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.
Push your luck, stalker troll. See what happens.
Byron,
Well said. And eventually I will convince you that the free market needs to be regulated and that the philosophy of Ayn Rand is a horrendous model for government policy in between episodes of going after Tootie like a pit bull on steroids… 😉
TraderB,
Buddha has a blind email address (buddha.is.laughing.ril@gmail.com) if you wish to apologize to him for your apparent cyber-stalking.
Do you really think that someone being mean to you on a blog is a cause for action? What has Buddha done to injure you other than call you names? On the other hand, Buddha has referenced a list of behaviors which (according to a source he provided a link to) characterize a type of stalking and has shown that you have exhibited at least 5 of the 7 traits listed. While I don’t think that you were trying to stalk Buddha, there isn’t much doubt as to who would have a better case in court (and I don’t think we need any more proof that you aren’t a lawyer, by the way). And you still haven’t made any kind of compelling argument that Mr. Breitbart is anything other than a putrescent Rovian operative willing to do whatever it takes to forward his despicable agenda.
TraderB:
Are you a bond trader? Thus TraderB? Are you any relation to Trader Vic?
“Buddha wrote” should have been erased from my previous post.
Buddha wrote:
I have grounds for filing such charges. You do not. Remember, you attacked me first. I held off for a long time before responding.
I asked for your name to prove you were a lawyer. It amazes me that anyone with any legal training would post what you did. I was assured by Mike Appleton that you are, so your name is a moot point.
How could I possibly know your email address to send you a phishing message?
TraderB:
Go find a couple of threads where Buddha and I have almost killed each other over some issues. He can vouch for that as well as some of the regulars here.
Also Tootie has a pretty strong opinion as well, she and many of the regulars go at it like pit bulls on steroids.
Personally I would hazard a guess that most people don’t have the stones to go head to head with most of the people on this site or they come in here spouting off about liberals (as yours truly did) and they get there ass handed to them, most turn tail and run. I have actually learned something even though I disagree with most everyone here on economics, I am a totally free market guy. But then if you polled most people here they aren’t Marxists (a few might be) and think that capitalism works but needs to be controlled. I disagree and have gone round and round with many of the regulars about it.
Sometimes they make valid points and have legitimate concerns about a totally free market.
This site is much more interesting and thought provoking than a site where I agree with everyone or the disagreement is over what shade of yellow a particular issue is.
It also makes you check your facts and sources, you will get your ass kicked over that. I also have found that some here actually know that certain quotes attributed to certain historical individuals are not correct, so I even check the veracity of the quotes I want to use to make absolutely sure they are indeed attributable to the individual in question. And I have found that most of the shit I get from friends who quote Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin are wrong.
In addition when citing sources you need to make sure your sources are neutral, I have had my headed handed to me on a silver plate by Mike Spindell a couple of times over partisan sources.
So to make a long story short put out or shut up. I doubt most people want to go to all of that trouble for a blog but it has been worth it in terms of knowledge gained.
I hope she does, but I think Obama will prevent her. It will reveal the name of the person who told Cheryl Cook to fire her. Breitbart should be O.K., since he included the redemption in his clip.
TraitorB,
Listen up, Little Cyberstalker, because I’m only going to say this once:
1) I am not Jonathan Turley.
2) I do not run this site.
3) You are displaying behaviors of a cyberstalker.
4) Cyberstalking is a Federal crime under 47 USC 223 and my local jurisdiction has a very easy to meet threshold for state charges.
Paul E. Mullen, M.B.B.S., D.Sc., F.R.C.Psych., has described six classifications of stalkers and the pattern behaviors they exhibit, but only one (so far) applies to you.
Resentful Stalker
This stalker is looking for revenge against someone who has upset them–it could be someone known to the stalker or a complete stranger. The behaviors are meant to frighten and distress the victim. The stalker views the target as being similar to those who have oppressed and humiliated them in the past, and they may view themselves as someone striking back against an oppressor. Or, the victim could be a professional believed to have cheated or abused the stalker in some way. Often irrationally paranoid, this kind of stalker can be the most obsessive and enduring. While the least likely to use physical force, the resentful stalker is the most likely to verbally threaten the victim. They may use personal threats, complaints to law enforcement and local government, property damage, theft or killing of pet, letters or notes on the victim’s car or house, breaking into the victim’s house or apartment, or watching the victim’s movements. (Summary provided by the sexualharassmentsupport.org website.)
In his book, “Cyberstalking: Harassment in the Internet Age and How to Protect Your Family”, Paul Bocij indentifies the following factors to evaluate when considering whether to report a stalker to the authorities:
1) False accusations. – Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. You have exhibited this behavior.
2) Attempts to gather information about the victim. – Cyberstalkers may approach their victim’s friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet, or hire a private detective. They often will monitor the victim’s online activities and attempt to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their victims. You have exhibited this behavior.
3) Encouraging others to harass the victim. – Many cyberstalkers try to involve third parties in the harassment. You have exhibited this behavior.
4) False victimization. The cyberstalker will claim that the victim is harassing him/her. Bocij writes that this phenomenon has been noted in a number of well-known cases. You have exhibited this behavior.
5) Attacks on data and equipment. They may try to damage the victim’s computer by sending viruses. If you are (and I suspect you are despite your denial) the one who tried to phish my identity via gmail, then you have exhibited this behavior.
6) Ordering goods and services. You have not exhibited this behavior yet.
