This is interesting. This could change the way the game is played on the 
internet. There’s a reason (or multiple ones actually) as to why Mo’Kelly always requires documentation and/or validation of claims…and this is one of them. There’s a GOOD reason why Barbara A. McKinzie, El DeBarge, Juanita Bynum et. al have never dared to try to sue Mr. Mo’Kelly. Mo’Kelly keeps everything on the up and up, relying on un-manipulated documentation and evidence.
Of course any site worth its salt wishes to be accurate. People don’t have to agree with your argumentation or inherent biases but that’s something different. There’s a clear distinction between intellectual dishonesty and ACTUAL dishonesty. It’s usually the difference between an opinion and an opening to get sued.
Breitbart evidently has no one else to blame for the edited video he posted regarding Shirley Sherrod…and so she’s threatening to sue him for his “questionable” editorial judgment. Mo’Kelly would do the same.
This isn’t a discussion of racism, it’s fraud, for lack of a better word. Don’t let someone “spin” this into a discussion of the NAACP V. the Tea Party. The issue here is the CONSCIOUS misrepresentation of a (then) USDA official in the hopes of embarrassing the Obama administration. The lawsuit obviously would contend it was done with forethought and malice.
Nonetheless it backfired…
Don’t let random “commenters” change the subject here. This is now about Breitbart’s actions, not Shirley Sherrod’s words or the Obama administration’s handling of the incident. The only person who was fraudulent in this equation was Breitbart and that is not wrapped in any political ideology.
Right is right and wrong is wrong.
If you have to fraudulently edit someone’s video in order to “justify” calling someone a racist…and you get caught/called-out doing it, that’s not a partisan debate, that’s a moral and ethical one.
If someone were to cut up a video or audio in a way which leads to Mo’Kelly’s wrongful termination or loss of income and reputation…by all means, you get sued. A high-profile, high compensation lawsuit could signal a sea change in the news reporting world for bloggers.
Interesting…
Full story HERE.
8 responses to “Sherrod to Sue Breitbart…Interesting”
You are SOOOO right Mo! I will enjoy watching a court case like this! This means evryone will have to be more careful what about what they do to others on the internet. Did this man have no forethought as to what could happen to this woman? I believe he knew he was stirring up trouble to embarass the Obama Administration, but I don't think he thought past that. He never thought about her welfare. He never thought about her career and reputation. There are so many people that JUST pay attention to Fox News Channel. They don't get their news from anywhere else. Her reputation has suffered, and she must be paid accordingly-on her terms!
This is a straight-up case of Defamation Of Character.
He called her a racist; by the full and fair review of his own evidence (including the portions he omitted),that charge is categorically false.
Notwithstanding the constant mis-application of that word, if we liberally interpret its use here to mean "race-based hatred", that charge is clearly false.
This is a slam dunk and I agree it will change the game.
Good for her.
Are you guys lawyers? No? Then get yourself a law degree before you advance an opinion on which you know nothing. I can educate you guys if you really want me to, but let's play moot court like we did in law school.
Burden of proof is on the plaintiff in defamation cases.
Present your case. With specifics. I'll try not to giggle.
Mr. Esq,
For being a "lawyer" you curiously enough confuse the issue. One can advance an opinion of the case, which can have nothing to do with the "merits."
For defamation of character a plaintiff would need the following:
Generally speaking:
Defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm.
1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party;
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.
All of the aforementioned apply to Sherrod's complaint against Breitbart. As to the degree (the merits) that's up to Sherrod's lawyer to prove. But yes, it's reasonable to have an opinion as to whether Sherrod has a case and you don't need a law degree to see that. And seeing as Sherrod was a cabinet level official, I'm guessing her law team is pretty decent and informed her of the same before she made the public statement. I'll put her legal advisors up against your "law degree" (notice you didn't say you passed the bar) any day.
So "try" not to giggle if you like, but whether or not she wins is separate and distinct from whether she has a case. Of course you already "knew" that, right?
He's got ya there, Mo. You can talk but I don't see any evidence of the defamation you claim. Where is it?
Dear Tymes Up…
This is very simple. Erroneous claim via a wrongly edited videotape…which led to being fired. Would you like me to use finger paints next time?
Now whether that equates to material loss is for a court to decide. That's called being tried on the merits. As to whether she HAS a case, clearly she does. Have a nice day.
Dear "Jack Shepard"…
We've been over this before. You're done. You can switch your IP and posting names all the times you want. You're banned. Please move on. This is not a democracy.
"Maybe then you’ll learn to keep your mouth closed unless you have something useful and truthful to say"
Sorry "Landon" but you have no say on who says what here and you really have overstepped your bounds…should've read the penal code. Sounds vaguely reminiscent of someone "else" already banned. Have a nice day, you're done. The only mouth who will be closed now is yours.
Witty repartee and sarcasm are fine. Belligerence and ill-informed insults are not.
I wasn't about to try the case on the merits, I guess your reading skills are sub-par.