Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Danny on July 29, 2010, 09:27:30 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/29/sherrod.lawsuit.breitbart/ (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/29/sherrod.lawsuit.breitbart/)
(CNN) -- Former Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday that she will pursue a lawsuit against conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, the man responsible for posting an edited video clip of Sherrod appearing to say she discriminated against a white farmer looking for assistance.
"I will definitely do it," she said when asked whether she was considering legal action. Sherrod made her remarks during an appearance at the National Association of Black Journalists convention in San Diego, California.
Breitbart "had to know that he was targeting me," Sherrod said. "At this point, he hasn't apologized. I don't want it at this point, and he'll definitely hear from me."
The controversy surrounding the clip led to a rush to judgment and Sherrod's forced resignation. However, it was later determined that her speech, unedited, focused on how the incident changed her outlook and made her realize people should move beyond race. The incident occurred 24 years ago, before Sherrod began working for the USDA.
She received an official apology from the USDA and a phone call from President Obama once the full text of her remarks came to light.
Sherrod has since been offered another position at the Agriculture Department.
Obama said earlier Thursday that Sherrod "deserves better than what happened last week." Speaking at a National Urban League conference in Washington, Obama called the claim of racism against her "bogus."
"Many are to blame" for the reaction that followed, he said, "including my own administration."
Her whole story, Obama said he told Sherrod, "is exactly the kind of story we need to hear in America [because] we all have our biases."
-
The issue is that in the video excerpt that Breibart published she makes a racist comment to cheers from the black audience. Even if it is only an excerpt the major concern is that the audience is cheering this racist behavior of Sherrod against whites and the white house is not condemning it.
I don't see how she comes off smelling like roses. Please post an excerpt where she redeems herself in that speech. I would rather not watch the full 45 minutes.
Thanks.
-
Another waste of the judicial system. Hasnt this greedy pig gotten enough $ $ $ $ of the other law suit she filed?
-
I hope she sues the balls off that assclown.
-
I hope she sues the balls off that assclown.
She has no case at all.
-
What is she going to sue him for and under what cause of action?
She has zero case against Brietbart under practically every concievable cause of action I can think of.
She has a minimal cause of action against the blogger ( from a damages standpoint anyway considering she was offered her job back less than 24 hours later). False light isn't even a cause of action in most states. Defamation maybe-- but as I said earlier, what kind of damages does she expect to recieve? Also-- the video is of her own words and she is a public figure, so it is going to be very hard to win the case imo.
-
HAHA
333 beat me to the punch.
-
What is she going to sue him for and under what cause of action?
She has zero case against Brietbart under practically every concievable cause of action I can think of.
She has a minimal cause of action against the blogger ( from a damages standpoint anyway considering she was offered her job back less than 24 hours later). False light isn't even a cause of action in most states. Defamation maybe-- but as I said earlier, what kind of damages does she expect to recieve? Also-- the video is of her own words and she is a public figure, so it is going to be very hard to win the case imo.
Exactly!!! Breitbart didn't fire her. The USDA did, without giving her a chance to defend herself. And the NAACP dragged her through the mud, even though they had the whole speech. Yet, they want to play dumb and claim they got "snookered".
-
She has no case at all.
With the corrupt system fully in place now anything is possible. I wouldn't be surprised if she wins. There is no more justice in this country. Look at the Arizona Judge. Look at OJ walking away!
-
What is she going to sue him for and under what cause of action?
She has zero case against Brietbart under practically every concievable cause of action I can think of.
She has a minimal cause of action against the blogger ( from a damages standpoint anyway considering she was offered her job back less than 24 hours later). False light isn't even a cause of action in most states. Defamation maybe-- but as I said earlier, what kind of damages does she expect to recieve? Also-- the video is of her own words and she is a public figure, so it is going to be very hard to win the case imo.
Someone willing to use blogs in that manner should accept responsibility. True, it's not his fault they're idiots and reacted before getting the whole story but it doesn't excuse putting stuff like that up in the first place.
Republicans are always going on about personal responsibility, boot straps, and so on until those ideas cease to suit them. Let a court decide if libel has been committed. It's so hypocritical a way of viewing the world that only politicians and their followers could stomach it.
-
Someone willing to use blogs in that manner should accept responsibility. True, it's not his fault they're idiots and reacted before getting the whole story but it doesn't excuse putting stuff like that up in the first place.
Republicans are always going on about personal responsibility, boot straps, and so on until those ideas cease to suit them. Let a court decide if libel has been committed. It's so hypocritical a way of viewing the world that only politicians and their followers could stomach it.
