Sherrod v. Breitbart

She seems adept at jobbing the system on her own.

...taking on Breitbart also means her coming under more scrutiny, if that's possible. All it takes is a different farmer claiming she discriminated against him....

"don't waste your time kicking every a**hole that comes along or you'll walk in s*it all your life".

Sherrod needs to realize he's looking smeared now and let him wear it proudly instead of trying to wipe some of it off him. I doubt she has anything to gain from it in the end and might even make those who currently condemn him start to resent her instead. She's been vindicated, more than she was smeared at first I'd say, so best to hold head high and walk away from it.

She's already been exposed once.

doesn't fit the narrative.

She, and her group brought the suit to court, as any american citizen has a right to do.

Plenty of suits are rejected by the court and the Fed. This could just have easily been one of them... but it wasn't. Does that make it a "shakedown" (better defined as EXTORTION as you are using the term) as you guys keep characterizing it ?

Breitbart from a suit for a deliberate personal attack, particularly when the video was a short edited segment of a far longer speech, and distorted her meaning which was clearly the opposite of that alleged. Additionally, Breitbart deliberately solicited an unflattering video from multiple sources and there are e-mails forming a trail.

Then there's the testimony of the farm couple who were her supposed victims and who credit her with helping save their farm. That's the video I saw.

Rob

The First Amendment line of reasoning changes when the subject of the libel is a public official.

If it's based on the original event's timeline, then what he said concerning it applied. If based on later circumstances, then it was out of context, but while she worked for the USDA. Which way do you want it? Both?

She claims she was libeled when she was a public figure. Doesn't matter when the speech took place. If Senator A is accused of murdering someone when he was 16, it doesn't matter that he wasn't a senator at the time.

...Byrd wasn't libeled when his earlier statements were recalled, and also recorded in wikipedia?

How would that have a bearing on a libel situation? If it was a libel, it occurred when it was published. At that time the First Amendment and the public figure status came into play.

How exactly did he abuse the spirit of the freedom of speech? Seems to me he upheld it.

If anything... he did a lousy job of editing his content.

that Ed Hannigan said, "I am not a child molester" and he omitted the "not" when he published your statement on his blog. Would that edit uphold the spirit of the freedom of speech?

Evidence is he did not. He presented the video as he got it, and there's no indication that he knew she was going to reverse herself later in the video. Maybe not the wisest thing, but hardly actionable. He was making a point (missed by almost everyone) about the hypocrisy of the NAACP. The video was not the major thrust of his column.

You mentioned the Founding Fathers, but if you are familiar with the newspaper exchanges often made in those days (Particularly between Jefferson and Adams in the campaign of 1800) I think you would have to acknowledge that what Breitbart did was small potatoes in comparison.

they, the media, still needs to be held accountable for these increasing practices of fabricating news and painting pictures of people to portray them as someone else. And frankly, what he's done with her is small potatoes compared to the media control of our election system. The media has become the single, most powerful force in steering the election process by publishing only positive news about who it wants elected and only negative news about those it wants defeated.

Don't look at the editors for the source of media bias... look to those who pay the editors salaries.

what she said, or was malicious or racist (as some have charged) in his piece. Stupid, maybe...

look who we got for President.

I just disagree about Sherrod.

Quit making excuses for the man.

If he wasn't being deliberate in his actions, then he was incompetent... but then he has been posting his site for too long to not know what he was doing... which means in his eagerness to prove his point, he was willing to take what he was given, which he initially rejected months before (his original explanation) to paint Sherrod (and by association, the NAACP) in a racist light.

Or was it the NAACP and by association, Sherrod? The association he was making depends on which time he has addressed the subject.