Defamation of Character Suit?

[ordnance11]

If you folks are following the case of Sheryl Sherrod, you have to ask: How successfully can she press a defamation of character and libel suit against Breitbart and Fox News?
If Breitfield was smart, he'd have groveled and apologized abjectly, just like Ag Sec Vilseck and the rest of the administration. Ditto for Fox News. I'm pretty sure the NAACP would be more than happy to fund a legal team to start the ball rolling. Of course, given he seems to be the type that would be gladly be a martyr for his cause..whatever they are...taking away his money seems fair to me. He's not gonna be dead. Just wished he was.

Edit Wrong name" should had been Bretibart
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Bob Schroeck]

I've been out of touch with the news while at the beach. Link please?
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[ordnance11]

Sherrod case
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Logan Darklighter]

And yet Glenn Beck (the anti-Christ to you people) on his broadcast on Fox News (GASP! ARGH! ) was one of the first people to DEFEND Sherrod. And the Fox News (but we must always call it "Faux" News to show our cleverness and sophistication) pundits twigged faster than anyone else that the video ACTUALLY showed her talking about her realization of her own prejudice and overcoming of that. Thus - Fox News was in the VANGUARD supporting Sherrod getting her job back!
Media critic Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post says blaming Fox may be
unfair. He notes that the Sherrod case got little mention before her
resignation -- which some believe the administration caused because it
feared what conservative media might report.

From Kurtz:

...But for all the chatter -- some of it from Sherrod herself -- that she was done in by Fox News, the network didn't touch the story until her forced resignation was made public Monday evening, with the exception of brief comments by O'Reilly. After a news meeting Monday afternoon, an e-mail directive was sent to the news staff in which Fox Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said: "Let's take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let's make sure we do this right."

Sherrod may be the only official ever dismissed because of the fear that Fox host Glenn Beck might go after her. As Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack tried to pressure her into resigning, Sherrod says Deputy Under Secretary Cheryl Cook called her Monday to say "do it, because you're going to be on 'Glenn Beck' tonight." And for all the focus on Fox, much of the mainstream media ran with a fragmentary story that painted an obscure 62-year-old Georgian as an unrepentant racist.

On Monday night, O'Reilly had played the clip posted by conservative activist Andrew Breitbart on his site BigGovernment.com. O'Reilly led his Wednesday program by criticizing some of Sherrod's language but acknowledging his own mistake: "I owe Ms. Sherrod an apology for not doing my homework . . . and for not putting her remarks into proper context." While the excerpt showed Sherrod, an African American, telling the NAACP in a speech that she had discriminated against a white farmer as a nonprofit aid officer 24 years ago, the full speech made clear she was saying she had overcome that racial instinct and learned an important lesson.

In point of fact - the White House pressured Sherrod to resign because it was AFRAID of Fox News and Glenn Beck coming after her, but ironically, Glenn Beck himself DEFENDED Sherrod and opined that she had been done wrong by the administration and the NAACP. Noting that they were LIGHTNING FAST to fire her over this, but these were the same people who derailed the DOJ investigation into the new Black Panthers for voter fraud and voter intimidation during the 2008 election.
Proof? Video or it didn't happen? This was Glenn Beck's own first show after this broke.
(That is - if you can handle it rather than putting up garlic over your door and making the sign of the cross. I bet none of you on the left even watch this.)

[Logan Darklighter]

From Ron Radosh of Pajamas Media:

Also standing out on Fox News is their in-house liberal and former civil rights activist, Juan Williams. Writing on the Fox website today, Williams asked the essential question: “How is it possible that the first black president of the United States, under pressure for alleged reverse discrimination against whites at the Justice Department, fires a black Agriculture Department official for telling a story of racial redemption?”

Williams goes on to ask how the President could act so quickly without pausing to ascertain the facts, and how it was possible that the once great NAACP was pushing him to fire Sherrod “on a charge of racism without checking to be sure she was a hateful racist? And the NAACP had the full tape, the full facts before they went after her.”