What did Breitbart accuse her of?
-
Someone willing to use blogs in that manner should accept responsibility. True, it's not his fault they're idiots and reacted before getting the whole story but it doesn't excuse putting stuff like that up in the first place.
Republicans are always going on about personal responsibility, boot straps, and so on until those ideas cease to suit them. Let a court decide if libel has been committed. It's so hypocritical a way of viewing the world that only politicians and their followers could stomach it.
No excuse for putting what stuff up? He showed a video of her talking about her racist behavior towards whites and the black crowd cheered her on. Those were her own words. Please post a video where she redeems herself in the rest of the speech. Don't post a 45 minute video. She is racist in less than 2 minutes and can also redeem herself in 2 minutes.
Did he use slur words against her? NO. He posted a video of her being racist. What is he guilty of? Nothing. You are guilty of being against freedom of speech for supporting this charade. You are guilty of not obeying the Constitution!
-
No excuse for putting what stuff up? He showed a video of her talking about her racist behavior towards whites and the black crowd cheered her on. Those were her own words. Please post a video where she redeems herself in the rest of the speech. Don't post a 45 minute video. She is racist in less than 2 minutes and can also redeem herself in 2 minutes.
Did he use slur words against her? NO. He posted a video of her being racist. What is he guilty of? Nothing. You are guilty of being against freedom of speech for supporting this charade. You are guilty of not obeying the Constitution!
There is a limit to free speech. Every time someone acts like an ass or modifies another's words to alter the context "Free speech" isn't an unassailable defense. You're essentially saying any bullshit someone puts on the internet (which included child porn) is covered by free speech unless they yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. And that's silly.
I'd argue his posting the clip in that manner was tantamount to playing a recording of someone else's voice yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. He just used the tape to yell racist knowing it would cause her harm in any political climate.
It doesn't actually matter which one of is right but a court should decide what the boundaries of internet douchbaggery are for society's protection. There's only a matter of time before more and more of this stuff happens to real people considering how connected we all stay to the internet.
-
There is a limit to free speech. Every time someone acts like an ass or modifies another's words to alter the context "Free speech" isn't an unassailable defense. You're essentially saying any bullshit someone puts on the internet (which included child porn) is covered by free speech unless they yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. And that's silly.
I'd argue his posting the clip in that manner was tantamount to playing a recording of someone else's voice yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. He just used the tape to yell racist knowing it would cause her harm in any political climate.
It doesn't actually matter which one of is right but a court should decide what the boundaries of internet douchbaggery are for society's protection. There's only a matter of time before more and more of this stuff happens to real people considering how connected we all stay to the internet.
Never going to fly.
-
There is a limit to free speech. Every time someone acts like an ass or modifies another's words to alter the context "Free speech" isn't an unassailable defense. You're essentially saying any bullshit someone puts on the internet (which included child porn) is covered by free speech unless they yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. And that's silly.
I'd argue his posting the clip in that manner was tantamount to playing a recording of someone else's voice yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. He just used the tape to yell racist knowing it would cause her harm in any political climate.
It doesn't actually matter which one of is right but a court should decide what the boundaries of internet douchbaggery are for society's protection. There's only a matter of time before more and more of this stuff happens to real people considering how connected we all stay to the internet.
You may be right. However, until tort law is changed in this country what you or I may think doesn't mean squat. Not being political here, it's just the truth.
-
Nothing wrong with posting an excerpt from a video clip. Blame the govt. for blowing it out of proportion.
Hell, how many excerpts are posted on this forum? ::)
-
yeah, even if she was talking about 'how she learned a lesson'... she abused her govt position because she didn't like somebody's skin color, correct?
Maybe it was 20 years ago, maybe it was 20 minutes ago. IF it was at this job (and I dunno, I sure as hell didn't follow this lame distraction story)... and she abused her govt job, then she does deserve to get fired.
-
Brightbart has other stuff on her and her husband.Let her sue,by the time its over she will be viewed like Farakhan.
-
There is a limit to free speech. Every time someone acts like an ass or modifies another's words to alter the context "Free speech" isn't an unassailable defense. You're essentially saying any bullshit someone puts on the internet (which included child porn) is covered by free speech unless they yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. And that's silly.
I'd argue his posting the clip in that manner was tantamount to playing a recording of someone else's voice yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. He just used the tape to yell racist knowing it would cause her harm in any political climate.
It doesn't actually matter which one of is right but a court should decide what the boundaries of internet douchbaggery are for society's protection. There's only a matter of time before more and more of this stuff happens to real people considering how connected we all stay to the internet.
