AP - Ousted USDA employee Sherrod plans to sue blogger

[Burgold]

Journalism & news reporting has been rife with this mindset & MO for decades. It's nothing "new."

I can only best speak from my experiences. What was done here is the worst end of what can happen in journalism and it is pretty unusual. The worst is producing outright fiction and passing it off as truth. He didn't go that far, but he got pretty close.

Now, it's not all that unusual for someone to attend a press conference and pick for a sound bite the sexiest or most controversial statement. It's not very common for people to create a story that actually represents the opposite of what happened. Most reporters (that I know anyway) care about their jobs too much and would and should get fired for that type of distortion.

If the subject says something stupid by all means should it be used, but you can't or shouldn't manipulate the tape to make it appear that they said something stupid.

What this guy did is less common than you think. Not that it doesn't happen. It sadly does, but it's not standard operating procedure.

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

I hope Briebart goes down in flames, but the employer is absolutely at fault too. It should be interesting to see how this all plays out.

[Henry]

For those who are interested, here is Breitbarts original post:

http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/

In this rather lengthy post, the only descriptive of Sherrod in the entire thing is:

"...this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

This could be fun:silly:

Well then that is an outright blatant lie and libelous. I think she has a case.

[MEANDWARF]

I don't think she have a case. She should file suit against the USDA, but the fact that she was offered another position, that case may not sly either.

What's best for her and the administration is to let it go and the story will eventually die.

[Henry]

It will be thrown out of court - as it should be. Breitbart was simply showing that the responses in the video were racist. He proved a point.

Of course, Breitbart could play the video of her husband at another meeting.

QrcJ3cBDS7Y

Ah. So the response to being caught unjustly and incorrectly attacking this woman's character is to attack her husband's character? That's just great.

Brietbart's intentions are irrelevant. Someone who holds up a bank to pay for his mortgage is still guilty of robbing the bank. Someone who publishes lies about another person to make a point is still guilty of libel. Read twa's post about what he said on his own website. He was using the video to prove a federal appointee was managing her federal duties "through the prism of race and class distinctions." He said she was abusing her federal powers in a racist manner. This is a lie. Not a bending of the truth or the absence of context or other relevant facts. A flat-out, bald-faced lie. She was not talking about her thoughts and/or actions as a federal appointee. All of this happened before she worked for the federal government. Further, she was specifically explaining why she did NOT manage her duties through the prism of race.

Two lies and a selectively chopped up video to 'prove' them. If that's not libel I don't know what is.

[aREDSKIN]

Well then that is an outright blatant lie and slander. I think she has a case.

Professionals have a different take than you.

Although it would make for an interesting showdown, media lawyers contacted by the Examiner said that that Sherrod’s case stands little chance of succeeding or even making it to trial.

According to Ron Coleman, intellectual property attorney and blogger and general counsel for Media Bloggers Association, “[sherrod] is a public figure, and she would certainly have to prove actual malice to prevail,” something that would be much more difficult than proving negligence on the part of Breitbart.

Andrew Mirsky, an intellectual property attorney based in the District, asserts that Sherrod would have two tasks in such a suit: The first? To prove “That she was actually defamed, and I do think she has a plausible argument on that,” and depending on her status as a public figure she would have to prove either negligence or malice.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Shirley-Sherrod-unlikely-to-succeed-in-court-against-Andrew-Breitbart-99588399.html#ixzz0vAkWSdfG

[twa]

Well then that is an outright blatant lie and libelous. I think she has a case.

On the contrary I think that is a accurate statement,though the edited clip clearly WAS a unfair portrait of her,it falls short of being legally actionable.

Did you happen to watch the whole video of that speech?

She clearly operates thru a prism of race and class distinctions....as do far too many of us.

Hopefully the younguns will do better.

[DRSmith]

I thiunk she should sue as should some Acorn people. This guy has admitted his only goal is to take aim and bring down anything he views as leftist. With real journalist who do this they lose thier jobs and reputation ala Dan Rather.

As for the extremist they will worship these sorts of things and people but you average person is usually disgusted by it.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

That's stupid. Any semi-intelligent person wouldn't have fired her so quickly after seeing this video. Sue that dum dum.

Potential as well, depends on a lot of factors when going after the government though.

Just because the state government was stupid though, and potentially legally liable, doesn't absolve breitbart. :2cents:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

On the contrary I think that is a accurate statement,though the edited clip clearly WAS a unfair portrait of her,it falls short of being legally actionable.

Did you happen to watch the whole video of that speech?

She clearly operates thru a prism of race and class distinctions....as do far too many of us.

Hopefully the younguns will do better.

How do you say it falls short of being legally actionable? Seriously? Are you well versed in defamation law in the State of Georgia?

I've handled some defamation cases in DC and Maryland, but I wouldn't have the balls to say that I know the defamation law in Georgia.

[twa]

How do you say it falls short of being legally actionable? Seriously? Are you well versed in defamation law in the State of Georgia?

I've handled some defamation cases in DC and Maryland, but I wouldn't have the balls to say that I know the defamation law in Georgia.

Well I'm certainly not short of balls....and I watched several Perry Mason episodes in my youth.

Are you saying what he wrote or the clip rises to the legal standard for defamation?....I think he would enjoy the discovery portion of a suit.

[zoony]

Already been mentioned, but imo she has a much better case against her employer.

I cannot imagine letting an employee go without actually interviewing him/her and hearing the other side of the story. This is mickey mouse type stuff.

Honestly, they really need to be sued. And it needs to be painful. I hate that money is the only thing that can force change, but it needs to happen. The actions of her employer were absolutely inexcusable. This is rookie stuff.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Already been mentioned, but imo she has a much better case against her employer.

