Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/30/2010 7:57:50 PM   
thornhappy


Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline 		When's Slate been liberal, when I see critiques of Obama in there?

(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/30/2010 8:11:16 PM   
truckinslave


Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

When's Slate been liberal, when I see critiques of Obama in there?


Right. One liberal entity cannot criticize another.
The pot cannot call the kettle black.

(in reply to thornhappy)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/30/2010 8:12:31 PM   
Jeffff


Posts: 12600
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline 		Wow.

Do you ever make sense?

I understand that you do not think it is acceptable to question any of the dogma your party spits out.

Not everyone else feels that way.

_____________________________

"If you don't live it, it won't come out your horn." Charlie Parker

(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/30/2010 8:17:36 PM   
truckinslave


Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Wow.

Do you ever make sense?

I understand that you do not think it is acceptable to question any of the dogma your party spits out.

Not everyone else feels that way.


Jeffff, I was satirizing the post to which I was responding. Granted it's hard to interpret.....

(in reply to Jeffff)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/30/2010 10:11:29 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

From here it looks like defamation by libel, actionable per se (that is without any harm or loss having been incurred) and Breitbart certainly knew or ought to have known that the publication might have a damaging effect on the person featured regardless of any intention for it have been about the organisation.

He might have had a defence in that he was merely reproducing someone else's publication except that he edited it to such an extent that on any reasonable analysis it became a distinct piece - something also supported by the purposeful edit to establish the point he wished to make against the organisation.

Exemplary damages + plaintiff's costs.

Next case

E


She is a public official. Almost impossible to win a libel suit.

She has to prove both significant damages and malice. From the very first posting he made it clear that he was not accusing her of being racist, that he was critical of the reaction of the crowd.

She will lose or get a token settlement to save legal fees.

Read the placards he inserted at the beginning of the video. That's proof of actual malice.

Defamation against a public person is almost impossible to win in the US but Breitbart better settle this one.




I read them. Not even close to showing malice.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/30/2010 10:55:06 PM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline 		I don't see how she can win a libel suit. Even if she does prove malice, it'll be almost impossible to prove significant damage when she got another comparable job offer within about 15 minutes. 

_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/30/2010 11:00:44 PM   
domiguy


Posts: 12952
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Wow.

Do you ever make sense?

I understand that you do not think it is acceptable to question any of the dogma your party spits out.

Not everyone else feels that way.


Jeffff, I was satirizing the post to which I was responding. Granted it's hard to interpret.....



I don't think he knows how to speak American.

_____________________________



(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/30/2010 11:02:51 PM   
domiguy


Posts: 12952
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

I don't see how she can win a libel suit. Even if she does prove malice, it'll be almost impossible to prove significant damage when she got another comparable job offer within about 15 minutes. 



What about all of those people that watched only this video and now perceive her as being a racist?

She was damaged.

_____________________________



(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/30/2010 11:11:50 PM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

I don't see how she can win a libel suit. Even if she does prove malice, it'll be almost impossible to prove significant damage when she got another comparable job offer within about 15 minutes. 



What about all of those people that watched only this video and now perceive her as being a racist?

She was damaged.


Yeah, but I think that's going to be very hard to prove. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I am unable to think of how they'd manage to do it.


_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to domiguy)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/30/2010 11:30:12 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

From here it looks like defamation by libel, actionable per se (that is without any harm or loss having been incurred) and Breitbart certainly knew or ought to have known that the publication might have a damaging effect on the person featured regardless of any intention for it have been about the organisation.

He might have had a defence in that he was merely reproducing someone else's publication except that he edited it to such an extent that on any reasonable analysis it became a distinct piece - something also supported by the purposeful edit to establish the point he wished to make against the organisation.

Exemplary damages + plaintiff's costs.

Next case

E


She is a public official. Almost impossible to win a libel suit.

She has to prove both significant damages and malice. From the very first posting he made it clear that he was not accusing her of being racist, that he was critical of the reaction of the crowd.

She will lose or get a token settlement to save legal fees.

Read the placards he inserted at the beginning of the video. That's proof of actual malice.

Defamation against a public person is almost impossible to win in the US but Breitbart better settle this one.




I read them. Not even close to showing malice.

Legally since they are a knowing lie that is malice. The tricky part of proving a defamation suit involving a public person is proving that the claims are both untrue and the defendant knew they were untrue. Those placards achieve that standard.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/30/2010 11:32:31 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

I don't see how she can win a libel suit. Even if she does prove malice, it'll be almost impossible to prove significant damage when she got another comparable job offer within about 15 minutes. 



What about all of those people that watched only this video and now perceive her as being a racist?

She was damaged.


Yeah, but I think that's going to be very hard to prove. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I am unable to think of how they'd manage to do it.


She lost her job because of this. the rest is irrelevant. Her damages are lost wages and the usual defamation damages of harm to her reputation. A jury could easily give her triple actual damages plus costs.

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/30/2010 11:49:37 PM   
Falcor64


Posts: 51
Joined: 11/24/2004
Status: offline 		Looks like a slam-dunk to me. I don't think the "public person" standard will apply here, btw. As I understand it, that applies if the person is an elected official.

