tazzygirl
Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl However, she should sue the idiot who edited the video for lost wages and harrassment. At this point I think a defamation case is a slam dunk. Malicious intent is going to be trivially easy to prove. The more interesting question is where did he get the video to edit. It was filmed by a videographer who was employed by the NAACP. That company is refusing to release the video to news outlets citing the NAACP's copyright. So whoever gave it to Breitbart stole it. It would be funny if he did time for receipt of stolen goods. I think its gonna be hard to prove it was stolen after the following statement... quote:
The AJC is working to recover the full video footage of Sherrod's speech to the Douglas NAACP. A production company, DCTV3 in Douglas, recorded the event at the local NAACP chapter's request and is waiting for the chapter's permission to release the full speech. "We broadcast it on cable," Wilkerson said. "Somebody probably picked it up and recorded it, then put it on YouTube. That's probably why the video looks so shabby." If it was broadcasted, anyone could have taped it.
_____________________________
Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt. RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11 Duchess of Dissent 1 Dont judge me because I sin differently than you. If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
|