Perhaps Fox should file a libel suit against Mrs. Sherrod — seems easy enough to product the video of the full day's worth of programming as evidence, no?

Well deserved. Next: ACORN. Breitbart is slimy and needs to be held accountable.

Sue! This is what the Sherrods do to earn their money!

I agree. Breitbart will win and that racist Sherrod will be exposed as the racist she really is.

No wonder Asshatma likes her, racists naturally like each other.

Except that Fox executive Michael Clement has said that Fox made mistakes, and Fox ran the sotry at 5:58pm, before Ms Sherrod was fired.

Just like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangle et al, right?

Payback will be a bitch to Sherrod won't it, Asshatma?

Sorry but you're confusing Fox with CNN.

.. and the Obama administration takes their marching orders from FoxNews, right?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/07/dea…

Your turn .. please post the transcript / statement to which you refer

ACORN was caught offering advice on how to commit crimes. They deserved what they got. And so does Sherrod.

Shouldn't she be suing Obama?

Also, if false allegations of racism warrant a lawsuit then does that mean ~99% of the media should be tried for their lies against the teaparty, conservative pundits, and republicans in general?

This wouldn't be a *gasp!* double standard now would it?

If you get this worked up by an edited video that harmed a lowly USDA employee then I can only imagine how enraged you must have been by the fabricated documents Dan Rather and the rest of the leftwing media ran with to discredit the president right before an election.

No doubt so furious you were unable to say or write anything on the subject at all.

The Fox *web site* played a large part in stirring up the undeserved animosity.

Why do you continue to deny this fact?

FoxNews REPORTED on this story AFTER it happened, Petey. Just like the other news organizations did.

Why do YOU continue to deny THIS fact?

A member of the government suing a journalist for publishing unaltered video of her own speech.

Goes right along with the President for suing a US State for enforcing the law.

Because he's a moonbat.

Because it's not relevant every major news outlet did this AFTER the video was released.

The facts, as always, as more liberal than you would like:

From Media Matters last week:

As our timeline of the Sherrod smear shows, on Monday afternoon, prior to her resignation, FoxNews.com reported on the story without the comment from Sherrod that Clemente indicated was crucial. In fact, while the story indicates that “FoxNews.com is seeking a response from both the NAACP and the USDA,” it gives no indication that they tried to contact Sherrod herself. In a follow-up report published some time before 5 p.m., FoxNews.com reported that USDA had announced Sherrod's resignation” shortly after FoxNews.com published its initial report on the video.”

…after her firing. Obviously, facts are a foreign concept to you.

Interesting how you intentionally ignoring this part. Obviously, you're a racist.

I'd like to see some knowledgeable, intelligent commentary on this point: Assuming Brietbart uploaded what he had, nothing but what he had, and all of what he had — which seems to be the case here — can she make it to the finish line with this?

Because that would mean Breitbart is among the “snookered.” Certainly not a noble position to take by any means, but as a legal defense it ought to be bulletproof.

Brietbart is hardly a journalist. He's a rabble-rouser, like Glenn Beck.

rab·ble–rous·er
Pronunciation: ?ra-b?l-?rau?-z?r
Function: noun
Date: 1843
one that stirs up (as to hatred or violence) the masses of the people : demagogue

Heaven forbid she should take action against, say, the government that “wrongfully” terminated her?

Besides, since she is a public figure (working for the government and all) and speaking in a public forum, the burden for her to prove this case will be way too much. Especially since she is on record defaming Breitbart himself (“he is pro-slavery” or some other BS like that). Heck, maybe he will countersue and take some of the previous lawsuit winnings she got from suing the USDA right before she got her job.

Things like this are why we need a “loser pays” system in torts. Think this would happen if Ms. Sherrod would have to pay for Mr. Breitbart's lawyer fees when she loses?

Spin spin spin spin spin…dizzy yet?

What about the NAACP, who had the ENTIRE video the whole time and still blasted her remarks IN THE AFTERNOON.

Or Tom Vilsack, who also blasted her WITHOUT even talking to her?

