Earlier we discussed the grounds for former Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod to sue Andrew Breitbart and other individuals involved in the posting of a misleading video that led to her resignation. She has now announced her intention to sue.
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 video itself is certainly misleading as edited.
Sherrod immediately objected that the remarks were “misconstrued.” Nevertheless, she resigned after the video was made public. She was quickly offered a better job by the government after the unfair editing was revealed.
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. While she recounts the racially loaded story, it was meant to explain that “[t]hat’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.
I stated earlier that an employment action based on being pressured to resign is doubtful due to her voluntary resignation. While there is a basis for a claim that she was constructively fired or coerced to resign, it is a difficult case to make and she does not appear to be moving in that direction.
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.
False light is attractive because the actual material shown can be true but still be misleading and the basis for liability. The potential for damages under either claim would be modest. She was quickly rehabilitated publicly after the editing was made public. She is now viewed by conservatives and liberals as a victim of a smear campaign. She was also quickly offered a better job.
For Breitbart the greatest threat is not the ultimate damages but the costs and discovery involved in the litigation. Sherrod could seek emails and communications revealing his motivation and knowledge before posting the video. Breitbart has often been accused of serving as a conduit for conservative interests. However, it will be interesting to see if media groups will view efforts to seize such material as threatening to press rights and interests.
Source: Politico.
Sure. Paste some propaganda when what I linked to was a CNN report of NOAA’s latest data and conclusions.
But then again, lies and deception are your goal.
Just like your hero, PropagAndy.
The Sherrod incident is going to leave him slightly less credible than Geraldo Rivera. Which, by the way, is still more credible than you.
http://www.accuweather.com/video/260789099001/monday-global-ice-temp-report.asp?channel=vbbastaj
I’m not hijacking anything other than your assertions that you are credible as a source of . . . well, anything. Other than serving as an example of a bigoted, anti-Semitic douche bag. I’ll give credit where it is due. You are an excellent example of those behaviors.
Just like your hero, the racist propagandist Andrew Breitbart.
Your only value here is that of bad example.
No, apparently you don’t get much anything of substance from words, badtroll.
Especially learning or any noticeable benefit one associates with become more intelligent over time. Contrast this to becoming less intelligent over time. You know less intelligent over time . . . don’t you?
After all, you’re their poster boy.
Don’t try and get me to hijack the thread.
pssst!
rhetorical \ri-ˈtȯr-i-kəl, -ˈtär-\, adj.,
1 a : of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric b : employed for rhetorical effect; especially : asked merely for effect with no answer expected (a rhetorical question)
I know it’s really worked out for you like everything else you’ve tried. That is to say, not at all.
Enjoy your drubbing, badtroll!
OOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooo I get it. Thanks man your da greatest!!!!
By the way, how’s that climate change denial working out for you?
Study: Climate change ‘undeniable’
Really? Is that the best you’ve got? That’s just . . . pathetic.
Because whatever education you have (which is about the sixth grade judging by the quality and content of your posts) obviously didn’t include the meaning of the word “rhetorical”.
You should have stayed on vacation.
Not for our sakes, Mr. “Let’s Call Jews Christ Killers”, because we think you’re a clown (especially now).
But rather for your sake. Unless you’re just a masochist.
Better break out the pen knife, bdadim! You’re going to need a better pointy stick than that!
By the way, how’s that birther angle working out for you?
Same way your law degree worked for you.
Hooray for Ms. Sherrod. Whether she gets anything for it or not, it is a civic service to the rest of us to have a chilling effect on this Breitbart kind of lie; and although I feel certain it WAS a purposeful lie and smear, it was at minimum reckless disregard. Give us an address, Shirley, where we can contribute a few bucks to your legal fund.
It seems to me that there is a middle ground in all of this. She was very wronged. She has not lawsuit. There are lots of cases where there is wrongful injury and actual damage. This is not one of them nor should being a bad blogger be a crime.
Someone said above what about Michael Moore? Half of what he does would be actionable if this claim is. Geez, almost everything Glen Beck says would be actionable as well.
From Media Matters for America
Sherrod Attorney: Breitbart Suit Seeks To Be Deterrent
July 30, 2010 1:11 pm ET by Joe Strupp
http://mediamatters.org/strupp/201007300021
Excerpt:
Shirley Sherrod’s longtime attorney said her pending lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart will seek to be a deterrent for future defamation actions, adding that it is not about money.
