits" or "ibids"?

Nope, but you can have some heavy sighs and rolled eyes :-P

Kaa

perldog007
07-23-2010, 01:58 PM
He said or suggested by editing that Sherrod, a black Women, had engaged in racial discrimination while working in a federal job.

Which she did not, she engaged in discrimination while working at a non profit which has reportedly received federal funding and was apparently serving clients referred from federal and state agencies. Breitbart published a correction. In order for that to be a lie he would have had to have known it to be false. Since the motive for posting the clip was to expose the bigotry in the NAACP, it makes no sense that he would deliberately make that distortion.

The most that can be proven at this time is that he was mistaken.





You certainly show alot of tolerance for propaganda and seem not to know how it works today.
The first shot counts. It's like an a-bomb once it gets onto the web. That 's what gets Breitbart's right-wing audience abuzz. Their belief that forces are afoot to allow blacks to commit racist acts against whites are suddenly prooven true! Blacks have gotten control of the levers of government thru' the agency of our first black president, and yada yada yada.
If Breitbart has to give ground later on it's s only noticed by those looking to screen him from charges he lied. He's launched his shot and nothing will deflect it. The majority of his believers don't see the lie because their gut suspicions have been prooven correct. God's own prophet, Andrew Breitbart, has shown it's the black people who are racist not me!

Breitbart set out to show that there was accepted bigotry in the ranks of the organisation that has been calling the tea party racist and urging them to purge their ranks of racists. He did so.



C'mon! Are you trying to argue that Breitbart's sins are somehow lessened because others have committed those sins too? That doesn't work in religion and it doesn't work in law.

No sir, I don't think Breitbart committed a sin on this one. YMMV. I am pointing out that allegations of racial slurs yelled at Reps Lewis and Carson have been refuted by all video evidence of the events of that day so far, but many in the media keep 'lynching' the Tea party for spitting on and yelling slurs at a civil rights legend.

That is a significant part of what prompted the right wing pundit to strike back. I reject the notion that somebody is wrong or evil because their beliefs differ, or that we should take charges of racism lightly.

Do you consider Sherrod's comments later in the speech to not be racist?
But they were trying to force a sale of all of it. They'll eventually get 62 acres of the 515. And guess what? They have a white man already lined up to buy it. And it's the man on [unclear 34:41], which is what he wanted.

..... You know, I haven't seen such a mean-spirited people as I've seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried. Didn't it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bush's and we didn't do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.




Edited to add, we would not tolerate this from a white man talking to a white audience expressing similar sentiments towards blacks. To tolerate if from Ms. Sherrod is an act of racist patronising IMO.

Osborne Russell
07-23-2010, 04:26 PM
What is the proof of the NAACP discriminating against anyone?

pefjr
07-23-2010, 05:01 PM
What is the proof of the NAACP discriminating against anyone?Well, to start, lets look at the words, "National Ass. for the Advancement of Colored People."

johnw
07-23-2010, 05:37 PM
The video itself isn't the problem, no matter how prejudicial the editing. The problem is the commentary Breitbart offered with it. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:



http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/sherrod-video-misleading-and-575803.html


An Atlanta expert on libel law said the video could conceivably open the door to a lawsuit by Sherrod, were she so inclined. It's not the editing that matters from a legal standpoint, said the lawyer, John C. Stivarious Jr. After all, the edited video accurately captures her words.


Rather, it's the text that was overlayed onto the video as an introduction that could be libelous. It says that Sherrod "admits" that "she discriminates against people due to their race."


"If that statement is not true, that's problematic," Stivarious said. "It certainly impugns her character and it's out in the public for all to see."


To say that without even viewing the entire tape to see if it captured her meaning would in my opinion constitute a "reckless disregard for the truth," which is a standard that must be met for a public figure to sue. It certainly exposed her to "hatred, ridicule or contempt." That said, it's pretty hard to win a libel suit in this country, and it's a horrible process to go through, or so I've been told. I'd say that if he keeps on with such a reckless disregard for the truth, someone will eventually successfully sue the man, but it's possible that he'll learn something from this and at least view the entire tape next time.

redeye1962
07-23-2010, 05:56 PM
I do not see a difference in what he has done and what we get from the media in general. In other words this is not coming from one side. For years when the big 3 were in power they had a chance to mold American minds and were successful. Now there are other media outlets coming out and people can make decisions for themselves.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-23-2010, 06:28 PM
I do not see a difference in what he has done and what we get from the media in general. In other words this is not coming from one side. For years when the big 3 were in power they had a chance to mold American minds and were successful. Now there are other media outlets coming out and people can make decisions for themselves.

The Big Three had reputations to protect. Their success in the marketplace rested on the public accepting their reportage. Competition between them was very tight and a slip in what was reported could send your ratings tumbling. Walter Cronckite, in his day, was probably the most trusted man in America and his reputation is unspoiled to this day.
Andrew Breitbart's market are you folks on the exteme right that are willing to accept the most unfounded accusations as long as they are aimed at people you don't like or are fearful of. If it wasn't for Youtube, were no holds are barred, we wouldn't have ever heard of him or his alter-ego Matt Drudge.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-23-2010, 06:49 PM
Much like Ed Schultz's market is you folks on the extreme left.

Ed Schultz?-Was he with Muntz??

johnw
07-23-2010, 07:09 PM
Some of us don't have cable, and don't care who the media stars are.

johnw
07-23-2010, 07:12 PM
I do not see a difference in what he has done and what we get from the media in general. In other words this is not coming from one side. For years when the big 3 were in power they had a chance to mold American minds and were successful. Now there are other media outlets coming out and people can make decisions for themselves.
The difference is that real journalists know what libel is, and try not to do it.

perldog007
07-23-2010, 08:03 PM
The video itself isn't the problem, no matter how prejudicial the editing. The problem is the commentary Breitbart offered with it. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:



To say that without even viewing the entire tape to see if it captured her meaning would in my opinion constitute a "reckless disregard for the truth," which is a standard that must be met for a public figure to sue. It certainly exposed her to "hatred, ridicule or contempt." That said, it's pretty hard to win a libel suit in this country, and it's a horrible process to go through, or so I've been told. I'd say that if he keeps on with such a reckless disregard for the truth, someone will eventually successfully sue the man, but it's possible that he'll learn something from this and at least view the entire tape next time.

What would make it even harder are her recorded remarks about the white man who wanted to buy some property and the republicans who are being racist and opposing health care just because we have a black president.

Taken in totality of her admission that she did the minimum for the farmer until he was on the verge of losing his property, that could be a good argument against a claim.


Then if you can't prove that Breitbart knew what was said for the rest of the speech there is the good faith defense, allowed in many states.