It was the White House and the civil rights group, not the Right-wing, that in Williams’ words, acted “on the basis of an Internet video maliciously edited to intentionally distort the woman’s speech?” And he adds, how is it that they acted out of fear that Glenn Beck would use the video on his program, as if Beck had become what Williams calls “the czar of White House race relations.”

Williams believes that the administration was acting out of fear when they moved so quickly to fire her. In their rush to judgment, they were seeking “political cover” for any charges of racism made against them by the political Right. But everyone, he says, the White House, the NAACP, whoever edited the tape, and Breitbart’s website, has “political dirt and racial guilt all over their hands.” Race-baiters like Al Sharpton and David Duke, he writes, “must be smiling.”

It should come as no surprise that the Left is trying to hold their favorite bogyman Fox News responsible for the mess. Despite numerous requests, Sherrod has refused to go on Fox News, singling it out as if the network alone had acted badly. In fact, if you look at the timeline, the network only reported on the incident after the NAACP condemned her and the Administration asked for her resignation. And yet, the Left, led by Media Matters.com, is trying to use the incident to attack Fox News. Shirley Sherrod was a victim, made out to be a black racist, an unjust and harmful slander against her. But that does not make her a saint or a prophet, whose advice on politics has to be taken as gospel by any of us. That she is willing to use her current fame to try and join the campaign to isolate and demean Fox News is itself both wrong and shameful.

[Epsilon]

Broken clock, twice a day.
--------------
Epsilon

[Ayiekie]

Umm, has any of "us people" ever said jack about Glenn Beck? I barely know or care who the guy is beyond "yet another right-wing talk show guy in the US that apparently cries a lot". Good for him, I guess! I'm not sure why it's supposed to be a big deal that he didn't jump to conclusions here, though.

And yes, the White House here acted in a spineless, overcompensating, cowardly fashion to try and deflect any accusations of favouritism towards black people. That doesn't exactly shock me.

Incidentally, equating Al Sharpton and David Duke is in extremely poor taste for a supposed "in-house liberal".

[robkelk]

Umm, has any of "us people" ever said jack about Glenn Beck? I barely know or care who the guy is beyond "yet another right-wing talk show guy in the US that apparently cries a lot". Good for him, I guess!

Until I read that, all I knew about Glenn Beck was that he wasn't Jeff Beck.

I'm not sure why it's supposed to be a big deal that he didn't jump to conclusions here, though.

If he's a talk-show host, isn't it his job to not jump to conclusions? Thus, is it really a big deal that he's doing his job?

And yes, the White House here acted in a spineless, overcompensating, cowardly fashion to try and deflect any accusations of favouritism towards black people. That doesn't exactly shock me.

I noticed this line in the article ord linked to:

“It’s sad because with the election of Barack Obama, this is a post-racial society,” Lewis said.

If that was true, then nobody would have had to be fired "to try and deflect any accusations of favouritism towards black people"...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Foxboy]

If he's a talk-show host, isn't it his job to not jump to conclusions? Thus, is it really a big deal that he's doing his job?

Sadly, no. "News" networks don't practice journalism anymore. His job is to get ratings. And if he accidentally fosters partisan conflict, who cares? Left-wing versus Right-wing in physical confrontation is RATING$ GOLD!
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[robkelk]

Oh, dear. And then one wonders why the US political landscape is such a mess...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ordnance11]

I'm more interested to see if there is a civil/criminal case for Breitbart for libel and defamation of character under either federal or state (Georgia) law. The LA times op-ed piece I read yesterday indicates that nothing is going is change his actions no more than the coyotes going after the dumpsters around the Verdugo foothills area in Northern LA county. And since he seems to have intentionally defamed Mrs. Sherrod, a case could be made against him. I always believe that every action has its consequence. Maybe it's time he learned that.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Rev Dark]

I am unsure it meets the criteria for defamation of character or libel; it looks more like it would be considered quote mining; comments taken out of their original context and spun into a very different narrative - something I am all too familiar with in my dealings with the dip-shit creationist movement.
What is appalling, is that the fifth estate, ran with it without any level of confirmation or fact checking.  While Logan attempts to portray Fox news, or rather the moronic blackboard poster child of mouth breathers everywhere (Mr. Beck);
Logan - you are being rather dishonest.  Fox was the new network that first promoted the video - Without any vetting of the content, and is now backpedalling as their role in the smear job is being brought out.  Media Matters has an excellent timeline of their activities in this regard.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007220004