But Rose Sanders, who has known Sherrod for decades, stressed that it will seek monetary damages because “that is all right-wing capitalists understand.”
“It will be a legal deterrent,” Sanders, who is based in Selma, Ala., told me Friday. “That when you destroy a person’s reputation, you will pay the consequences.”
Sanders’ comments follow Sherrod’s announcement Thursday that she plans to sue Breitbart, who posted an excerpt on July 19 of a speech that Sherrod gave in front of a NAACP group. He claimed that the clip showed her engaging in racism.
The tape resulted in Sherrod being fired July 19, but she was later offered a new USDA job after it became clear that Breitbart’s video had taken her statements out of context.
Several defamation lawyers have told Media Matters that Sherrod could have a good case against Breitbart.
bdatroll,
His identity is moot because it’s your tactic that’s a loser. Those “other people on the internet” (and certainly buckeye who is a sharp person despite any disagreements we may have) aren’t so stupid as you as to think that a husband’s thoughts and statements necessarily equate to a wife’s thoughts and statements. But then again, misleading people has always been your goal, badtroll. False equivalence is such a weak tactic. Some people learn from using a losing tactic over and over again.
Must just be you that doesn’t.
By the way, how’s that birther angle working out for you? (rhetorical)
To whom it may concern:
I’m not on the right thread for book discussions but … the poster who recommended the novel, “On This Rock”, by Dave Leonard … thank you … it’s a great read.
Buddha
I join Elaine in admiring “PropagAndy” … perfect
Buckeye seems to think it’s her husband, other people on the internet too.
Must just be you.
EC,
Just because you didn’t write it doesn’t mean that you didn’t have the good comedic sense to relay it. Taste counts.
And that still applies, badtroll.
She is still not her husband. Apparently the Breitbart tactic won’t work for you either. (Some comments omitted because they were not in direct line with that part of the conversation.)
—
Bdaman 1, July 26, 2010 at 12:27 pm
She is not her husband,
Your right, she’s not. He’s her husband.
—
414 Buddha Is Laughing 1, July 26, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Ooo. Bigoted and misogynistic! Nice to see you’ve upped your ante on why no one should pay attention to you.
—
415 Buddha Is Laughing 1, July 26, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Two separate people, badtroll.
Is counting beyond your simple grasp? (Rhetorical)
—
416 Bdaman 1, July 26, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Two separate people with nothing in common. Got it.
—
417 Byron 1, July 26, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Bdaman:
That seems pretty benign to me. But racism is a form of tribalism and it effects all people. It takes a certain level of intellectual development to understand that racism/tribalism is nothing but an affront to the individual. And since all men are individuals racism/tribalism strikes at the very core of our society which is founded on individual rights. Ergo a racist is actually against the American ideal and no friend of liberty.
—
419 Buddha Is Laughing 1, July 26, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Apparently not.
Married people disagree on lots of things all the time. Being married doesn’t make one a clone of the other.
—
421 Buddha Is Laughing 1, July 26, 2010 at 12:36 pm
And what Byron and Jill said.
—
423 Blouise 1, July 26, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Byron
1, July 26, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Bdaman:
That seems pretty benign to me. But racism is a form of tribalism and it effects all people. It takes a certain level of intellectual development to understand that racism/tribalism is nothing but an affront to the individual. And since all men are individuals racism/tribalism strikes at the very core of our society which is founded on individual rights. Ergo a racist is actually against the American ideal and no friend of liberty.
=================================================================
Very well put!
Now … everybody, stop being interesting so I can get out of here!
—
424 Bdaman 1, July 26, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Byron it’s the part where he says we must not be afraid to turn a black out who votes against our interest.
P.S. how you doin? Getting ready to take the little one to the pool. I’m still here everyday but just haven’t felt like commenting.
—
426 Bdaman 1, July 26, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Some married people are just like two pea’s in a pod.
—
428 Buddha Is Laughing 1, July 26, 2010 at 12:44 pm
But most aren’t. I see your platitude and raise you an “opposites attract” don’t you know.
—
After which you simply run away. Who’d have thunk it? To see the unedited version of this exchange, go here: http://jonathanturley.org/2010/07/21/can-sherrod-sue-over-edited-naacp-tape/#comment-147506
I would rail against the white man too if I were an older black person. I think it is called justifiable anger.