Remember, “You are going to be on Beck tonight”? Oh, that's right. She wasn't.

First it was Fox News, then when it was proven they did not air anything until after she was fired, it was the Fox “web site.” They posted a story that was not even commented on until much later.

“ACORN was caught offering advice on how to commit crimes. They deserved what they got. And so does Sherrod. “

When wass Sherrod caught offering advice on how to commit crimes, idiota?

That was FoxNews.COM, Petey, the website. That is a bit different than Fox News airing the video, as claimed. Nice try at distraction there.

Why no link to the actual video, hmm?

Oh yeah, because you're relying on a lying organization.

'Nuff said.

A libel suit generally requires that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.

In Sherrod's case, her own words were used, and the published information is true. She's trying to sue somebody for playing a genuine video of her own words. It's asinine.

What does Sherrod deserve? Lovely lady working through race issues. Her father being beaten to death by Caucasians may have made it hard for her. She is an inspiration. Perhaps you should listen to the whole tape and learn from her. Breitbart's edited version was slimy and he should be punished.

Kinda funny coming from a guy named Kingfish(er).
Sincerely,
Amos Jones
Andy Brown

Guess we'll have to wait and see. I suspect Mr. BBart will be presenting her with a large sum of dineros.

Asshatma

I never heard the Bush administration deny veracity of the allegations, just the authenticity of the documents Dan Rather was using in his story. Where was the defamation suit against the witnesses Rather interviewed? Where are the documents that contradict the story?

“Her father being beaten to death by Caucasians may have made it hard for her.”

If a white politician were to ever reference a crime committed against him by blacks as a reason for his racism you would show the same compassion and understanding right?

“Course I hate them, black folks murdered my cousin!”.

Yeah, thought not.

I wonder if he is ordered to pay her, how long he can defer payment?

Another year of this an a million bucks will be chump change.

So you went back and edited your post so it sounds like you were talking about the web-site all along, when that was not the case.

This is exactly what I warned would happen witd Disqus. Some go back and correct spelling and grammer errors. Liberal Trolls liek Petey go back and edit the context of their remarks when they are caught in a lie.

Real mature, Petey!

Actually, Bush repeatedly claimed the document and the accusations were all lies. Even after he produced his service record and pay stubs, the Left kept on.

Teh fact that YOU never heard it is your own issue.

Her father was shot and killed, not beaten to death, Martha. It was a huge miscarriage of justice that the murderer never faced justice. But that does not absolve Sherrod of her racism. That is, unless you want to make the case that the murder of her father justifies hating ALL white people.

Isn't this the actual quote?
“While appearing on Anderson Cooper’s 360, Sherrod stated that Breitbart would 'like to get us stuck back in the time of slavery.'”

“Breitbart wants slavery back” The best I can tell, this is the title of an online article. Do you have, or can I find this quote from Sherrod?

As far as “the burden for her to prove this case,” if I was an attorney, this appears to be a slam dunk. Slam dunk being: defamation intentionally manipulated audio and video to publicly mislead. Fox may not have created the story, but they were the conveyor. Being in possession of stolen property is still illegal, even if you didn't steal it.

The timeline argument may work for when the programming aired but not for the advertising and promotion of the upcoming programs. Every commercial break, it was stated(paraphrasing) that Hannity will address the racism of a Federal employee at an NAACP speech. This began well in advance of his program. I would like to see that timeline. He showed the manipulated video 4 times during his program alone.

Also, I think she had to resign from her position, or should have had to resign from her position. I don't agree with the administration's actions after the forced resignation.

Breitbart let it slip that he was aware that this was a portion of the video prior to his releasing the edited tape. He let it slip on national TV. He undermined his own deniability.

You are right and I apologize for not getting the quote exactly right. However, it means essentially the same thing unless you think SHerrod was thinking that Breitbart really liked the time when there were no computers and transportaiton was by horse (if you were lucky).

As for her proof, I would not agree that it is a slam dunk. I would refer you to John's post above (made after this one) and his quote from an attorney about this situation. Ms. Sherrod is a public figure as she works for the government in a non-clandestine effort. If you do not believe me, then simply look her up at http://php.app.com/fed_employees10/search.php , you can get her salary and government rank. As a public figure, the bar is extremely high for defamation.

