The controversy continues over a video of Georgia director of Rural Development Shirley Sherrod at the NAACP. Sherrod, and many supporters, have objected that the tape from the NAACP event was clearly edited to cut off her comments to mislead the viewers. Andrew Breitbart released the video but insists that he did not edit it. The question is whether Sherrod can sue over the video. Most criticism is focusing on Andrew Breitbart who released the video on his media sites. Raw Story released the full video without the editing. In response, Breitbart told Fox News “this is not about Shirley and Andrew.” He appears half right given the growing condemnations directed at him.
The video itself is certainly misleading as edited.
Sherrod immediately objected that the remarks were “misconstrued.” Nevertheless, she resigned after the video was made public and was denounced by both the NAACP and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. She claims that she was forced to resign by the White House. The White House later issued an apology to Sherrod.
UPDATE: Vilsack has apologized to Sherrod and offered her a “unique position.”
The NAACP has now retracted the original statement below.
This video shows Sherrod recounted “the first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm” and how she viewed the farmer as trying to be “superior” to her while she controlled the money for such farmers.
“He had to come to me for help. What he didn’t know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him . . . I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land — so I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough.”
She notes that, to avoid any later complaints, she said she took him to see “one of his own” — a white lawyer” “I figured that if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him.”
Media Matters has responded to the story and accused Breitbart of misleading people on the story. They note that Sherrod was telling a story she had described took place decades ago when she worked for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund. The video reportedly excluded the fact that Sherrod spoke of how she went on to work with and befriend the man. She is quoted as saying at the end of the story: “And I went on to work with many more white farmers,” she said. “The story helped me realize that race is not the issue, it’s about the people who have and the people who don’t. When I speak to groups, I try to speak about getting beyond the issue of race.”
This account is supported by the farmer’s wife who credited Sherrod with saving their land. For the video interview, click here.
There is no question that the edited material left a false impression as to the point of the speech. Before getting to the possible legal consequences of such editing, it is important to note that the added material is redeeming but still leaves some disturbing racial elements in the speech. First, the video appears to show a few members of the audience responding positively to the racially-loaded portions of the speech, though that is subject to interpretation. Moreover, these audience comments are not made by Sherrod. However, it is disturbing to hear positive reactions to that portion of the speech. One possible interpretation is that the audience understood where she was going with the speech or was simply encouraging her in a build up to the crescendo of the speech. Second, Sherrod clearly states that roughly 20-25 years ago, she was viewing individuals in strikingly racial terms. That would put this story around the late 1980s and 1990s. It is pretty shocking to hear that Sherrod was still thinking of that white should work with their “own kind” and viewed the case in largely racial terms. The ultimate result of Sherrod overcoming race is commendable, but I have to say that I do not agree that it fully answers the concerns about this story. I would be very disturbed to hear that a white politician was in 1986 uncomfortable with fully assisting black people and actively sought to have “one of their kind” help them. It may be a sign of my age, but 1986 doesn’t feel that long ago and I would have been appalled to hear such views at that time. Moreover, the racial elements of the speech seemed to in part explain the earlier view in light of how black farmers were being treated. In defense of Sherrod, it has been noted that she was working for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund, which specifically aids black farmers.
Putting aside this issue, the editing was clearly intended to make the story worse than it was. She uses the racially loaded story to explain that “That’s when it was revealed to me that it’s about poor versus those who have.” That is a very different story where she was trying to explain how she learned to overcome racial sentiments. Other leaders like the late Henry Byrd Jr., made similar redemptive speeches. While I am still bothered by the fact that this was a revelation in the 1980s or 1990s (as opposed to the 1950s or 1960s), it is still a very different story than shown on the video released by Breitbart.
The question is whether there is legal recourse for such editing. There is but it is not easy. An employment action based on being pressured to resign is doubtful. Company and government lawyers often prefer employees to resign because it effectively waives a host of statutory and common law protections. Sherrod herself has stated that she is not sure she even wants her job back. It would have been a far stronger case if she had forced termination proceedings. However, at least one expert thinks she might have a case under employment law.
John Dean wrote a terrific piece on this issue.
The most obvious claims would be false light and defamation.
The Restatement Second defines the tort of false light:
652E. Publicity Placing Person in False Light
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if
(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.
This would certainly seem to be a case of intentional or reckless act. It could also be claimed to be highly offensive to a reasonable person. However, the editor can claim that the tape was meant to show not just the racially loaded comments of a speaker but the reaction of the audience to that portion of the speech. Moreover, Sherrod is still admitting to pretty disturbing racial views in her earlier view of white farmers from the 1980s or 1990s. That is not an entirely complete defense, however, because it still does not explain why the editor would cut out the point of the story.