[ordnance11]

Someone posted this on a web article:

She will win. There are several basic reasons:

1) Unless I miss my guess badly, she had had offers from literally
hundreds of the best lawyers and law firms in the country offering to
take her case pro bono. When juries hear that the plaintiff's lawyer is
pro bono and the defendant's highly paid (as they always do) they are
always biased in favor of the pro bono lawyers. It is simply a case of a
reaction to the public perception that lawyers are sleazy --- but if
they take a case for free then they must really believe in both the
justice of the case and the probity of the plaintiff. This works
whether the pro bono lawyers are suing or defending.

2) There were real damages. Whether justified or not, she was
summarily fired (a request for resignation is considered a constructive
firing) from a long-standing job where she had outstanding performance
evaluations and steady progress based SOLELY on libelous statements.
Real damages have the effect of greatly inflating punitive damages. And
juries are always very wary of awarding punitive damages or indirect
damages where there were no real damages.

3) The Federal government is immune from wrongful dismissal suits
(as it is exempt from OSHA, Minimum Wage, EEO and other workplace
requirements.) You cannot sue the government for "wrongful termination"
since every employee works at the pleasure of the government. Even
union members can be fired first and the unions dealt with later.

4) Breitbart (or Not-So-Bright-Bart) had access to and had seen the
full video and purposefully edited it to add a "laugh track" and to
change the meaning of what was said. This is not covered by free speech
or even by "fair use" doctrines. Free speech never extends to lies.
Adding the laugh track will carry much more weight with a jury than the
editing since it destroys Breitbart's contentions of NAACP racism.

5) Fox News bears some liability because the station either failed
to use its own confirmation policies or aired the video knowing that it
was falsely edited. Either makes Fox liable. But the "cascade" nature
of civil law allows everything disclosed in the Breitbart trial to be
used against Fox in future actions. The most likely outcome is that
Breitbart will lose and Fox's insurance will attempt to settle. I will
say that Glen Beck was probably warned off by Fox lawyers, but by the
time he tried to "rescue" the situation, the video had already been
aired several times on Fox and was on a large number of conservative
blogs.

6) Both Breitbart and Fox have a long history of inaccurate and
knowing lies. Every single one can be aired in court in the
prosecution. You're talking about hundreds of clips of Breitbart's
brand of racist neo-conservatism and a number of extreme racial remarks
and epithets. Hate speech has long been ruled as not protected free
speech. In the case of Fox it would be literally thousands of clips
that could be used. This sort of thing is almost impossible to defend
against since neither Fox nor Breitbart will be able to show clips where
they said nothing. It is one time where proving the occurrence is easy
and proving the negative is impossible.

7) The act of trying to blame the victims of racism for racism
itself is one of the most logically bankrupt legal stands that can be
taken. Courts have ruled over and over that "reverse racism" is a legal
oxymoron. In fact, there is a great deal of case law that considers
blaming the victim as one of the most damning pieces of evidence of
guilt --- most often seen in rape cases where the rapist tries to say
that the victim's screams were negated by the way she dressed, for
example.

If you want to read about the landmark case that will determine the
outcome, it is Reynolds v. Pegler, 223 F.2d
429 (2nd cir. 1955), was a landmark libel decision in which Quentin
Reynolds successfully sued right-wing columnist Westbrook Pegler,
resulting in a record judgement of $175,001.

The case has its origins in a heated dispute between journalist
Quentin Reynolds and conservative Westbrook Pegler. The dispute
centered around Pegler's denouncement of a liberal journalist and
Reynold's defense of him. However, Pegler did not stop at denouncing
the late Broun. Pegler went on to personally attack Reynolds, asserting
that "Reynolds and his girl friend of the moment were nuding along the
public road"; that "as Reynolds was riding to Heywood's grave with
her, he proposed marriage to the widow". Pegler accused Reynolds of
being "one of the great individual profiteers of the war" and claimed
Reynolds had been involved in fraud involving war contracts. Pegler
also accused Reynolds of cowardice, and said he had been exposed by
people who had "peeled him of his mangy hide and nailed it to the barn
door with the yellow streak glaring for the world to see".