Sorry, missed you later comments. I did not see the promos, but from your description, the promos did not give her name. As for Hannity showing the video in his show, she was already forced to resign and had resigned BEFORE his show aired, so that is a moot point.

The promos showed clips of her speech. As for the promos identifying her by name, I do not recall, but Breitbart was referenced. Not a difficult find once you are confronted with the headline, and told the video is online.

It's a fascinating precedent.

If I have a political opinion you find to be utterly detestable, and I make a speech in public and you post excerpts from it to show what's detestable about my beliefs, I get to declare after the fact that you should have shown the ENTIRE speech. And I get to define what “entire” means…again, after the fact. If things have been happening to me that I don't like — or if good things have been happening to me, but I don't think they're quite good enough — I can blame it on you whittling down my speech before posting nuggets from it. I can sue you for not posting the entire thing. And, again, I get to define what “entire” means.

What's really interesting here, to me, is that even if you think we have iron-clad evidence that Shirley Sherrod is NOT a racist…before anybody starts litigating against anyone, this entire episodes shows exactly how well freedom of speech works. Breitbart posts something, Sherrod posts something. She ends up exonerated, at least in the mind of anybody she cares about. And she'll end up even wealthier because of this.

As opposed to the “make everybody terrified of lawyers” alternative. Our new precedent of “don't post it unless it's complete and I get to define what 'complete' means.” There is no enlightenment there. And worse yet, we've already tried doing things that way, many times. It hasn't made us more civilized in the past and it won't do that now.

That's my summation if you believe everything Shirley Sherrod says. A more reasonable one would be even less sympathetic to her.

I agree with you that she is a federal employee and a public figure, and she should have been forced to resign. I don't agree that this is difficult to prove defamation, I don't see how her posistion would change the liability for Breitbart. As for the forced resignation; it wouldn't be due to e actions she took before becoming a federal employee, it would be due to the public villification that would inhibit her from continuing to do her job effectively.

If Mr. Bush, or any conservative for that matter, filed a defamation suit every time they were slandered they'd have time for nothing else.

In what way was the video and audio manipulated by Breitbart?

Who said Sherrod offered advice on how to commit crimes?
Reading comprehension; it be a good thing eh.

Sherrod is such a saintly victim, is that it? Funny how she's eager to get on the public airwaves and the leftie media was slobbering to get her. Then she did what, two appearances? And everyone backed off, not wishing to give her a platform after all.
I wonder why the change of heart?

Morgan, what is going to be even more fascinating will be the next time a Conservsative gets smeared as a racist. How will the Liberals react?

Will they…
…be calm and deliberative in their reaction?
…demand immediate resignation BEFORE the facts come out?
…claim that it is payback for Sherrod?

I think the Liberals are digging themselves into a hole here. And it is going to be hilarious to watch this play out in the Obama Administration.

Well, I guess we will just have to disagree on that. I am no lawyer, but from reading other blogs' analysis, the fact that she is a public official makes it very difficult, regardless of when she did this. Something like this is probably put into effect to help ensure free speech. Otherwise what would stop any public official from suing anyone who made even a slightly disparaging remark about them? Couldn't President Obama claim that people calling him a socialist is defamation and sue to shut them up?

One more time, though….I am no lawyer.

We also might have to disagree about somehting else, and that is the forced resignation. Personally, I disagree with it, notwithstanding my personal views of Sherrod. If the NAACP would have waited (I personally think they were instrumental in forcing the USDA's hand though I obviously have no proof of that) and looked at their own video, this would have been avoided. As for the public villification, when did that ever stop some of our elected officials from ever functioning. Or some of the appointed ones for that matter.

Individually there would be difficulty achieving a burden of proof but collectively.
“In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient and in another clip from the same event a perfect rationalization for why the Tea Party needs to exist.” This in combination with a headline “video proof: The NAACP awards Racism-2010″ and an edited video put together and published on the web, seems like a slam dunk for defamation.