How did he modify her words? Those were her words. There was no dubbing of audio. It was an excerpt of her speech. Your analogy about the recording of someone else's voice is irrelevant and not applicable because it was her own voice. This is a racist attitude that she admittted to and vocalized herself!
However that being said I just did watch the full video and right after her racist comments about not wanting to help a white man she did explain the problems the white farmer had with his white lawyer and that she realized it is not about black or white but between haves and have nots (18.00 - 21:00 of full video +/-). And the crowd actually nodded in agreement to this. And it does look like she tried to save this white farmers land and did so. So I do change my opinion on her.
But to my knowledge Breitbart was just posting an excerpt which the NAACP had released. If anything they are the ones that should be sued.
-
How about the NAACP condeming her all while they had the damn tape?
-
yeah, even if she was talking about 'how she learned a lesson'... she abused her govt position because she didn't like somebody's skin color, correct?
Maybe it was 20 years ago, maybe it was 20 minutes ago. IF it was at this job (and I dunno, I sure as hell didn't follow this lame distraction story)... and she abused her govt job, then she does deserve to get fired.
There's the problem, 240. She helped the person. Regardless of whatever racial feelings she had going on the people were helped so the real story will never reach the same number of people the hack job did.
NAACP was too worried people might realize blacks can be racist too for using common sense. Providing they have any common sense.
-
Silly. She's a political appointee. She's been offered another job. If anything, she should be going after the people who fired her.
But what she really needs to do is shut up and get on with her life.
-
Wow. I blew my top off. SUe him for what? I have heard the full tape actually makes her look WORSE. Not better. She and the rest of her family are race baters.
-
I have heard the full tape actually makes her look WORSE
I agree.
-
The issue is that in the video excerpt that Breibart published she makes a racist comment to cheers from the black audience. Even if it is only an excerpt the major concern is that the audience is cheering this racist behavior of Sherrod against whites and the white house is not condemning it.
I don't see how she comes off smelling like roses. Please post an excerpt where she redeems herself in that speech. I would rather not watch the full 45 minutes.
Thanks.
are you freaking serious? You said the "major concern" is how the audience reacted? Really? You're going to fault her for audience reaction when the moral of the story in the end was against racism even from blacks? The whole issue is that a portion of the story was used to make her look like the bad guy when in the end we can all see now that wasn't the case. She did a good thing, an honest thing and it was turned into something it was not. And you're going sit here and say the major thing was how the audience reacted?. Yea you can make a point of that but it's a different point entirely. Get your shit together buddy.
And I have to LOL at some of you saying you listened to the full 43 minutes... yea right, it's a freaking miracle when some of you make it 5 minutes into a video.
"Well working with him made me see it's really about those who have vs. those who have not; they could be black they could be white, they could be hispanic. And it made me realise then that I needed to work to help poor people, those who don't have access the way others have"
She's giving us an valuable look into how she sees and deals with things today and why. She's being honest about the events that set this thinking into motion for her. Good god, honesty, I find it fucking refreshing. How many here have talked about racism and the natural tendencies for it and now we're going to dog this woman for her honesty? and after it has a positive outcome? Are you fucking kidding me?
-
I watched the entire video.
She called everyone against health care racists. ::) ::)
Her husband is a race baiter as well.
-
What did Breitbart accuse her of?
Absolutely nothing.
I think that his motive behind posting that particular snippet is obvious, but let’s be honest - assumptive deductions did the rest.
Although, what is it they say about the guilty?
Something about how they yell the loudest and are the most defensive?
There is a limit to free speech. Every time someone acts like an ass or modifies another's words to alter the context "Free speech" isn't an unassailable defense.
Nothing was modified, Doc; they're her own words.
Nor was the context altered. It was omitted all together!
It was the responsibility of the Dept of Agriculture (or whoever gave the termination orders) to confirm the facts.
Shame on them for firing someone over a 9-second sound bite.
Even if she's guilty of the accusations, that clip doesn't prove it.
-
How about the NAACP coming out against her while they had the damn tape!
-
I watched the entire video.
She called everyone against health care racists. ::) ::)
Her husband is a race baiter as well.
see, so I gather that's the only thing worth mentioning out of the 43 minutes? I mean that's the message you just sent. QUOTE, I watched the whole vid and she called everyone against healthcare racist.... I mean on topic, the point of the whole controversy, you don't have anything to add after listening to it other than that?
