1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Shirley Sherrod sues Andrew Breitbart

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Smallpotatoes, Feb 13, 2011.

  1. Smallpotatoes

    Smallpotatoes Well-Known Member

    There's something called "false light" that covers this sort of situation, I think.
     
  2. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    I've always found the distinction between knowing it's bogus and not knowing it isn't bogus fascinating.
     
  3. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    At the time it was released she wasn't a public figure though. That's when the libel happened, that's the standard.
     
  4. sportsguydave

    sportsguydave Active Member

    Mr. Breitbart, meet Ms. Karma.

    It's said she can be a bit tough to deal with sometimes.
     
  5. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    How could she not be considered a public figure? She was a government official, and the allegedly libelous speech was discussing a public speech she gave.
     
  6. sportsguydave

    sportsguydave Active Member

    A very low-level government official.

    And even if a court finds Sherrod to be a public official, what I remember of my media law classes tells me that it wouldn't be too hard for Sherrod's lawyer to prove actual malice here. And she's gotten herself a pretty good one.

    I'm guessing Breitbart is in deep doo-doo, no matter how you slice it.
     
  7. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Actual malice looks hard to me, but I could be very wrong. When you give a speech on a political issue, in your capacity as a government official, you are opening yourself up to people saying really shitty things about you.
     
  8. sportsguydave

    sportsguydave Active Member

    I see your point, Rick... but in the hands of a skilled attorney, pretty much everything Breitbart does can be construed as malicious. I don't think it's going to be very hard at all to prove the malicious intent behind his latest phony smear.

    He's a bomb-throwing right-winger who wears the badge proudly, and he identifies himself as a journalist, just in case he tries to slither away from that later (I think one of his sites is called "Big Journalism.").

    If he wants to call himself a journalist, then he gets to be judged by the same standards the rest of us have to live up to.
     
  9. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    I'd make the argument she was a limited public figure, which in this case may be enough to shield Breitbart because she was making a policy-related statement. IANAL and it's been years since I sat in comm law class, so ...

    Even if she wins, she'll never see a dime.
     
  10. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    I don't think the real point is to get money out of Breitbart (although I am sure Sherrod would love to take it) but to discredit him.

    Of course his fan club won't care and his anti-fan club already thinks he has utterly no credibility anyway.
     
  11. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    She won't get a dime. In fact, she's going to get laughed out of the court room.
     
  12. Turtle Wexler

    Turtle Wexler Member

    So if the assistant to the planning commissioner at city hall gets up at career day at the local high school, he's opening himself up to attack?

    I have a hard time believing she's a true public figure. Can you name a person in your state who works for the USDA (if that's not related to your beat)?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page