I think she should sue if she thinks he wronged her. I have my doubts, but ain't no lawyer. I've beaten the stuffing out of some lesser examples pro se in my misspent youth, but this is real stuff here.

Keith Wilson
07-23-2010, 08:24 PM
the republicans who are being racist and opposing health care just because we have a black president.I don't agree with her, but I can see why she might think that. Republicans have been doggedly opposing absolutely everything this administration proposes, even things which they proposed themselves only a couple of years ago. Most of the heath care reform bill strongly resembles Republican proposals from the 1990s, a version of which which Romney actually enacted in Massachusetts. John McCain argued rather eloquently in favor of cap-and-trade druing the 2008 campaign. I don't think Obama's skin color has much to do with it, but it's not a totally off-the-wall idea, certainly less weird than thinking he wasn't born in the US.

Brietbart obviously didn't do even the slightest amount of checking, even if he didn't edit the video himself . Just as in the case of the fellow pretending to be a pimp, he's demonstrated a completely reckless disregard for the truth. Breitbart has demonstrated himself to be the lowest sort of propagandist.

OTOH, there's plenty of grounds to legitimately criticize the NAACP; they often seem to think it's still 1962.

johnw
07-23-2010, 08:25 PM
Given how the farmer and his wife feel about Sherrod, I'd say she did a pretty good job of overcoming the attitudes she started with, which was the point of her speech -- that a lot of us start out with attitudes that we need to overcome. Note the present tense of Breitbart's claim:


Rather, it's the text that was overlayed onto the video as an introduction that could be libelous. It says that Sherrod "admits" that "she discriminates against people due to their race."

Since the story was about how she overcame her attitudes toward race, Breitbart's claim is almost exactly the opposite of what she 'admits' in the speech. I have no doubt the claim is libelous, but anything can happen in court, so I'm not convinced she'd win a suit. If I carried the libel insurance for Breitbart, I'd take a look at canceling his coverage. The guy is clearly willing to distort things for propaganda purposes, and doesn't care who he destroys. He's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

perldog007
07-23-2010, 08:35 PM
I don't know if you are aware that Breitbart published a correction on his blog post after the video of the full speech and other details came to light. As Keith pointed out, a google of Shirley Sherrod would have told Breitbart that she came from a non profit ( federally funded according to some reports) and heads up review of the edited tape would tip one off that the incident occurred years ago from the mention of Chapter 12.

I think it would come down to whether the jury could be convinced that Breitbart is a journalist. Clearly he fell short. The harm that came ( losing her job) IMO can't be put entirely on him. If Sherrod is telling the truth about the call she got asking her to resign, that decision was based on fear of right wing media coverage. Not a good reason to rush, especially if you are talking Glenn Beck.

Suspended pending review or some such would have saved a lot of hide on this one. The incompetence of Vilsack, The White House ( in publicly supporting the action) and the NAACP ( who had the full speech on tape) can't be put on Breitbart. He's a political activist, not a journalist. Not that there's many of those left nowadays....


Edited to add, the full version of the speech (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/shirleysherrodnaacpfreedom.htm) also contained these remarks


....nd not so much about white -- it is about white and black....

You know, I haven't seen such a mean-spirited people as I've seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried. Didn't it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bush's and we didn't do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.



You know, I was helping a family here recently: 515 acres of land......
But they were trying to force a sale of all of it. They'll eventually get 62 acres of the 515. And guess what? They have a white man already lined up to buy it. And it's the man on [unclear 34:41], which is what he wanted.

I am not so sure John.

Keith Wilson
07-23-2010, 08:48 PM
Oh certainly Vilsack and probably Obama screwed up; they then realized their mistake and did their best to correct it.

Britbart's "correction" is total BS; not quite as bad as the original post, but very nearly. WIlliam Saletan in Slate has a good analysis of his new claims about the video; look here. (http://www.slate.com/id/2261552/pagenum/all/#p2)

perldog007
07-23-2010, 09:08 PM
Oh certainly Vilsack and probably Obama screwed up; they then realized their mistake and did their best to correct it.

Britbart's "correction" is total BS; not quite as bad as the original post, but very nearly. WIlliam Saletan in Slate has a good analysis of his new claims about the video; look here. (http://www.slate.com/id/2261552/pagenum/all/#p2)

Right off the bat Keith, the piece is inflammatory and ad hominem. We have already covered this, but for a lie to be a lie the person telling it has to know it's false. William fails to establish that Breitbart knew his statement to be false.

Second, does the tape really prove that Sherrod hasn't discriminated on prohibited bias in her duties as a Federal employee? At the risk of being repetitive, from the transcript of her speech. (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/shirleysherrodnaacpfreedom.htm)
You know, I was helping a family here recently: 515 acres of land, never had a drop of debt on it since the grandfather bought it years ago and he -- he died in 1974. And two cousins up in the North, guess what they decided? They tried to force a sale of every acre of it. ......

...... But they were trying to force a sale of all of it. They'll eventually get 62 acres of the 515. And guess what? They have a white man already lined up to buy it. And it's the man on [unclear 34:41], which is what he wanted. So it was a problem for Ms. Sherrod that relatives of the deceased wanted to sell the property to a white man, recently. Listen to that part of the video, try to imagine substituting black for white and a white official speaking to a white audience. You make the call.

William offers his opinion that the laughter of the audience has nothing to do with the race of the farmer. He states this as a fact and uses his fact to call Breitbart a liar. I don't buy it. I listened to the whole speech several times. In any case calling Brietbart a liar means that he knew that the audience was not laughing at the prospect of the white farmer getting screwed.

Also, we have Sherrod's statement that the republicans are opposing health care because they are racists and the president is black. Presumably when Clinton was president the republicans opposed health care for the sheer unadulterated hell of it but have now all become racists. So we are to take her judgement that the man was trying to establish superiority because Sherrod said he was? Goes to credibility and reasonableness your honor.

The fact that your source has to use inflammatory unproven allegations to juice up his spin should tell you something right off the bat. Prove that the man lied if you are going to make that accusation. Otherwise it's just baseless and tends to undermine anything else you have to say. Goes to credibility of the witness your honor.

perldog007
07-23-2010, 09:16 PM
By the way Keith, I find a lot to admire in the President I didn't vote for. But wasn't there some criticism of Palin saying she resigned because of media pressure from the lamestream attack media, being that if she could not stand up to the press she certainly couldn't lead. Now somebody in our administration is running scared of Glenn Beck FOR CRYING OUT LOUD and nobody had gotten the axe.