-
Shirley Sherrod's $13mil win in lawsuit against USDA
Posted 07/21/10 Read all 16 comments +9
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/shirley-sherrods-13mil-win-in-lawsuit-against-usda/blog-382245/
________________________ ________________________ ___
It seems Shirley Sherrod was a co-founder of a minority group that filed a $1 BILLION law suit against the USDA. The largest lawsuit ever filed against the US government by a minority group. Her group settled for $13mil plus $300K for Mrs. Sherrod personally to be split with her husband. Tom Vilsak was Governor of IA at the time as well as the loser in the suit. Did he have a hidden agenda for firing Sherrod yesterday?
(YBH) – Shirley Sherrod, the now former Georgia Director of Rural Development for the Obama administration, was part of an historic settlement with the U.S. Government recently. Ms. Sherrod is co-founder of a group, New Communities, that took part in a lawsuit that successfully sued the government over the rights of minority farmers. An article at the website www.ruraldevelopment.org discussed the case and the $13 million dollar settlement and Ms. Sherrod’s own $150,000 settlement from Uncle Sam.
From the article:
In 1969, New Communities received a planning grant from OEO and was encouraged to expect substantial funding for implementation, but Governor Maddox would not permit further funds for the group to come into the state.
Nevertheless, New Communities built up farming operations to help retain the land. They had highway frontage where they had a farmer’s market to sell their crops. They raised hogs and sold the processed meat in a smokehouse they built on the highway. Their sugar cane mill on the highway also attracted customers. New Communities was ahead of the times in raising eight acres of Muscatine grapes, which are now widely grown in the area. They also farmed 1,500 acres of row crops, including corn, peanuts and soybeans.
Over the years, USDA refused to provide loans for farming or irrigation and would not allow New Communities to restructure its loans. Gradually, the group had to fight just to hold on to the land and finally had to wind down operations.
The cash award acknowledges racial discrimination on the part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the years 1981-85. (President Reagan abolished the USDA Office of Civil Rights when he became President in 1981.) New Communities is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and Charles for pain and suffering). There may also be an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This is the largest award so far in the minority farmers’ law suit (Pigford vs Vilsack).
Ms. Sherrod came under fire yesterday when it was revealed that she made remarks to the NAACP where she talked about withholding help from “white” farmers who she thought acted “superior” to her. Ms. Sherrod sent the farmer to “one of his own,” as she put it. The remarks were caught on videotape and discovered by Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website.
Ms. Sherrod told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that in the end she wound up working for the “white” farmers for two years. She states that she learned that race is less important than wealth from the episode which occurred over 23 years ago. Full video of Ms. Sherrod’s remarks at the NAACP dinner are unavailable at this time.
EDITED: To correct Vilsak's governship to IA where Sherrod's lawsuit was filed, not GA.
Related Topics: obama, naacp, constitution, debt
-
Absolutely nothing.
I think that his motive behind posting that particular snippet is obvious, but let’s be honest - assumptive deductions did the rest.
Although, what is it they say about the guilty?
Something about how they yell the loudest and are the most defensive?
Nothing was modified, Doc; they're her own words.
Nor was the context altered. It was omitted all together!
It was the responsibility of the Dept of Agriculture (or whoever gave the termination orders) to confirm the facts.
Shame on them for firing someone over a 9-second sound bite.
Even if she's guilty of the accusations, that clip doesn't prove it.
A judge still needs to rule. I'm not the least bit interested in the politics of crap like this. We're basically talking about the boundaries and if the definition of free speech has been changed. It's patently obvious most feel personal responsibility for any blogger is out of the question, LOL! We should at least know to what extent using the words of someone else can be claimed as protected speech.
Hall didn't write"I disapprove of what you repeat, but I will defend to the death your right to repeat it,", FFS!
-
free speech = one thing, defamation=totally different. Especially when it's done in the media and TV and it is clearly evidenced with video clips meant to deceive as oppose to something volatile and hard to prove like "he said, she said". She might have a case.
-
free speech = one thing, defamation=totally different. Especially when it's done in the media and TV and it is clearly evidenced with video clips meant to deceive as oppose to something volatile and hard to prove like "he said, she said". She might have a case.
What did he accuse her of?
-
What did he accuse her of?
he doesn't have to "accuse" her of anything.
-
Do any of you guys even know what needs to be proven in order to make a defamation case on its face?
I'm telling you, this case is a loser any way you slice it.
Michael Moore has played selective soundbites and video clips of politicians (among other people) completely out of context in order to portray them in a negative manner. You can go on youtube and dig up 6000000000000 videos where others have done the exact same thing Brietbart did. There is no defamation case here. Whether or not you think he was wrong is one thing. From a legal standpoint though, I think the prospects of this woman succeeding in a lawsuit are very weak.