7) Arranging to meet. You have exhibited this behavior.
That’s six for seven on suspicious/suspect behaviors. More than enough to overcome a reasonable man evidentiary threshold.
Paul E. Mullen, M.B.B.S., D.Sc., F.R.C.Psych., also determined the following conclusion regarding stalkers: “Bringing stalking to an end requires a mixture of appropriate legal sanctions and therapeutic interventions.” (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/156/8/1244 – emphasis added)
You want to keep this quest for my identity up? You’ll find out that I have no issue telling both the F.B.I. and the local authorities my name if I feel it’s necessary to file a complaint.
You should also know that the last two people to exhibit stalking behavior here were banned by the Professor. You should also know that one more attempt – just one – to find out my identity will result in my requesting that you be banned from posting here.
Is that clear enough for you?
AY:
I am sure you would have trouble at the sites where I post. Personal attacks will not even be posted at NYT. You will eventually be banned at WSJ. I do not know if WaPo bans people, but they do remove offending posts.
So I guess the answer to the question posed by the title of this thread is ‘yes’.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/shirley-sherrod-to-sue-an_n_663656.html
Elaine M.,
That’s classic and cold.
TraderB.,
Why the name? Who is TradeA and TraderC? Why did you chose the nom de plume of TraderB?
As far as leaders, I have none except the dollar as I have sold my soul for comfort. As most of of have, do you get a paycheck, have a nice car, toys. The you too have sold your soul for the comforts of more…..
Speaking of leaders–here’s TraderB at work being spoken to by his boss:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4Vs_n85sCs&hl=en_US&fs=1]
From Huffington Post:
Shirley Sherrod To Sue Andrew Breitbart
| 07/29/10 11:37 AM |
Excerpt:
SAN DIEGO — Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod says she will sue a conservative blogger who posted an edited video of her making racially tinged remarks last week.
Sherrod made the announcement Thursday in San Diego at the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/shirley-sherrod-to-sue-an_n_663656.html
AY wrote:
“Ok, who do you work for and how much do they pay you?”
Ask your leader.
Elaine M.,
I wonder if Brett will suffer a Rather moment and eventually be forced out. Nah, this is not Dan calling the election right and then having the election stolen out from under America’s nose….
From News-record.com
Michael Smerconish: Andrew Breitbart fooled America – again
Thursday, July 29, 2010
http://www.news-record.com/content/2010/07/28/article/michael_smerconish_andrew_breitbart_fooled_america_again
Excerpt:
Last week, blogger Andrew Breitbart released a mischievously edited video. It showed a black Department of Agriculture official, Shirley Sherrod, recalling her seemingly racist reluctance to assist a white farmer more than two decades earlier. Some in the audience of NAACP members are heard engaging in a sort of call-and-response approval of Sherrod’s sentiments. Reacting to the edited video, Sherrod’s boss, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, demanded her resignation.
Now imagine if it had gone a little differently – if, before Sherrod could resign, the White House had intervened and saved her job. Imagine the reaction of those now trying to put President Obama at the center of this debacle by blaming him for Sherrod’s unnecessary resignation. They would have been outraged if he had backed her up in the face of the initial information.
Should Vilsack have investigated further? Yes. Ditto for the NAACP. But White House spokesman Robert Gibbs should not have been the first to offer Sherrod an apology. It should have been Breitbart, the man who started the controversy. What he did was tantamount to releasing the Zapruder film minus the moment of impact.
Breitbart’s explanation – that he didn’t realize the video had been so maliciously manipulated – only amplifies his irresponsibility. Of the “source” who gave him the video, he told the Daily Beast: “I don’t know this person. I can’t divine what that person’s motivation was. I don’t know.”
A little less trust and a little more verify next time, Mr. Breitbart.
Even shallower was Breitbart’s description of his own motivation: “The video shows racism, and when the NAACP is going to charge the tea party with racism . . . I’m going to show you it happens on the other side.”
Even if you take that bogus explanation at face value, Breitbart at least should have highlighted the fact that the NAACP audience also expressed approval when Sherrod brought her story full circle and said poor people of every race need help. But he didn’t.
Such are the pitfalls of a media world in which everyone plays whisper-down-the-lane, but nobody fact-checks the message.
The reality is that the audience’s reaction was not a tacit approval of Sherrod’s momentary reluctance to help a poor white farmer. Rather, it was the kind of response you might hear when any engaging story is told in an African American church. Any remotely honest observer who watches Sherrod’s full speech must acknowledge that the audience was rooting for her ultimate redemption – not applauding her outdated shortcomings.
TraderB,
As you are aware this is an open forum. You are free to express ideals that others may disagree with. You know how I know? You are still here. If we as a group did what you do here on your bread and butter site, how quickly would we be banned and or blocked? Oh that’s right, your sites do not encourage the republican ideal of a free democracy. We’d have to register and Identify ourselves. So you have your game rules and the professor allows his, so what is the difference? You are anonymous here. Ok, who do you work for and how much do they pay you?
Buddha,
I think you have the classic distinction of a Psychopath stalking you. You are so lucky…or not.
Ah ha,
The Karl Rove school of Legal Theory and Answers, with special emphasis on ‘all you ever needed to know TO SUCCEED IN POLITICS you can find on the bathroom wall….I hear a few people say that they blew off the entire class….and then came after recess to see if he could learn more…Just sayin…..