Either that or Shirley Sherrod is misremembering the phone call she got, possibly due to being pinned down by sniper fire somewhere outside the 57 states but not in North or South Veitnam which now co-exist peacefully :D. Or somebody lied to her but you have to admit, really looks like somebody got sceeered. They should fire ten people just to avoid any appearance the Beck is making policy.

I mean, I watch him as much as I watch Olberman which is to say not very much. It's important to me that all opinions have a voice but making firing decisions because we are worried about what Beck will say ? WWGBD? Seriously?

You feeling me?

Keith Wilson
07-23-2010, 11:09 PM
Did you read the whole article (http://www.slate.com/id/2261552/pagenum/all/#p2)? Yes, he says nasty things about Breitbart. But then he goes through the recording in detail and refutes every single one of the claims he made in his "correction". Perhaps the word "lie" assumes intent that he can't know, but Brietbart sure did make an awful lot of obviously false statements. Either lying or wanton disregard for the truth; there's not much to choose.

And I agree; somebody in the administration really messed up. But they admitted it, apologized, and are now trying to make it right as far as they can. I expect it won't happen again.

perldog007
07-23-2010, 11:28 PM
Did you read the whole article (http://www.slate.com/id/2261552/pagenum/all/#p2)? Yes, he says nasty things about Breitbart. But then he goes through the recording in detail and refutes every single one of the claims he made in his "correction". Perhaps the word "lie" assumes intent that he can't know, but Brietbart sure did make an awful lot of obviously false statements. Either lying or wanton disregard for the truth; there's not much to choose.

And I agree; somebody in the administration really messed up. But they admitted it, apologized, and are now trying to make it right as far as they can. I expect it won't happen again.

Keith I sure did read the whole article. Let me show you where I am coming from:

William :
The audience seems sympathetic to Sherrod's resentment of the farmer's arrogance, as she perceived it. How should we interpret the laughter? Is it laughter at her power to withhold help from a white man? Or is it laughter at her power to withhold help from a guy with an attitude? The evidence so far suggests the latter That's an opinion all right, stating it as a fact is how William calls Breitbart a liar. What William got wrong, is here :
You know, the first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he—he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. [Audience: Alright. Murmurs.]The comment from the audience at that point is "you know that's right". Hmmmmm....

So we have the audience readily agreeing with the characterisation of this farmer espousing his superiority ( by the way, did Mr. Spooner come across like that in his CNN interview? ) then laughing when she said she was thinking about how much help she was going to give him.

So by being mistaken ( notice how I disagreed without calling the man a liar? ) about the audience response it's possible that William mis interpreted the reaction of the audience in good faith.

For my money, that reaction is as innocent as the 'satire' in the Williams letter. None of it is acceptable whether it's done by somebody I agree or disagree with. How 'bout you?

Edit - William also fails to address the other racially tinged remarks in the speech, like the ones I quoted from the full transcript. Are you familiar with a legal concept called 'totality of circumstances' ? Further - if all there was to work with was the portion of the tape William analyses then that would be different. But we have at least two other inappropriate racially biased remarks that William ignores. Isn't selective editing what Breitbart is bieng pilloried for?

By all means say you think he's wrong, disagree, give different view points. When did liberal change from tolerant and open minded and free from bigotry to what it has become? Really pisses me off I tell ya. If you have the goods to prove he is a liar, bring it. Otherwise you owe him an apology and the scum remark would seem to be below an educated mind in informed debate.

yzer
07-24-2010, 02:39 AM
I remember more radical times during the late 1960s and early '70s when I heard real racists both white and black. I can't imagine how anyone who listened to the Sherrod speech could describe it as being racist.

It's quite possible that Breitbart isn't lying when he claims to hear racist attitudes expressed by the speaker and the audience of this NAACP event. It could be that hypersensitive Breitbart has a genuine phobia regarding black people or he is so blinded by hatred toward them he can't interpret their motivation in any other way.

It's likely that Breitbart is in complete denial of his lies in support of a political agenda. That kind of denial is all too common in politics today. The cause could be psychological or a simple ignorance or abandonment of ethics. Breitbart and Drudge left a long trail of lies and half-truths over the years. It's nothing new. It's more likely that Breitbart was just stirring the pot in an attempt to divide his progressive opposition along racial lines. It won't work with me.

perldog007
07-24-2010, 08:39 AM
I remember more radical times during the late 1960s and early '70s when I heard real racists both white and black. I can't imagine how anyone who listened to the Sherrod speech could describe it as being racist.

It's quite possible that Breitbart isn't lying when he claims to hear racist attitudes expressed by the speaker and the audience of this NAACP event. It could be that hypersensitive Breitbart has a genuine phobia regarding black people or he is so blinded by hatred toward them he can't interpret their motivation in any other way.

It's likely that Breitbart is in complete denial of his lies in support of a political agenda. That kind of denial is all too common in politics today. The cause could be psychological or a simple ignorance or abandonment of ethics. Breitbart and Drudge left a long trail of lies and half-truths over the years. It's nothing new. It's more likely that Breitbart was just stirring the pot in an attempt to divide his progressive opposition along racial lines. It won't work with me.

Again, here we have somebody calling Breitbart a liar without offering any proof that he made statements he KNEW to be false. A definition that seems to have been forgotten. When did it become so acceptable to call somebody a liar when you disagree with them? Why is it so prevalent among so called liberals?

Admitting my own bias, watching the civil rights struggle as a boy and being raised by 'true blue' parents who were not only democrats but liberal actors in a theatre troupe, I was more or less conditioned to expect bigotry from the right. Unfair I know, but the way it was.

Nowadays, insisting on true equality is no longer a liberal idea, but gets you tagged as 'right wing' or as one of my good friends puts it RWDB. I think it means right wing dust bin right?

. If you don't hear any racism in the speech please explain Sherrod's characterisation of the Republicans as being racist due to health care reform opposition and the audience reaction and please explain Sherrod's mention of the race of a potential buyer that out of state relatives of a deceased landowner were apparently in negotiations with. RECENTLY according to her own words

At age 62 and apparently having an interest in the health care reform debate can we not reasonably expect Ms. Sherrod to know that the republicans also opposed singly payer universal care and other reforms when it was the agenda of a white president? Edited to add - and the audience who looked old enough to remember what happened 10-15 years ago as well....

As a federal employee in a position like hers, is it unreasonable to inquire as to why the race of the potential buyer of the land under discussion was an issue worth mentioning?

When the NAACP is making charges of systemic racism against a large group of people doesn't that open them to scrutiny?

Is it really fair, open minded, and free of bigotry to level slurs and other wise deride those with whom you disagree?