-
New emails show White House role in Sherrod ouster
By MARY CLARE JALONICK
Associated Press
AP Photo
AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
Politics Video
Buy AP Photo Reprints
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A 2010 email from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says his department was "waiting for the go-ahead" from the White House before accepting the resignation of employee Shirley Sherrod, according to newly released documents, despite Obama administration assertions that her ouster was Vilsack's decision alone.
The email, which was made public Friday in an ongoing federal court case over the matter, shed more light on the evening of July 19, 2010, when the USDA hastily asked Sherrod to resign after a video showing her making supposed racist remarks surfaced on a conservative website. Her dismissal turned into a racial firestorm after it became clear that the video had been edited and her remarks were meant to tell a story of reconciliation.
Both the White House and Vilsack have repeatedly said the agriculture secretary made the decision to ask for Sherrod's resignation without White House input. The emails, along with earlier emails obtained by The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act in 2010 and 2012, make it apparent that Vilsack wanted Sherrod to leave the department and ordered her resignation. But a newly-released email sent by Vilsack himself suggests he was awaiting a decision from White House officials on how to proceed.
"She has offered her resignation which is appropriate," reads an email from the initials "TJV" to Dallas Tonsager, then the USDA undersecretary of rural development and Sherrod's boss. "The WH is involved and we are waiting for the go-ahead to accept her resignation. I suspect some direction from WH soon."
The USDA would not comment on the email and a spokesman, when asked, did not dispute that Vilsack wrote it. The email, sent at 5:37 p.m. on July 19, is in reply to an earlier email from Tonsager addressed to "Mr. Secretary." Vilsack's middle name is James.
The correspondence is evidence in a federal defamation case that Sherrod filed in 2011 against the late blogger Andrew Breitbart, who posted the video, and his colleague Larry O'Connor. The Justice Department has been pushing to keep the emails sealed, but lost Friday afternoon when U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ruled they did not have to be kept private.
Vilsack's email was brought up at a court status hearing earlier last week. According to a transcript, a lawyer for Breitbart's wife, who was substituted as defendant after the blogger died unexpectedly in 2012, said the email was "extremely telling" and "contains a statement that is arguably inconsistent with the public statements."
Justice Department lawyer David Glass replied to the judge that "when there is a reference to the White House was involved, what it means is the White House liaison was involved."
USDA's White House liaison, Kevin Washo, was in touch with the White House through the night, according to the documents. In another newly released email, a White House aide writes to Valerie Green of the White House presidential personnel office, saying "USDA is looking for direction - can someone contact Washo?" Green replies that she is "reaching out now."
Green writes Washo asking him to loop her in, "Please. Please. Please."
The department that night accepted Sherrod's resignation as a USDA rural development official in Georgia. When her full speech came to light the next day, it became clear that Sherrod, who is black, was speaking about overcoming her initial reluctance to help a white farmer decades ago.
As the administration came under fire, Vilsack reversed course, apologizing and asking her to return to the department - an offer she declined. President Barack Obama also offered Sherrod an apology.
White House officials acknowledged weeks later they had been more involved than they initially let on and had stayed in close touch with USDA that night. They still maintained, however, that the decision to seek Sherrod's resignation was Vilsack's alone.
The newly released emails also reveal for the first time missives between White House officials that night. By law, members of the public and the press cannot request internal White House documents directly from the White House.
In one email, then-White House Director of Presidential Personnel Nancy Hogan writes to other White House officials that Sherrod has offered to resign and says they will "need to determine what we say about resignation."
After the full video came out the next day, frustrated White House officials vented to one another through emails. Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett wrote then-White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs that "I would not have fired her for it. We just don't need any of it."
"Agreed," Gibbs replied.
In another e-mail to Gibbs that next day, Jarrett notes that then NAACP President Ben Jealous had apologized for condemning Sherrod before knowing the whole story. "We need to do the same and this will do (sic) away. Even Fox said we railroaded Shirley." In another copy of the same email released by the court, Jarrett's same words are redacted, citing a FOIA exemption for "deliberative process."
Lawyers for Breitbart colleague O'Connor filed the emails in court to bolster their argument that government decisions were the reason for Sherrod's dismissal, not the blog post. The emails show that the officials were made aware there might be a longer video, and that they were concerned about political fallout from her comments. O'Connor's lawyers argue that the "deliberative process" exemptions prove their point.
"The government cannot assert a privilege to shield the production of decision-making communications, while simultaneously claiming to have had no role in a decision," the lawyers wrote in their filing.
---
Follow Mary Clare Jalonick on Twitter: http://twitter.com/mcjalonick
© 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.