Sherrod says she'll sue Breitbart

[finnbow]

I hope she bankrupts that lying, filthy, fibbing, dishonest, BS-slinging, dissembling prevaricator.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

[merrylander]

Yeah, just heard that on the radio news - go for it!

[d-ray657]

She has two important hurdles to clear. Breitbart will try to show that Sherrod was a public figure at the time he published the video. If he can establish that factor, she would have to meet a tougher standard to establish liability. The reasoning is that discussion about public figures should not be chilled by the risk of being sued for reasonably relying on information in the course of reporting. If she is not a public figure, she needs only show that the material was false (or that it created a false impression) and that she was harmed as a result. Both of those facts have been pretty well established.

Most likely she would be deemed a public figure. The tape involved her making a speech to a well recognized group. She had a responsible position in the Department of Agriculture. Because she is a public official, she is likely a public figure - therefore, the tougher standard will apply. That's how Fox is likely off the hook. They were negligent in their reliance on the video (as were others, including the NAACP and Sherrod's boss), but likely did not know it was false. They wanted with all of their being for it to be true.

Sherrod must prove that the video was published knowing that it created a false impression, or with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the publication. Dickhead has alleged that he didn't edit the video, but he published it in the form in which he received it. If forensic evidence would show that he did not edit the tape, she would have to prove that he knew that it had been edited to misrepresent her comments at the time he received it. There is likely a strong inference for that in that he had every incentive to show an administration official in the worst light possible, so that he knew it was edited, or asked some one to edit it. As has been pointed out elsewhere, he would do anything to bring down the left (for those who actually believe the Obama administration is on the left).

Unfortunately, evidence concerning his fraudulent ACORN video would likely be inadmissible. The Rules of evidence generally prohibit evidence of prior bad acts, except under particular circumstances. In this case her argument would be the the information concerning the ACORN video is necessary to show that the had the wherewithal to make a doctored tape. I would expect the court to rule that she would have other ways of showing his familiarity with editing techniques.

Bottom line, if you have made it through this long, boring post - Ms. Sherrod has a difficult task establishing a defamation case against this slimeball. If she undertakes this and fails, she presents Dickhead with a gift-wrapped publicity bonanza. It is a big risk.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Time for some pro bono work, Don. String up that Dickweed by his lying tongue.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Time for some pro bono work, Don. String up that Dickweed by his lying tongue.

I'm sure that Ms. Sherrod would not have made the statement about a lawsuit if she had not already had discussions with counsel. With the stir her situation has caused, I expect that some highly qualified defamation practitioners have offered their services.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Sandy G

C'mon now, Finn...Don't hold back...How do you REALLY feel ?!?

You know, I really didn't want to put too fine a point on it. I guess my real feelings filtered through after all.

[merrylander]

So if someone sends me some tape and I circulate it without verifying its accuracy I am a sweet innocent choirboy? I don't think so, at the very least I would be an incompetent fool.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by merrylander

So if someone sends me some tape and I circulate it without verifying its accuracy I am a sweet innocent choirboy? I don't think so, at the very least I would be an incompetent fool.

Maybe an incompetent fool, but a fool who might get away with defamation. It's not that I don't think Ms. Sherrod deserves to recover from the scum-sucker, it's just that public figures have a tough standard of proof. Negligence is not enough - the standard is known falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Someone a vile as Breitbart deserves to be bankrupted, but not at the risk of chilling everyone in their ability to criticize public officials.

Regards,

D-Ray