Set aside the incident of the Farmer and the audience laughing before they knew it was a story of reconciliation. Which one has to be in denial to interpret any other way. Set aside other remarks Sherrod has made such as accusing Fox news of trying to set race relations back to a time when Blacks had to look down, could not look whites in the face, couldn't get jobs... ( A network which employs black people and even _gasp_ has them on air as both commentators and journalists ).

I am not troubled by those who find disagreement with Brietbart, Drudge, or Huffington. Myself and I dare say most folks do. Still, calling folks liars without proof, insisting that tea party protesters yelled a 'chorus' of N-word slurs at a civil rights legend without proof - when the abundance of cameras present has only refuted it so far - to forward political agendas and stifle debate trouble me.

IMHO, treating Ms. Sherrod differently because she is a black woman making these remarks than we would a white male making similar remarks is discrimination against her. It's patronising in my view, and it's wrong.

What if a white man had made remarks about blacks and/or democrats blindly accepting administration policy because of favourable prejudice towards a black president? Let's say the guy is a federal employee. You tell me. What if the crowd expressed approval at that sentiment as the audience in the Sherrod speech video appears to do?

Let's say a white tea party leader is bemoaning some relatives of a dead guy trying to force the sale of property to "Guess what? a black man" to a white audience. You make the call.

When I first heard about this story, as with many things I ( am ashamed to say almost :D ) I did so through one of Norman's C&P postings. At first the position of the folks from Norman's source seemed spot on. This lady was railroaded by a cheap trick it seemed. A remark taken out of context, like that tea party protester filmed saying he was a proud racist without showing the part of the video where other tea party protesters surrounded the racist and told him to leave.

Or that cropped video of the armed black tea party protester that Contessa Brewer's show used to hype a discussion of dangerous armed white folks out to harm the president.

It seemed that Ms. Sherrod had indeed been wrongly accused. Now she was fired before Fox even alluded to the story, but somehow FOX was involved in her losing her job.... hmmmm. The first thing that failed the smell test. Then the NAACP released the whole video.

I listened to the whole speech, and read the transcript. Many times. I read right and left analyses of the event. IMO, FOX, MSNBC and so many others were in fact practising an insidious form of racism. Patronising.

Given all of the racially tinged statements in the video and the ones she has made since- how do you say she isn't exhibiting prohibited bias?

i have no irrational fear of black people. As mentioned in other threads I'm one of a very few white SPOs' to work in D.C. public housing in the last forty years. I don't have a hatred of black people unless I hate all of my closest friends and neighbours. I hear some reactions on that tape that are troubling. Do the mental exercise, make it a white speaker, white audience, change the words white and black around and get back to me. Do so for all of the speech.

No hint of racism? I disagree.

perldog007
07-24-2010, 10:25 AM
What is the proof of the NAACP discriminating against anyone?

The allegation was not discrimination, but bigotry. Check the reaction of the audience when Sherrod accuses the republicans of opposing health care reform 'just because you have a black president'. Since they also opposed same under a white president an audience supposedly devoted to equality should have booed her, that' not what happened. There is the reaction Breitbart cited to the story of Sherrod withholding aid from the white farmer, Keith is convinced of the spin William put on it. So we will let that one go.

There was also the murmur of agreement when Sherrod expressed disdain over relatives of a dead landowner having negotiated with a 'white man' for a legal and equitable transfer of said land.

These examples in the video arguably constitute evidence of bigotry and/or unacceptable racial bias.

Speaking of bigotry, read through this thread and look at the characterisations of Breitbart by those who disagree with him.

ccmanuals
07-24-2010, 11:06 AM
Again, here we have somebody calling Breitbart a liar without offering any proof that he made statements he KNEW to be false

Well, if she sues him and it goes to trial maybe we will find out.

perldog007
07-24-2010, 11:07 AM
Well, if she sues him and it goes to trial maybe we will find out.

Absolutely, an action I have expressed support for in this thread. She should sue.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-24-2010, 03:21 PM
Absolutely, an action I have expressed support for in this thread. She should sue.

It's rather obvious that in building your defence of Breitbart you have spent conciderable time analysing Ms. Sherrod's entire speech and the reaction of the NAACP audience.
Unfortunately, the point of contention is what was contianed in the approximately 2 minute video that Breitbart chose to post and whatever commentary he attached to it. If Breitbart tried to do as you did and introduce the rest of the video to bolster his arguement of bias by Sherrod or whoever he would probably get shot down because it is the editing of the video that is at the heart of libel claim. It would seem a folly to let the accused creat and post a supposed libelous story then let him come into court and defend himself by rolling out the unadulterated version. The libel is in the editing.

perldog007
07-24-2010, 04:15 PM
I am not sure I am defending Brietbart as much as I am attacking the party line and populist meme taking the position that the full unedited tape shows that there was no discrimination. I still haven't had anybody tell me why the racist republican and white land buyer comments ( and reactions) do not show bigotry.

I certainly object to unproven accusations and bigoted personal attacks passing for debate from ostensibly educated folks.

So the heavily edited lying dirty trick smear portion shows bias, the whole unedited FULL speech shows bias, but the editing was libel. I am just not feeling it.

If the whole taps shows unacceptable bias, what harm was done by the edit?

My position is that the speech in it's entirety contains evidence of prohibited bias and possibly of discrimination while engaged in official duties at the USDA. I say possibly because the bit about blocking the sale of the entire property to 'Guess what? A white man...' deserves to be looked into.

Me mum was in real estate and would have lost her license for jokingly suggesting that the race of a buyer was an issue. She was also a blind partisan and would argue this matter with me into the wee hours of the a.m. were she still around.

She may have done nothing improper but the tone and context of that remark certainly display a bias that has no place in a post racial presidency IMO. That's even before we get into the racist republican jab and the Fox news jab. Fox ran the story AFTER USDA sacked her according to her at the bidding of the white house.

Was the White House and NAACP trying to take blacks back to the pre civil rights deep south as well?

If Sherrod is lying about that she should not have been offered her job back, if Vilsack lied he needs to go and we need a head from the W.H. to roll with him. If Cook lied she needs the off with her head treatment.

We are talking about Glenn Beck making personnel decisions here folks. Wake up and smell the septic tank explosion.

perldog007
07-24-2010, 04:34 PM
I doubt that it would, but I would like to see this in court . So far I think the media, including FOX is way off on this one. I am still waiting for somebody to explain away the land buyer and health care remarks. Without those remarks in the speech, I would say that Sherrod has a claim and the party line that the edit smeared her is a hundred percent correct.