You mean like when President Obama (before his election) told people to “get in their faces”. Like that?

Just because not suit was filed doesn't mean the allegations were true. I mean lawsuits don't just happen, someone has to decide to sue.

Desperate to protect their “real” base—the wealthy elite, GOP leaders have resurrected the “southern strategy” George Wallace and Ronald Reagan used to win votes by encouraging and exploiting racial fear among disaffected, undereducated blue-collar Whites too simple-minded to grasp the complexity of the scheme. Wallace linked states’ rights to segregation, Reagan linked entitlement programs to fictitious Black “welfare queens” and Bush 41 linked Willie Horton to Black vengeance. By polarizing America, the appeal of the anti-Obama campaign has been partially successful, especially with low income Whites. If there is any doubt that Republicans are fomenting racial hatred, just watch Fox News—the official republican propaganda machine. According to O’Reilly and Beck—usually explained in shrouded lingo and hyperbole imbued with Jim Crow Era code words, the path to republican midterm victory is tied to instilling fear in Whites that under Obama, it’s payback time; Black people are coming for you, to take what's yours, whether it’s ACORN, Van Jones or Shirley Sherrod. Fox News is obsessed with frightening White people, about making Whites feel afraid of Blacks as if they are not fellow Americans but rather a threat to the existence of Whites. Republicans have incited fear by portraying Obama as a reverse racist eager to exact revenge for misdeeds visited upon Blacks by Whites. This time around, Blacks and Mexicans are the bogeymen. Next time, will it be you?”

“Desperate to protect their “real” base—the wealthy elite, GOP leaders have resurrected the “southern strategy” George Wallace and Ronald Reagan used to win votes by encouraging and exploiting racial fear among disaffected, undereducated blue-collar Whites too simple-minded to grasp the complexity of the scheme. Wallace linked states’ rights to segregation, Reagan linked entitlement programs to fictitious Black “welfare queens” and Bush 41 linked Willie Horton to Black vengeance. By polarizing America, the appeal of the anti-Obama campaign has been partially successful, especially with low income Whites. If there is any doubt that Republicans are fomenting racial hatred, just watch Fox News—the official republican propaganda machine. According to O’Reilly and Beck—usually explained in shrouded lingo and hyperbole imbued with Jim Crow Era code words, the path to republican midterm victory is tied to instilling fear in Whites that under Obama, it’s payback time; Black people are coming for you, to take what's yours, whether it’s ACORN, Van Jones or Shirley Sherrod. Fox News is obsessed with frightening White people, about making Whites feel afraid of Blacks as if they are not fellow Americans but rather a threat to the existence of Whites. Republicans have incited fear by portraying Obama as a reverse racist eager to exact revenge for misdeeds visited upon Blacks by Whites. This time around, Blacks and Mexicans are the bogeymen. Next time, will it be you?”

Except for the whole part about them really awarding racism.
“While he was talking, I was deciding how much help I was going to give this white person” (audience interrupts with laughter and applause, aarding her racism with approval)

I miss the part where it is undeserved, Passion Flower.
What is it you think a racist commie would not get disapproval from the right leaning people of America?

Unlike obamao.
When doubt was cast in his direction by yellow hack journilists.
He put the papers down and let people see them for theirselves.
This is how we know Bush was an ACE pilot in the National Guard, we know where he was born, we know what grades he made while attending Yale, we know he graduated and has a degree.
Obamao on the other hand, spends millions of tax money trying to hide his papers.

Yeah, I'm not impressed with the role models you take inspiration from.

Your entire post is a complete lie, my gay friend.

BTW, you didn't cite the source of your cut and paste hatchet job. Flagged for theft.

Still waiting on those tax returns petey.

flagged for lying.

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!! You, sir, are the dumbest f*ckstick to ever post anything anywhere.

What an excellent time to engage in a little gay bashing.

Get help.

You're sick, Dick.

A pathological republitard.

Yes, I'm a troll.

fukk you

I'm certain Mrs. Sherrod is trying to claw herself up there with Rev(?)'s Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton!!