False light cases have resulted in high damages against news organizations as in this case. However, this verdict was later overturned, which rejected the very use of false light as a tort action.
Some states have curtailed or abandoned false light because such cases can be properly heard in defamation cases. In this case, Sherrod would be considered a public figure or limited public figure. As such, she would need to prove that the editor or people like Breitbart acted with knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard of the falsity. The question is whether it was false in terms of what was intended to be shown. The editor could claim that he or she was seeking to show the racial elements at the NAACP in response to that organization’s criticism of the Tea Party. That is the position taken by Breitbart in interviews in response to outrage over his role in the controversy,here
Of course, if Sherrod were to sue, she would likely make it past initial motions to dismiss and could secure embarrassing discovery in the case, including possible internal emails and communications on the purpose of the editing and release of the video.
AY wrote:
“TaterB,
Primary you are. Do they still give time outs and detentions? Or does mommy do your time?”
I will neither affirm nor deny it.
TaterB,
Primary you are. Do they still give time outs and detentions? Or does mommy do your time?
AY wrote:
“Come on guy, this site is not run by anyone except the moderator whom also happens to be the host. It is a free site with exchanges of ideal, thought and wisdom.”
I would rather hear from Buddha. I like to go with primary sources.
AY wrote:
“TraderB,
I like your name, are you really Walter Myers? A former State Department employee with top-secret clearance, whom greed to life sentence without parole and to cooperate with the federal government in a deal that offered his wife a much lighter sentence than the 20 years she might have faced at trial. Are you really a spy?”
I will neither affirm nor deny it.
From Media Matters for America
Still digging: Conservatives won’t let up barrage of attacks on Shirley Sherrod
July 27, 2010 5:09 pm ET
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007270049
“Even after Andrew Breitbart’s video of Shirley Sherrod’s NAACP speech was uncovered as a deceptively edited excerpt that distorted her comments, conservatives have continued to attack Sherrod with a barrage of false or ludicrous smears.”
Elaine M.,
You forgot to have him bring the wood, spit and chain maul. As he should be aware the pit is provided as part of the pagan sacrifice to God of our pleasure.
TraderB,
I like your name, are you really Walter Myers? A former State Department employee with top-secret clearance, whom greed to life sentence without parole and to cooperate with the federal government in a deal that offered his wife a much lighter sentence than the 20 years she might have faced at trial. Are you really a spy?
Come on guy, this site is not run by anyone except the moderator whom also happens to be the host. It is a free site with exchanges of ideal, thought and wisdom.
You are a fool if you think letters after your name make you wiser and smarter than the rest here. I have a number of degrees from two major universities and a license as well. Obviously, I escaped English as a major. I will repeat this for your edification or maybe eradication. Having a BBA, MBA, PHDs and a JD does not make you any smarter than the rest. Its how you feel about yourself at the end of the day that was the test.
I have disagreed with Buddha, Bryon, wheres Wayne, Bdaman et al, but one thing that I have learned. if they say something that affects me mentally, get it, that is the only way you can be heard on here is through the mental faculty, then I must look inside and figure out why it affects me so. Why does it matter? Most people especially the uninformed usually set out and launch personal attacks when they reside with fear. Where does your fear come from? Why are you making this site which is an exchange of free ideals a forum for ridicule and abuse.
I may not get into every debate as I don’t really care. But when you start attacking anyone here, I will start riding your ass until you contact the professor and cry uncle. If you don’t like what someone has to say, leave it alone and ignore it or ask questions when it bothers you or you want more information. But never attack anyone on here personally or the ridicule will not stop until I say so. With my Limited wisdom, I can become an Asshole with words. Ya listening Beowulf?
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/16/97677/cuban-spies-sentenced-to-prison.html#ixzz0v4pNR5lQ
rea
TraderB–
“However, it appears that you are afraid to take on Buddha. Does he run the site or does Professor Turley? Has he cowed all of you with his adolescent power fantasies. It is like a cult here, instead of a discussion group. It appears that it was a lively discussion group in 2008, but underwent a rapid decline.”
**********
BTW, we cult members will be having our annual animal sacrifice ceremony this evening. Bring candles, an apron, and a carving knife. Our animal offering will, it is hoped, appease our pudgy green god who has adolescent power fantasies.