Personally, this whole situation provides a humongous rationale for tightening up the libel laws. We don't have to become the UK, but there's way too many lies and distortions out there.

Falcor

< Message edited by Falcor64 -- 7/30/2010 11:50:02 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/31/2010 5:37:49 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

I don't see how she can win a libel suit. Even if she does prove malice, it'll be almost impossible to prove significant damage when she got another comparable job offer within about 15 minutes. 



What about all of those people that watched only this video and now perceive her as being a racist?

She was damaged.


Yeah, but I think that's going to be very hard to prove. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I am unable to think of how they'd manage to do it.


She lost her job because of this. the rest is irrelevant. Her damages are lost wages and the usual defamation damages of harm to her reputation. A jury could easily give her triple actual damages plus costs.


There are minimum loss in wages, actually. She was offered a job almost immediately, one she refused.

_____________________________

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.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/31/2010 10:28:52 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		Yanno, that works both ways.

And if no one else's opinions mean anything to you, why do you keep arguing with everyone? Don't you have anything better to do? This kind of sandbox screeching is what drove me away from Collarme.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Your opinions will mean nothing to me unless you convince me your source is God.


(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/31/2010 10:33:06 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

From here it looks like defamation by libel, actionable per se (that is without any harm or loss having been incurred) and Breitbart certainly knew or ought to have known that the publication might have a damaging effect on the person featured regardless of any intention for it have been about the organisation.

He might have had a defence in that he was merely reproducing someone else's publication except that he edited it to such an extent that on any reasonable analysis it became a distinct piece - something also supported by the purposeful edit to establish the point he wished to make against the organisation.

Exemplary damages + plaintiff's costs.

Next case

E


She is a public official. Almost impossible to win a libel suit.

She has to prove both significant damages and malice. From the very first posting he made it clear that he was not accusing her of being racist, that he was critical of the reaction of the crowd.

She will lose or get a token settlement to save legal fees.

Read the placards he inserted at the beginning of the video. That's proof of actual malice.

Defamation against a public person is almost impossible to win in the US but Breitbart better settle this one.




I read them. Not even close to showing malice.

Legally since they are a knowing lie that is malice. The tricky part of proving a defamation suit involving a public person is proving that the claims are both untrue and the defendant knew they were untrue. Those placards achieve that standard.


Even in the context of the entire speech, which AB says he didnt have in the beginnign, those "placards" are not lies. She cleary sees everything through a racial prism. For a court to conclude that her current attitude toward race relations is different enough from ABs interpretation isnt going to happen. And he obviously wont let it go to a jury, where anything can happen, as this board attests to.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/31/2010 10:36:18 AM   
domiguy


Posts: 12952
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline 		I would bank there are very few people that share wibur's ideology. I know it only takes one. But I would be willing to take my chances that the wilburs of this world would be immediately excused as a potential jurist.

I think she has a decent shot at prevailing.

_____________________________



(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/31/2010 10:55:14 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Falcor64

Looks like a slam-dunk to me. I don't think the "public person" standard will apply here, btw. As I understand it, that applies if the person is an elected official.

Personally, this whole situation provides a humongous rationale for tightening up the libel laws. We don't have to become the UK, but there's way too many lies and distortions out there.

Falcor


there are two groups with limited protection, public persons and public officials. She is clearly a public official, which has nothing to do with election vs appointment.

(in reply to Falcor64)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/31/2010 11:08:15 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Legally since they are a knowing lie that is malice. The tricky part of proving a defamation suit involving a public person is proving that the claims are both untrue and the defendant knew they were untrue. Those placards achieve that standard.


Even in the context of the entire speech, which AB says he didnt have in the beginnign, those "placards" are not lies. She cleary sees everything through a racial prism. For a court to conclude that her current attitude toward race relations is different enough from ABs interpretation isnt going to happen. And he obviously wont let it go to a jury, where anything can happen, as this board attests to.

Civil suit not a criminal case. He can't get a bench trial unless the plaintiff agrees. She won't. Breitbart has claimed at various times that he had the whole speech and that he didn't have it. The only way a jury is going to believe he didn't do the editing himself is if he presents some willing dupe to take the fall.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/31/2010 11:09:22 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

I would bank there are very few people that share wibur's ideology. I know it only takes one. But I would be willing to take my chances that the wilburs of this world would be immediately excused as a potential jurist.

I think she has a decent shot at prevailing.

In a civil case the jury doesn't have to be unanimous.

(in reply to domiguy)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video - 7/31/2010 11:40:17 AM   
Roshi


Posts: 1
Joined: 4/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Falcor64

Looks like a slam-dunk to me. I don't think the "public person" standard will apply here, btw. As I understand it, that applies if the person is an elected official.

Personally, this whole situation provides a humongous rationale for tightening up the libel laws. We don't have to become the UK, but there's way too many lies and distortions out there.

Falcor


But But But if lies and distortions are outlawed only outlaws will watch fox news.

(in reply to Falcor64)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109