You left out rev jerimiah write.

Flagged for posting a large brick of shit

Ahhh, excuse me Jimbo, but you do know that George Wallace was a DEMOCRAT… right?
And as far as the Willie Horton ads, well you may want to do a little research there as well.

I'm just saying!

Valid point from a commie drooltard… not.

You accused Nixon of gay bashing, when he used no slurs other than “gay” which you also used.

fukk you too (with all due respect, not not)

Could you be ANY classier, LT?

Please check back in with us when your medication kicks in.

Acorn staffers reported the proposed crimes to police. Did you miss that part?

It doesn't justify the hate, but it does explain it.

Besides, I don't sense any hatred of white people from Sherrod. Do you?

Yeah, bthewolf often takes the cake here.

Yes, I do, Petey. Her words since her firing by Obama prove that she is every bit the racist she appeared to be. So sorry that your saints so often turn out to be sinners.

Fox is Fox, fool, no matter if it's on the web or on your boob tube, you boob.

You said Fox News aired the video. When that lie was exposed, you went back and edited your post to say “web site” in a foolish and desparate attempt to make yourself look credible.

Sorry, Pete, but you fail… AGAIN!

Gee, im all heart broken a nutless windbag commie doesnt think highly of me.
I must be living right.

That's a tough question because so many conservatives are racist. It's mandatory to belong to the party, damn near.

You may want to review the history (current and past) of your party before you start throwing around the word RACIST.

When the dick gets stepped on, he always goes on the attack. Perhaps Jimboref wrote that off the top of his head, whereas you would never be able to do such a thing so your knee jerks and you think it's a copy and paste.

Jimboref nails it, completely, totally, succinctly, and finally. His post should simply be copied to any further discussions that claim Fox has any validity.

Jimbo is a simpering idiot. Most people noted that in his post slamming the Right as racist, he compared us to A DEMOCRAT!

I wish stupidity was painful, Pete, as I would love to see your head explode from it!

I'm all better now, thanks. BTW: fukk you too. You guys have to be kidding, right? You do know the guy at ACORN called the cops on the 'pimp' (why did I use quotes? – he is kind of a pimp). And the cheers that erupted when Sherrod talked about not helping the white guy… right…… I did hear cheers when she announced she was suing Britebart. WHOOO HOOO!!!!

The medicine you are taking is obviously not helping. Use your ObamaCare and check into electric shock therapy.

And that was Breibart cheering when the lawsuit was announced.

Quite the feat – out-doing these clowns.

Get a room!

“His post should simply be copied to any further discussions that claim Fox has any validity.”

Sure, why not? It's not like leftists are capable of indepedent thought anyway. Might as well go the whole nine yards and C&P someone else's bleatings directly instead of just regurgitating them. Good “thinking” there, Off!

Of course Jack Off liked this drivel. All leftists share the same brain so what's not to like?

You just don't notice it because all leftists have it. It's like cigarette smokers don't notice that they stink.

Of course the word racist has been so bastardized by decades of misuse by the likes of Jack Off that it's meaningless now, so whatever.

Media Matters. *snickers* You'd really be much better off doing your own thinking, Off. Then again, in your case, probably not.

I was fortunate enough to watch what was claimed as an unedited version of the tape and I didn't hear “(audience interrupts with laughter and applause, aarding her racism with approval)” You may want to watch the video from a source other than Fox News and then decide at what point and context you hear the audience.

I think Stan W has a point. Maybe you should take a break. All your posts are just insults. You don't make any real points. You just seem to want to make people mad.

I used to give people the finger when they cut me off or generally made me mad in traffic, and then I had someone do it to me and I realized how incredibly stupid they looked. That is kind of like what you are doing with the way you post. No one really cares what you post, because you make no point.

Yes I saw that. There is much more to the story than we know and I hope the full story comes out.

I did not use fox news for source.
You are utterly retarded for trying to accuse anyone of editing the crowd reaction to Shirly's “pivotal moment” when no one on any news outlet has dared to stick their neck out that far.