Yers trooley,
One of the cowed
TraderB, are you looking for a surrogate? The fact is that Buddha and I have disagreed on a number of issues. When we disagree, we express it rationally. I don’t fear anyone on this site and am not aware of any reason that I should. On the other hand, I do not feel compelled to respond to everything posted here because I’m not interested in every topic for discussion and I work for a living. In addition, I am not on call or otherwise available at your pleasure to comment on demand on matters of particular interest to you. Having said that, I will modestly acknowledge that I do provide quite excellent advice and analysis when I am so inclined.
Mike Appleton wrote:
“I am not concerned with anyone’s credentials. I am interested in the quality of their arguments and in reassessing my own opinions.”
I agree. However, it appears that you are afraid to take on Buddha. Does he run the site or does Professor Turley? Has he cowed all of you with his adolescent power fantasies. It is like a cult here, instead of a discussion group. It appears that it was a lively discussion group in 2008, but underwent a rapid decline.
Buddha, Blouise, & Gyges–
People are always welcome to dine at our house. My husband is a great cook too. He even makes homemade pasta and pizza…and a truly delicious Italian wedding soup.
I usually make pierogis once a year–for Christmas Eve. My daughter, my nieces, and my sister help out. I make the dough and the stuffings–and the rest of the crew puts the pierogis together. Last year, I think we made about 150 (three different kinds). It’s a lotta work–but a great family tradition. I learned how to make them from my mother who learned from her mother who was born in the “Old Country.”
**********
Byron,
BTW, did you ever make the eggplant lasagna?
**********
TraderB,
I don’t know who most of the Turley regulars are. I can say this about many of them: They are passionate in defense of their beliefs. Many of us disagree with with Byron on a lot of issues–but Byron is a welcome sparring partner. He doesn’t get his knickers in a twist or ever say anything nasty. He is a reasonable individual–and he doesn’t manipulate facts to prove a point. In addition, Byron has a sense of humor–which is something that trolls seem to lack.
Byron,
I found a paper online, so I am convinced.
TraderB, I do not pretend to know what sort of game you’re playing, but you can count me out. I do not “advise” anyone on this site, least of all Prof. Turley. I am not concerned with anyone’s credentials. I am interested in the quality of their arguments and in reassessing my own opinions. People who wish to remain anonymous are entitled to have that wish respected. That includes you. However, you may not hide behind your own anonymity while simultaneously demanding the disclosure of personal information by others. Finally, you need not have told me that you are not a lawyer. That has been apparent.
TraderB:
Slarti does have a PhD, I can vouch for him, I even read his dissertation of chloride ion control of a portion of the kidneys :).
It had pi in it, so it was delicious, get it? Kidney Pie. 🙂
I know bad joke. (sorry Slarti)
Mike Appleton:
You have not rendered your opinion on Buddha’s legal argument on July 28, 2010 at 2:08 pm. I would like to hear what other lawyers think about it.
TraderB,
My PhD is in mathematics from Duke University and I don’t expect anyone to be impressed, just to understand that when I talk about math and science I’m speaking as a professional, not a layperson. And around here you’re not a PhD, you’re just a troll with no credibility – unless you’d care to tell us your name so that we can check it out for ourselves…
Slartibartfast
I have a Ph.D.. also, so am not impressed. Where did you obtain your Ph.D? Who was your advisor? What is your field?
TraderB,
Many of us here know Buddha’s real name, but more importantly he has credibility due to what he’s posted here over the years. Many people here, anonymous or not, have proven by what they posted that their opinions are worth listening to – why should we give any credence to an intellectually dishonest, anonymous troll who has been getting their ass kicked, logically speaking, for several days now? If you care to identify yourself the people here will take that into account when deciding on your credibility, but for an anonymous poster to demand someone else identify themselves is both cowardly and pathetic. Please publish your name and professional bona fides or admit that you are a hypocrite.
Thank you,
Kevin Kesseler, PhD
To Mike Appleton:
Are you advising Jonathan Turley not to remove his post? Have you watched the Breitbart tape and compared it to the re-edited version on CNN, etc. I will state that I am not a lawyer.
Buddha,
If you are really a lawyer, give us your real name and the states you are licensed in.
Bob, Esq.: The answer is yes. I believe this president received a mandate and lacks the courage to pursue his promises. I believe that he is just as concerned with winning a second term as every other president. And I believe he is surrounded by one sorry group of advisors.
TraderB: I actually have no clue what you’re driving at. I’m not a mystic, don’t read Marvel comics and have never owned a secret decoder ring. I only know what you mean by the words you use. I am not anonymous because I don’t perceive the need to be. It’s easy to find out pretty much anything you wish to know about me, but who cares? However, I typically do not respond to inquiries of a personal nature from anonymous interrogators. And I never respond to inquiries of a personal nature relating to other people.