I would be interested to see how it would go down in court, and am a firm believer that if you threaten legal action you should do it or be counter sued.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-24-2010, 05:05 PM
A court case isn't about the world views of the contenders. It's about an accusation which has to be spelled out in relation to the governing points of law. If Breitbart libeled Sherrod with 2 minutes of a 40 minute video, Breitbart would be stupid to say his innocencs lies in the part he didn't post. That would bring up the question of why he only posted what he did. It wouldn't take a genious to put it to the jury that he chose only 2 minutes out of 40 because the 2 minutes seemed most likely to bolster the erronious accusations he made and the other 38 didn't.
If a suite is filed I say Breitbart will settle before trial.

perldog007
07-24-2010, 06:29 PM
That's an interesting take, BUT the two minutes also included Sherrod saying that she realized it's about poor and not so much about race. So Breitbart edited out the parts that can't be explained by anything other than unacceptable prohibited bias on the part of Sherrod AND the NAACP but he lied about her.

But if his claims are erroneous that would mean that the remarks about republicans and the prospective land buyer weren't racially bigoted. How do you get around them? I say they do tend to indicate prohibited bias, specifically race and the discussion of blocking the sale of family farmland to a white man may indeed constitute discrimination while employed by the USDA. At a minimum the race of the prospective buyer should not have been an issue to a USDA official.

So, you maintain that he edited the video to exclude exculpatory material, but he also edited out arguable evidence of discrimination and certainly indications of unacceptable racial prejudice.

If I am to understand you, you think that Brietbart should settle because he didn't include the part of the video that is exculpatory, but if he includes that and leaves out the republican and land buyer sections isn't he lying by editing the video to make it look like she isn't exhibiting prohibited bias when she is?

If he includes the other sections the along with the section about helping the farmer, then she's a bigot and a hypocrite. Not only is the telling the audience to seek unity because of something that happened 24 years ago she turns around a few minutes later and bemoans the fact that relatives of a deceased landowner are trying to sell it to "Guess what? A white man..." . Seriously?

Perhaps there is a precedent or some case law you are referring to?

Also you say his claims are erroneous but the evidence that she did exhibit prohibited bias are in the transcript and on the video, apart form the story of the Farmer. How do you counter those two sections? Because if you can't those are not erroneous claims.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-24-2010, 07:24 PM
This wouldn't be a criminal trial so there may not be anything "exculpitory". The libelous act, if their was one, was what Breitbart posted, video and text. The ball goes into Breitbart's court. He has to show what's in the video is correct and was not an attempt to blacken Ms. Sherrod's reputation. Or that he somehow had gotten his facts wrong. Since the video is only 2 minutes there may not be much wiggle room. And, since he obviously left most of the original video out why should it now be allowed to introduce it to bolster his case?
Actually, if he had posted the whole speech he might have been better off because there's a lot in there that could be open to interpretation by the jury.

perldog007
07-24-2010, 08:05 PM
The fact that the reaction of the audience to the racist health care opposition was the most telling for Breitbart's cause. Not even the author of the article Keith referenced can explain that away, bigoted racially tinged statement - applause.

Brietbart doesn't have it in his 'hit' piece. Might that tend to support his claim that he did not edit the tape?

On the other hand, if he did edit the tape he left out some very damaging material. If he was out to discredit Ms. Sherrod that doesn't make any sense.

Nobody is going to use all forty minutes, I'll bet most people posting here haven't really listened carefully to it. Editing something that long is standard. I just don't think you can make the case that Breitbart lied, made false accusations, whatever when the full tape does not exonerate her.

How can you say the listening to the full speech tells the story and ignore the two sections I mentioned? You can't unless your mind is already made up and you are taking a partisan line.

Is a counter charge of racism the best way to combat the perceived distortions by the NAACP targeting the tea party? I don't think so, but it is understandable that partisans like to take shots at each other. I don't delude myself that Breitbart is anything but a hyperpartisan pundit. He makes his living on sensationalism.

Still nobody can tell me what the lie is, he posted a correction saying that the story on his short clip took place years ago, but on the full tape we hear some racially inappropriate discussion of recent events. Meaning perhaps even his first statement is correct.

Reckless disregard for the truth? Not if he edited it himself because he would have known that Ms. Sherrod and the audience displayed inappropriate bias on more occasions than what he showed.


Without the rest of the video there isn't any claim against him. The plaintiff can't introduce the rest of the tape without giving Breitbart access to it. I am not an attorney, but have some training in common law and courtroom procedure from doing asset protection ( rent-a-cop) and private investigation work. ( Licensed in VA '82)

I don't see how Ms. Sherrod can introduce the rest of the tape to say "look, I didn't do anything racially inappropriate and he edited the tape to make it look like I did" when in fact the rest of the tape will fry her. It's called discovery and deposition. Since the full speech is on Youtube Breitbart can certainly use it.

His attorney(s) could also depose Ms. Sherrod as to some of the other comments and for that matter anyone in the audience they can identify. That puts the plaintiff and witnesses on record.

If the allegation is that she practiced discrimination other acts apart from the speech may be introduced or rejected depending on venue, competence of counsel, and the court.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-24-2010, 08:54 PM
A libel case is a lawcourt action. The rules of legal procedure say what is admissable and in what form. None of the parties get to go in there and take up the court's time with theories, speculations, their life stories or what grade their kid got in the arithmatic.
You can parse out what Bretbart was or was not up to but it wouldn't mean diddle in front of a judge unless he was unusually lenient.
I have only seen Breitbart on TV once and he looked the part of a guy who glories in the attention he can garner by mouthing extreme right-wing rants. There's good money in it for some but most of the good spots are already taken.

perldog007
07-24-2010, 09:06 PM
A libel case is a lawcourt action. The rules of legal procedure say what is admissable and in what form. None of the parties get to go in there and take up the court's time with theories, speculations, their life stories or what grade their kid got in the arithmatic.
You can parse out what Bretbart was or was not up to but it wouldn't mean diddle in front of a judge unless he was unusually lenient.
I have only seen Breitbart on TV once and he looked the part of a guy who glories in the attention he can garner by mouthing extreme right-wing rants. There's good money in it for some but most of the good spots are already taken.

Chuck, the plaintiff in your scenario - Ms. Sherrod can't very well say Breitbart edit the tape to put her in a bad light without introducing the rest of the speech. When and if she does that, the rest of the speech is fair game. That's not my speculation, life story, and my kid is Marine.

I understand that you don't like Breitbart, I get it. I am not parsing a gosh darn thing. I would respectfully submit that you are parsing your heart out. When we get to a place where the video does prove rascism or at least unacceptable bias, you try to create in your imagination where Ms. Sherrod can introduce 'the rest of the story' showing only the parts of the speech that favor her and Breitbart is restricted to his two minute posting.

I am not an attorney, but I can assure you it does not work that way. I have been to court, been charged, testified as a paid witness in civil cases ( divorce ) . With all due respect you are off base here. A judge is bound by the rules of evidence.