In response to the article, Reynolds sued both Pegler and his
publisher, the Hearst Corporation, for libel. The jury awarded Reynolds
$1 in compensatory damages and $175,000 in punitive damages. At the
time, it was the largest libel judgment ever. Among the evidences
submitted by Reynolds were proof of a severe sun allergy (which
prohibited nudism) and statements by such people as Churchill,
Eisenhower, Truman, Marshall, and numerous others who attested to his
was service.

Reynolds v. Pegler inspired the 1963 Broadway play "A Case
of Libel" by Henry Denker,
which was itself later adapted into two TV movies. The case was also
detailed in a 1962 book by Reynold's attorney Louis Nizer entitled "My
Life in Court."

In this case, there were no real damages because the publicity
surrounding Pegler's attack actually improved Reynold's income. So the
jury awarded $1 in real damages. At the time punitive damages were
limited to equal to real damages (or in a few special cases double or
treble) and this was overturned. It was ruled that free speech does not
extend to malicious lies. It was ruled that the freedom of press does
not extend to personal aggravated attacks. It ruled that Hearst
Newspapers (the Fox News of its time) was liable as well for acting as
an outlet for Pegler's trash talk. And it established the concept of
appeals bonds when Pegler threatened the judge. And all of it went all
the way to the Supreme Court and was upheld in every detail.

The link
I wouldn't say open and shut, but if the court precedent he quoted is correct, Breitbart will have a hard time proving that he is innocent. Ditto for Fox. If Fox is smart, they'd better settle it and quick. Breitbart looks like the type that that's prepared to be a martyr, but after this no conservative is going to touch him with a 10 foot pole. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, eh?
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Fidoohki]

The trouble is she might not have a case. The internet has no protections against slander as far as
I know. This might be precedent (?) setting case on that. As for Foxnews, they sound like they are
covered. They didn't report on this on tv until after Sherod resigned. This becomes news even if
it was based on a wrong tape. Brightbairt is probably screwed though unless he can prove that he
didn't edit the tape, received it as is, and had it verified in 'good faith' that it was legitimate. A tall order.
Provided the whole 'Why would you beleive anything from the internet?!' argument fails.

[ordnance11]

Well, first off..Are his websites blogs or forums? Breitbart describes his sites as a news site so it has the same standing as a website operated by traditional media. So, he has a pretty weak case if his lawyers bases his defense on the "safe harbor" provision of Digital Millenium Act. News media is still news media. If one uses privileges, one must also assume responsibilities to go with those privileges.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Logan Darklighter]

If cutting off a video and not showing the whole speech and putting it online is now considered defamation, the precedent set would be the end of the news business and most of the liberal press.

As far as I can see, Breitbart has played quite the Xanatos Gambit here. He wins even if he loses.
But I wouldn't bet on him losing.

[ordnance11]

More like he loses even if he wins. Cutting off a video and twisting the message that Mrs. Sherrod said to suit his agenda rather than brevity's sake is another kettle of fish. Did he ever at any time in this episode made an attempt of the veracity of what he was claiming? Add to the fact that he hasn't even attempted to apologize for Mrs. Sherrod for his actions implies willful intent in his actions to me. It'll be up to the court to decide whether it's willful and malicious intent on his part, though.
The only way I can see him winning if a lawyer finds a technicality to get him off. It'll have to be an expensive lawyer. No mainstream lawyer will want to be tarred with the same brush as him. Unless they're looking for publicity, IMO. No mainstream Republican would want to be associated with this fiasco. Not even a financial link.Otoh, I'm betting that there will be a pro bono legal tm for Mrs. Sherrod.  And proof of burden would be much lower in a civil case than in a criminal one.
Even if Breitbart does win it, he'll be so beggared by court costs and the stink raised by this case that he'll be broke and a pariah by the time this is done. Some other zealot will take up his banner, but he'll be yesterday's news when this is over.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell