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.
Blouise thanks hadn’t thought of that, “The Look” in along time.
Bdaman,
I understand that … the feud and the heat and it really doesn’t have anything to do with being fond of Buddha (which I am) … it seemed to lack a sensitivity to others who follow the feud …
Let’s put it this way … certainly, having experienced either a mother, wife, or grandmother, you are familiar with something men refer to as “THE LOOK” … well, I saw that post and gave you “the look”.
Enough said … feud on
Blouise,
Thanks for looking out for me, but I don’t care about what demonstrated bigots and anti-Semites say about anything, much less their opinions of me.
Like I said, the ones I feel sorry for are his progeny.
AY come on now, do you really want to start. I was trying to be sincere as you were on a personal level being open and honest with you and now you want to bring my momma into it. Come on AY your better than that. I even offered words of encouragement, key word courage. Follow the yellow brick road and go see the wizard. He can help you.
Starring you as the stick.
More like the stick and the wood chipper, badtroll.
Byron,
Quite a bit.
It’s the difference between saying the SEC is a regulatory paper tiger and saying George Bush and Dick Cheney are war criminals.
It’s a story about “The King”, not about “The Court of the King of the Frogs”.
Well Blouise I’m sorry, I know you are probably fond of the little green fat man. It’s an ongoing feud like Hatfields and the McCoys.
Bdaman,
Do they fry up well? How do you cool them really, we had a thread about cooking.
Are they as tasty as I hear mountain oysters are? You learned that the next time that they must be pruned before eating, yes?
Did the hoof marks come out of your front side?
How long was it that you were able to hold on before being forced to let go?
Is your back still scratched? Bet so.
Next time you’ll know better. Same with Lamb Frys, but, I understand that they will just kick your face, but then again how would anyone be able to tell the difference anyways….just sayin….I heard your momma took you in to the dermatologist and alls it turned out to be was fork marks.
Buddha:
does it matter if it is a single individual or an entire government? the concept is the same.
Bdaman,
I have to tell you that I thought your post to Buddha on another thread was most inappropriate … it takes a lot to offend me and that post did.
Byron,
The fact that the gulf spill is like ‘sunburn on a cancer patient’ (which, I note, would potentially be a very bad thing in the case of a patient with an early stage of melanoma – the reduction of the cells DNA repair mechanisms would make mutation into a more virulent state much more likely…) is hardly good news – we’ve fucked things up so badly that this hasn’t hurt that much more? Not the strongest argument I’ve ever heard. Also, I think that their are a couple of hidden issues – the unprecedented use of dispersants (I think we’ll find that they made things much, much worse for everyone except BP) and the microbes eating the oil (when they metabolize the oil they also consume oxygen which may expand the ‘dead zones’ in the gulf or create more. I hope you’re right that this wont turn out to be the catastrophic disaster everyone’s been predicting, but I still think that it will turn out to be much closer to catastrophic that the insignificant damage that Tony Heyward spoke of.
I quess thats why I say Ta may toe and you say Ta Ma toe.
should read like this:
an explanation for recent fish kills? a brown tide vs. a red tide?
“Typically, there are enough microbes in the ocean to consume half of any oil spilled in a month or two, says Howarth.”
“Joye has shown that oxygen levels in parts of the Gulf contaminated with oil have dropped. Since microbes need oxygen to eat the petroleum, that’s evidence that the microbes are hard at work.”
“an explanation for recent fish kills? a brown tide vs. a red tide?
Typically, there are enough microbes in the ocean to consume half of any oil spilled in a month or two, says Howarth.”
by extrapolation an indication that oil has been naturally seeping into the environment for eons? Probably so since oil is a natural substance and it is not man made. And nature has a way of taking care of it, seems pretty simple to me.
Byron,
Seriously, just Google the story. It’s widely interpreted to be about giving a ruler too much unitary power, not about the size or function of a bureaucracy.
It was an O.K. movie Blouise. I just wish the animals would get their fair share instead of Holy Wood.
Go Team Distraction!
Learn to differentiate “oil spill” from “carbon scrubbing” from “populations dropping levels of magnitude”. I said “apple” and you responded “orange”.
Really, you should go to work for Breitbart.
You’re as incompetent at trolling as his paid staff.
Buddha:
it could go either way, depending upon how you dress. 🙂