If the Plaintiff introduces the rest of the speech , and bear in mind NAACP has posted it, it's out there, and Breitbart has it for sure, then that pandora's box is open and it can't be closed.

Just like you can't take the stand in your own defence then decide you don't want to be cross examined. Don't take my word for, there are attorneys on here, ask them. Look it up.

Without meaning to insult you, you are mistaken on the rules of evidence. I am sure you believe what you are saying, it's just not in sync with juris prudence.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-24-2010, 11:19 PM
Chuck, the plaintiff in your scenario - Ms. Sherrod can't very well say Breitbart edit the tape to put her in a bad light without introducing the rest of the speech. When and if she does that, the rest of the speech is fair game. That's not my speculation, life story, and my kid is Marine.

I understand that you don't like Breitbart, I get it. I am not parsing a gosh darn thing. I would respectfully submit that you are parsing your heart out. When we get to a place where the video does prove rascism or at least unacceptable bias, you try to create in your imagination where Ms. Sherrod can introduce 'the rest of the story' showing only the parts of the speech that favor her and Breitbart is restricted to his two minute posting.

I am not an attorney, but I can assure you it does not work that way. I have been to court, been charged, testified as a paid witness in civil cases ( divorce ) . With all due respect you are off base here. A judge is bound by the rules of evidence.

If the Plaintiff introduces the rest of the speech , and bear in mind NAACP has posted it, it's out there, and Breitbart has it for sure, then that pandora's box is open and it can't be closed.

Just like you can't take the stand in your own defence then decide you don't want to be cross examined. Don't take my word for, there are attorneys on here, ask them. Look it up.

Without meaning to insult you, you are mistaken on the rules of evidence. I am sure you believe what you are saying, it's just not in sync with juris prudence.

Are you are speculating Sherrod's attorney would opt for introducing the entire tape rather than just skewering Breitbart for posting a libelous broadside? That would be like showing your hand before all the chips were down.
I think the logical approach is to accuse Breitbart of excerpted the tape so as not to highlight anything that would deflate the unfavoable impression created in the clip.To do otherwise would be to let Breitbart put Sherrod on trial for having racist thoughts. Which is an activity , by the way, protected under the First Amendment and not liable to adjutication.

perldog007
07-25-2010, 07:31 AM
Are you are speculating Sherrod's attorney would opt for introducing the entire tape rather than just skewering Breitbart for posting a libelous broadside? That would be like showing your hand before all the chips were down. Well, here's the thing. Without the rest of the tape there is nothing to prove that there was any 'libelous broadside'.

Now think on this for a minute, if Sherrod tries to only introduce the part of the tape that would make Breitbart look like a liar, didn't she just do what she is accusing Breitbart of doing? Using editing to create a false impression?

Edited to add - I am certainly not suggesting that Sherrod would introduce the entire tape, I am saying that once they go to that well Breitbart can certainly drink as well. That's the law as I understand it. If I'm wrong I'll certainly own up to it, but that's my understanding of the game and I have played before. In other words, Sherrod can't say ONLY LOOK AT THIS PART OF THE REST OF MY SPEECH!!! They introduce the full speech, it's full game. They introduce parts of the rest of the speech, the rest of the speech is fair game.

Breitbart's other adventures can be brought up if a reasonable argument that they are germane can be made, same with Sherrod's comments to the media.


think the logical approach is to accuse Breitbart of excerpted the tape so as not to highlight anything that would deflate the unfavoable impression created in the clip.To do otherwise would be to let Breitbart put Sherrod on trial for having racist thoughts. Which is an activity , by the way, protected under the First Amendment and not liable to adjutication.

Certainly having those thoughts is protected. Acting on them, even if months down the road you reverse your self is not. The fact that it was 24 years ago certainly would be considered, people do change.

BUT!!! When that same person admits to RECENTLY working to block the sale of farmland in their capacity as a USDA official and mentions the race of the potential buyer as a factor ....
But they were trying to force a sale of all of it. They'll eventually get 62 acres of the 515. And guess what? They have a white man already lined up to buy it. (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/shirleysherrodnaacpfreedom.htm)

I am not so sure we are still in sheltered waters constitutionally speaking.

Her ill advised remark about republican opposition ( I though republicans and democrats just opposed each other as a matter of course, silly me ) being based on racism would be constitutionally protected. It does however show racism on her part and on the part of the NAACP, the fact that it wasn't in the tape tends to support Breitbart's position that the tape was chopped when he got it.

It also tends to mitigate the position that showing the full speech would have painted a different picture, taken in totality with the statements about the blocked land sale.

As well, when he finally got around to realising that Sherrod was telling a story from the eighties when she worked for a non-profit which was receiving federal money and taking referrals from the USDA and Georgia Dept of Ag ( according to her story and internet reports on the non profit under consideration ) , even thought the distinction is splitting hairs as the focus of his blog was indeed bigotry in the NAACP, he posted a correction.

Now, is it his fault that her employer acted without doing due diligence? The NAACP? Hell GLenn Beck was paranoid enough to pass on the story and according to Sherrod she had to resign because she was going to be 'on Glenn Beck'. So Breitbart is responsible for the government being less cautious than Beck? Somebody better make tha' dam popcorn cause this is going to be a long movie.

I agree that racist thoughts are protected, but aren't racist statements actionable under some conditions or hate crime laws? I'm not sure.

To be sure and clear, I think Breitbart is a bomb thrower and a pundit making a name for himself by frothing and foaming at the mouth. Some folks may agree with him, some may disagree. I find it most distasteful the way so many in our world throw around accusations of 'liar'

. ESPECIALLY AFTER THAT DEBACLE WITH CLINTON. Remember "Can't be/Hasn't been proven" for months and months and months. Turns out it could be, but some of the very same folks who uttered that mantra until the blue dress surfaced, and the cigar ( lord deliver us all ) are now calling Breitbart a liar. AMAZING.

Can anyone say hypocrite? It's a lie when it's proven to be a lie. It's one thing to say "I think he lied" and another to say "HE'S A LIAR"!!

Really? is he lying? Wouldn't she be discriminating on the basis of race if she blocked the sale of that land because the potential buyer was white? Didn't she discriminate on the basis of race when she did not give the white farmer the full force of what she could do? Isn't it possible that letting the guy twist in the wind until he was seven days from foreclosure might not have been as good for him as it was for the commentators on 'The View'?

Oh, so she was working at a federally funded non profit taking clients referred from federal and state agencies instead of being a federal employee, yeah, that's a real big fat lie there IF YOU CAN PROVE HE KNEW IT WAS FALSE WHEN HE SAID IT. The chain of events seem to indicate that he was unaware and posted a correction when he was. That don't make him a liar.

Please understand, I have empathy for Ms. Sherrod and her attitudes. Given her past, I think it's wonderful that she's not out running folks over with a suburban. What happened to her family is horrible. I certainly don't begrudge her feeling the way she does. Still, I don't think it means we should patronise her, and I don't have any tolerance for the kind of political posturing that lit this fuse, or for ad hominem debate like we are seeing here.

Fine, so plenty of folks think Breitbart's a rat's ass. I get it. I haven't put in a call to ask if he wants to go fishing myself. But this kind of rhetoric in political debate is not something I go for. It's like Rush Limbaugh from the left and I don't go for him either. Don't want to watch him die of a heart attack either though.

We need to inject some intellect and civility to the debate IMO. We have college educated people on here, from prestigious schools slinging mud because this guy doesn't fit their world view. The only lawsuits that need to filed are against those colleges for return of some tuition money IMHO.

I do not think that Sherrod needs to sue, I think she should. She said she wanted to get back and that she should consider legal action. Put up or shut up. She ain't innocent IMO and in court the media spin just might not fly ,wouldn't be the first time the hype took it in the flanks faced with the blind lady and scales....

Osborne Russell
07-25-2010, 02:30 PM
Sherrod accuses the republicans of opposing health care reform 'just because you have a black president'. Since they also opposed same under a white president an audience supposedly devoted to equality should have booed her, that' not what happened.

Thus far we agree. Victims become adapted to victimhood because it appears to justify their laziness, ignorance and bigotry. All without regard to the changing circumstances of their victimization, i.e. if it disappeared entirely it would ironically be a bad thing in inverse proportion to their capacity to re-adapt. History must stand still in deference to their world view.


There is the reaction Breitbart cited to the story of Sherrod withholding aid from the white farmer, Keith is convinced of the spin William put on it. So we will let that one go.


Whose reaction?

What I don't get is this: is it Breitbart's argument that before he found the Sherrod tape he knew the NAACP was bigoted, or that after, and because he found the Sherrod tape, he knew the NAACP was bigoted? He makes it sound like he had evidence before he went looking for more. If so, what was it? By evidence I mean particular instances, not just the ordinary dumbbell stuff like "you're only against health care because the president is black." You can get that in any tavern in the land. What were the goods on the NAACP, pre-Sherrod?

perldog007
07-25-2010, 02:46 PM
Thus far we agree. Victims become adapted to victimhood because it appears to justify their laziness, ignorance and bigotry. All without regard to the changing circumstances of their victimization, i.e. if it disappeared entirely it would ironically be a bad thing in inverse proportion to their capacity to re-adapt. History must stand still in deference to their world view.

Whose reaction?

The audience laughing at around 17:34 of the video of the full speech.


What I don't get is this: is it Breitbart's argument that before he found the Sherrod tape he knew the NAACP was bigoted, or that after, and because he found the Sherrod tape, he knew the NAACP was bigoted? He makes it sound like he had evidence before he went looking for more. If so, what was it? By evidence I mean particular instances, not just the ordinary dumbbell stuff like "you're only against health care because the president is black." You can get that in any tavern in the land. What were the goods on the NAACP, pre-Sherrod?


My understanding - such as it is, is that Breitbart was looking for bombs to throw at the NAACP because they were throwing bombs at his beloved tea party. Not what I consider rational debate, but it is what it is.

For my own part I have some profound ideological differences with the tea party, but find this popular trend of painting them as dangerous racist terrorists most distasteful. From what I gather, the NAACP was being bigoted in their assualt on the tea party in the estimation of some on the right so Breitbart set out to gather more sticks to throw. He found some.

I agree that the campaign started by Rep Carson of spreading the story that tea party protestors outside the canon building, then across the street after videos shot the first version of the story down, is bigoted.

Carson's further assertions that the tea party are dangerous terrorists has also been echoed by folks like Contessa Brewer. The well discussed incident of the cropped video being one example.

I understand the frustration of folks having to defend themselves against spurious charges of racism. I was a white guy in all black neighborhoods wearing a badge for a couple of years. I don't think flinging poo is the best counterargument though.

Osborne Russell
07-25-2010, 03:04 PM
this popular trend of painting them as dangerous racist terrorists most distasteful. From what I gather, the NAACP was being bigoted in their assualt on the tea party in the estimation of some on the right so Breitbart set out to gather more sticks to throw. He found some.

It's distasteful and more than that, foolish. It's a diversion, as we see. The accusations are easily made by both sides, and are potent because of the prejudices of the audience. If all the allegations of racism in the tea party were proven true, or untrue, it wouldn't be the end of the conflict.

Priorities and proportion are what it's about. The problem with Hitler wasn't that he had a dumb looking moustache.

Osborne Russell
07-25-2010, 03:14 PM
Still, it seems the wind-up is, if you look at enough video tape, you'll find some casual bigotry anywhere. As Watson said to Holmes . . .

Ironically, Ms. Sherrod was confessing to it prescisely in order to condemn it. She ought to be a Tea Party heroine because she is carrying on their struggle, i.e. the struggle against casual bureaucratic bigotry against white people. That is their claim, right?

This one blew up in their face, it would seem. Maybe there should be some like, standards on the part of the people who report things, and the people who read the reports. There should definitely be a standard that the Secretary of Agriculture shall not be a weener.

perldog007
07-25-2010, 05:07 PM
. Breitbart showed the clip to demonstrate bigotry in the ranks of the NAACP. The audience does in deed have a chuckle at the prospect of the farmer getting the short stick. William Saletan published an op ed where he took the position that the audience reaction was not chuckling at racism.

His position would be more credible but for the applause at the remarks about republicans being racist and Sherrod lamenting the race of the would be land purchaser while she gets yet another approving reaction from the audience. That's more than casual.

So Sherrod finally gave in to decency and did the job she was getting paid to do in spite of her racism. Then she calls for unity before she goes right back into divisive and bigoted speech and attitudes. Speaking of blocking the sale of farmland to a white man in her capacity as a USDA official. Calling the republican opposition to the health care reform racism. Bully. Bully for her.

How about a standard that when you are a USDA official the skin color of a prospective buyer is not an issue and you don't go accusing everybody who disagrees with a black man of racism?

Like Niger Innis pointed out, the fuse for this blow up was lit by the NAACP. I find this kind of thing most distasteful, but as long as we are going to throw around charges of racism in politics to chill debate, look for counter charges to undermine credibility. Sucks, but that seems to be how it's working out.

Ian McColgin
07-27-2010, 10:37 AM
Just because "Breitbart is a pundit with a blog, I don't think he pretends to be an objective journalist" [#18] does not mean he has not obligation to the truth.

The editing absolutely falsified the speech and is a lie, pure and simple, in exactly the same way a photoshopped (or in the bad old days "doctored") photo uses elements of truth combined, manipulated and distorted to tell a lie.

Breitbart's "correction" while standing by his story is a further lie. He did it. He edited the tape and he thus knew what she really said. He had to work hard to manipulate the story into the opposite of what actually happened. He published it. It's libel but at this point whether he's sued or not matters little. Unlike a black reporter caught falsifying by making composite stories, he can't be fired and people like Drudge will continue to use his lies for their purposes.

Readers here know that I have a high standard for "lie." I think we hurl the terms "lie" or "liar" at times when it's a simple disagreement of values complicated by a stress on different facts. Breitbart's disgusting stunt makes it to the status of "lie."

I am deeply sorry that our sense of political discourse has descended so low that there are any who defend Breitbart at all.

htom
07-27-2010, 01:44 PM
I think she would be really stupid to sue. The "narrative" that's been sold to the public won't stand up in court.

Dan McCosh
07-27-2010, 02:04 PM
A quote out of context would not make much of a libel case to begin with. The notion that so many parties didn't bother to check on the quote in context is ridiculous, and quite common.

Ian McColgin
07-27-2010, 02:34 PM
Edited deliberatly to reverse the meaning for the purposes of defaming a person is libel.

It seems that the right here in looking at the unedited vid still insist that the edited is maybe just a little mistake and not all that misleading. It's rather like Capt Slocum arguing with old Um Paul about whether the earth is flat or not. Sometimes facts and reason and truth are just not that persuasive.

perldog007
07-27-2010, 04:03 PM
She demonstrates unacceptable bias in the rest of the video apart from the incident with the farmer. I am saddened that there are those here who are so partisan that they are impelled to patronise Sherrod for political gain.

Tell me how a white male would get away with her racially tinged remarks apart from the story of Mr. Spooner? Trent Lott ring a bell? Don Imus?

Why is a USDA official concerned with the skin color of a potential land buyer? RECENTLY in her own words? I suppose you support the notion that republicans are only opposing health care because of racism as well?


I recently worked with a family to stop the forced sale of a property. They already had a buyer line up. Guess what? A black guy. AND GOOD NIGHT! GAME OVER! Seriously?


A lot of this racism and white liberal guilt we thought was gone, didn't it surface again? You have these democrats blindly following the president just because he's black. Really? Think a republican USDA employee saying that to a white audience could have a YouTUbe video with that being pimped by MoveOn.org and keep his job?

I beg to disagree.

Niger Innis called it square. This fuse was lit by the NAACP when they decided to jump on the bandwagon and call the tea party a racist organisation. Just like the journolist discussion thread outlined. Rule number one stuff, don't start none, won't be none.

While you are accusing me of being so low minded how about explaining away all the racist remarks in that speech?

We will leave her commentary since the event for another time.

perldog007
07-27-2010, 05:46 PM
Actually, I think the fuse was lit when Mark Williams, of the 'Tea Party Express', published a disgustingly racist satire/parody, and the rest of the Tea Party were very slow to disavow it.

Check your timeline. This feud started way before that, or you could have just read Breitbart's post. I am going to take Niger Innis' word for it over yours, nothing personal.

Edited to add, Williams was booted on the 18th according to what I found on google, and stories about the letter seem to get thick around the 14th. Very slow? You mean compared to how fast Sherrod got fired?

The allegations against the tea party from Carson, echoed by MSNBC, the doctored video and Contessa Brewer's panel's assertions of dangerous armed racists out to harm the president were in play long before the Williams letter. The difference is that the tea party no matter how misguided their politics, disowned Williams. The CBC defends Carson, you and the left defend Brewer.

Big difference.

Art Read
07-27-2010, 06:15 PM
Didn't that liberal light, Olberman, use an edited tape of Limbaugh mocking an Atlanta journalist's actual words regarded Steele never even having his position if he hadn't been black to make it appear they were his own sentiments recently? Where's the outrage?

Captain Blight
07-27-2010, 06:49 PM
You know, it just occurred to me: Sometimes allegations of racism are actually true. I know that it's sometimes a kneejerk thing among members of the nation's largest underclass to pull that out, usually in a bid to get their way or something. Occasionally, though, it's true. It might also be worth noting that one may engage in racist behavior or say racist things without themselves being a racist. For example, there's such a thing as racial humor. But it's a fine line between racial humor and racist humor, and that line is not easily defined, changes from person to person (sometimes from hour to hour). I get around this by generally not engaging in racial humor unless I know the person really, really well.

Race relations are still a HUGE problem in this country. On the one hand, we have a group of people with a very genuine grievance. On the other hand, this group tends to (Tends to) hang on to its own dialect, self-segregate, defend criminal activity as either a cultural norm or a natural response to tyranny, and mistrust people with skin different in color to theirs. On the other other hand, there sure are a lot of people, many of whom live in the American South, who are going to make good and sure that these people know that they're considered something close to sub-human.

I don't get it. We're all just people, and we all bleed red. Brietbart's actions will be got to the bottom of, and the courts will decide whether or not Sherrod has made a valid plea. If what we're arguing about is if the claim is valid or not is really beside the point; she feels, and apparently her attorneys do as well, that she has a right to redress of grievance. Personally, for myself, I agree fully. But let's wait until the verdict's in before we draw and quarter her in absentia for thinking she got rooked.

Art Read
07-27-2010, 06:54 PM
"Parody", eh? Well I suppose that's ONE defense against libel....

__________________________________________________ __________

From Olberman's broadcast:

"...Well, you heard it. It‘s naked, ugly racism. It‘s the distillation of Rush Limbaugh‘s view of our country. The only other thing I can say is, Oprah, please, crush this schmuck, huh? Rush Limbaugh, overt racist, today‘s worst person in the world."

__________________________________________________ __________

The clip you just posted above, Norman, is a good example of parody. Olberman isn't.

Captain Blight
07-27-2010, 06:59 PM
Truth is absolute defense against accusations of libel. We shall see just how far Breitbart gets with that.

Art Read
07-27-2010, 07:13 PM
"...it shouldn't be all that surprising."

__________________________________________________ _______________________

What shouldn't? That Olberman would purposely edit a transcript to alter the meaning of the man's words, or that the talking head's class outrage over the Breitbart story is absent here?

Captain Blight
07-27-2010, 07:30 PM
"... talking head's class outrage over the Breitbart story is absent here?Is English your second language? You do know that specific words have specific meanings, right?

Art Read
07-27-2010, 08:20 PM
Forgive me... "talking head classes' outrage..."