I cannot imagine letting an employee go without actually interviewing him/her and hearing the other side of the story. This is mickey mouse type stuff.

Honestly, they really need to be sued. And it needs to be painful. I hate that money is the only thing that can force change, but it needs to happen. The actions of her employer were absolutely inexcusable. This is rookie stuff.

No kidding Zoony. She could seriously take the USDA and this Administration to the Wood Shed if she wanted to. However, I do agree that the Blogger was out of bounds in his edited version of what was released. I think that there are still issues there but by no means do I believe he was correct in his actions. Can she win? Probably not but it would be nice if somebody could win a serious case on something like this. This kind of thing has been going on for too long and it does need to be stopped IMO. In the Previous Administration, I did not like a great deal of what bloggers or the media did to GWB, people close to him or what have you. I don't think this is any better and it should be stopped. Unfortunately, it won't be and that's a real shame.

[@DCGoldPants]

I think she should be going after both her former employer AND the blogger.

Both wronged her.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think she should be going after both her former employer AND the blogger.

Both wronged her.

Hey Buford,

How have you been?

[@DCGoldPants]

Must have slept funny. Got a knot in my neck

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well I'm certainly not short of balls....and I watched several Perry Mason episodes in my youth.

Are you saying what he wrote or the clip rises to the legal standard for defamation?....I think he would enjoy the discovery portion of a suit.

I don't know. But if she came into my office stating that she wanted to file a defamation case, my inclination would be "yes, she has a case." But you can't say anything without researching Georgia law. For all I know, Georgia doesn't have an action for defamation (unlikely).

[Destino]

According to Ron Coleman, intellectual property attorney and blogger and general counsel for Media Bloggers Association, “[sherrod] is a public figure, and she would certainly have to prove actual malice to prevail,” something that would be much more difficult than proving negligence on the part of Breitbart.

Andrew Mirsky, an intellectual property attorney based in the District, asserts that Sherrod would have two tasks in such a suit: The first? To prove “That she was actually defamed, and I do think she has a plausible argument on that,” and depending on her status as a public figure she would have to prove either negligence or malice.

Why do people assume proving malice intent will be all that difficult on a guy that has openly said it's his mission to damage liberals in some way? Seems like he's been pretty open about that fact. It's all good when you're being factual about it... but when you chop up footage and get someone fired you should pay the price.

[DjTj]

Already been mentioned, but imo she has a much better case against her employer.

I cannot imagine letting an employee go without actually interviewing him/her and hearing the other side of the story. This is mickey mouse type stuff.

Honestly, they really need to be sued. And it needs to be painful. I hate that money is the only thing that can force change, but it needs to happen. The actions of her employer were absolutely inexcusable. This is rookie stuff.

But what would the grounds be? There's no law against incompetence. They're already "paying" by looking like idiots in public.

Why wouldn't she sue her employer for firing her without cause?

Sherrod was not a regular employee. She was a political appointee, and as such, her employment contract doesn't provide the same protections. Remember that the Bush administration fired a bunch of U.S. Attorneys for purely political reasons, and they had no recourse.

It's fun to say, "Oh, we'll just sue and make them pay for it." But you need to have some valid legal claim. The law does not provide remedies every time someone makes a mistake.

[zoony]

But what would the grounds be? There's no law against incompetence. They're already "paying" by looking like idiots in public.

.

Wrongful termination? I'm not a lawyer but I bet there's a case to be had under either discrimination or failure to follow termination procedures.

...

[DjTj]

Wrongful termination? I'm not a lawyer but I bet there's a case to be had under either discrimination or failure to follow termination procedures.

...

I don't think there are required termination procedures for political appointees. But even if there were, she wasn't actually terminated. She resigned. That's going to be another big hole in any potential lawsuit - the fact that she wasn't actually fired.

And what would her discrimination claim be? Did they fire her because she was black? Did they fire her because she was a woman? No, they fired her because of something she said in a video on the internet. I don't think that "speakers in edited videos" is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act.

I really don't see a viable case for her against the government.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Wrongful termination? I'm not a lawyer but I bet there's a case to be had under either discrimination or failure to follow termination procedures.

...

I would bet that the White House would break there necks to oblige a settlement if Sherrod filed just to avoid the negative publicity it might bring to the Administration. I mean, regardless of what involvement the WH had in this, I doubt they would want any case being brought that might involve the WH because even if you are not involved, nothing good could come of it. It's a no win situation.

[Thiebear]

I agree with ABQCowboy: THey ae going to pay her off.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I don't think there are required termination procedures for political appointees. But even if there were, she wasn't actually terminated. She resigned. That's going to be another big hole in any potential lawsuit - the fact that she wasn't actually fired.

And what would her discrimination claim be? Did they fire her because she was black? Did they fire her because she was a woman? No, they fired her because of something she said in a video on the internet. I don't think that "speakers in edited videos" is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act.

I really don't see a viable case for her against the government.

Its actually very complicated, and it depends on the type of job she had. She may have had a due process right that was violated because the government has to abide by the Fourth Amendment (private businesses do not). But we just don't know without more information.

Lots of speculation on here, as usual. Probably true, though, that whatever lawyer she gets will have a better idea of what legal causes of action she has and which one she doesn't.

[zoony]

I don't think there are required termination procedures for political appointees. But even if there were, she wasn't actually terminated. She resigned. That's going to be another big hole in any potential lawsuit - the fact that she wasn't actually fired.

come on dJ, that kind of legal maneuvering could be done by a first year intern.

You bring up some good specific points but I think you're missing the big picture with any potential lawsuit