Is Shirley Sherrod A Black Eye For The Obama Administration?

"It wasn't really defamation because people believed it before checking it out." That is a ludicrous argument and only supports the defamation charge.

The damage had been done before the record was corrected

*** UPDATE *** The law firm representing Sherrod says it's suing for "false light and infliction of emotional distress."

False light is a legal term that refers to a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to privacy from publicity which puts them in a false light to the public; which is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech.

False light differs from defamation primarily in being intended "to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being" rather than protect a plaintiff's reputation as is the case with the tort of defamation[1] and in being about the impression created rather than being about true or false. If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading then a tort of false light might have occurred.

In a speech Thursday at the National Association of Black Journalists convention, Shirley Sherrod said that she would "definitely" sue Andrew Breitbart, who posted a video of her remarks given to a local NAACP group that were taken out of context and made her appear racist.

Does she have a good case to bring against the conservative blogger and publisher?

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said that the most obvious legal path 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.

Turley offered this further analysis of a suit based on "false light":


"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."

He also noted that as a public official or public figure Sherrod could be held to a different standard, which could make it more difficult for her to succeed in a "false light" suit.


Breitbart claimed that he posted the edited video to prove his assertion that the NAACP has racist elements. He took issue with the NAACP demand that the Tea Party renounce bigoted elements. Breitbart subsequently amended his blog post, calling the action an "expression of regret."


Turley points out that in just bringing the case, legal discovery efforts could expose emails and other communications that shed light on Breitbart's motives and agenda.

John Dean, the former Nixon legal eagle, responded to Turley's analysis, noting that First Amendment standards protecting freedom of speech and the press require "extremely high levels of proof and evidence before anyone making a public statement will be held accountable for it." There must clear evidence that Breitbart knew that he was promoting false and malicious information about Sherrod.

Dean also points out that from a financial damages perspective, Sherrod has not lost her job and has been vindicated via a mass of media attention, apologies from the President on down and a job offer. Dean wrote:





With only nominal damages at issue now, no attorney is going to take on this case on a contingency basis; even if a jury (or judge) were to award punitive damages to punish Breitbart, it does not appear he has very deep pockets, and libel-law-related verdicts are often dramatically reduced on appeal. In short, filing the action would not be financially rewarding, and it certainly would be (as with all lawsuits) very expensive, easily costing over a million dollars.

On the other hand, there might be some highly skilled lawyers and partisan contributors willing to fund the case.


The sage Dean, who was embroiled more than 40 years ago in the Watergate scandal, advised Sherrod to serve as her own counsel and take " delight in going after a jackass like Breitbart, not to mention Fox News, to expose what they are doing."

Ms. Sherrod’s Speech Was Most Certainly Not About Transcending Racism

July 22, 2010 9:53 A.M.
By Andrew C. McCarthy

I’ve been too busy to get into this, but I finally watched the unabridged Shirley Sherrod speech this morning. I also listened to Mark Levin’s interview of Brent Bozell (the “audio rewind” can be accessed here; Mark’s interview of Brent is the second and third segment of last night’s show (i.e., click on July 21)).

It’s all well and good to say Andrew Breitbart should have done more due diligence, or that his source should not have edited out important parts of the tape. As I’ve noted before, when taped or transcripted statements get presented to juries in litigation, we rely on the “rule of completeness”: if one side plays or reads a part of the statement that the other side claims is misleading, that other side gets to present whatever parts of the full statement are necessary for context. This way, the jury has an accurate sense of what the speaker was saying. Clearly, there were parts of the tape left on the cutting room floor that should have been considered in conjunction with the parts Andrew published — and knowing Andrew, he would have published them if he’d had them. (By contrast, the NAACP did have the full speech, but threw Ms. Sherrod under the bus anyway.)

All that said, I don’t understand the sudden pendulum swing in the other direction. Now, in Take Two, we are to understand that Ms. Sherrod was not exhibiting racism. Instead, ”taken in context,” we’re told, she is actually a heroic figure who has transcended the racist views that, given the terrible things she saw growing up in the South, were understandable.

Okay, but how come it is not incumbent on the folks who are pushing the revised narrative (and slapping Andrew around over the old one) to account for the Sherrod gem below (which begins a little after the 22 minute mark in her speech)?

For context: She is talking about how the evil “people with money,” beginning in the 17th and 18th centuries (i.e., around the founding of our republic), created a still existing system designed to institutionalize racism against black people while simultaneously keeping poor whites and poor blacks divided. All highlighting is mine:

So that’s when they made black people servants for life. That’s when they put laws in place forbidding them [i.e., blacks and whites] to marry each other. That’s when they created the racism that we know of today. They did it to keep us divided. And they — It started working so well, they said, “Gosh, looks like we’ve come upon something here that could last generations.” And here we are, over 400 years later, and it’s still working.

What we have to do is get that out of our heads. There is no difference between us. The only difference is that the folks with money want to stay in power and whether it’s healthcare or whatever it is, they’ll do what they need to do to keep that power, you know. [Applause] It’s always about money, ya’ll. [Applause and murmurs of agreement.] You know. I haven’t seen such a mean-spirited people as I’ve seen lately over this issue of health care. [Mumurs of agreement.] Some of the racism we thought was buried — [someone in the audience says, "It surfaced!"] Didn’t it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bushes and we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black president. [Applause]


I wanted to give you that little history, especially the young people, I want you to know they created it, you know, not just for us, but we got the brunt of it because they needed to elevate whites just a little higher than us to make them think they were so much better. Then they would never work with us, you know, to try to change the situation that they were all in.

So, in Sherrod World, mean-spririted, racist Republicans do nasty things that “we” would never do because we have a president who, being black, is above that stuff. Still, we have-nots need to band together for “change” because a cabal of haves, desperate to keep their power, is still imposing their centuries old capitalist system of institutionalized racism — the same racism that courses through the Republican Party and surfaces on “us versus them” issues like healthcare.

Pardon me, but I think I’ll stay off the Canonize Shirley bandwagon. To me, it seems like she’s still got plenty of racial baggage. What we’re seeing is not transcendence but transference. That’s why the NAACP crowd reacted so enthusiastically throughout her speech.

With an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy assuming overlord status in what used to be private industry and private matters, are we supposed to feel better that this particular bureaucrat’s disdain, though once directed at all white people, is now channeled only toward successful white people … most of whom — like successful black people — worked very hard to become successful? Are we supposed to forget that when the Left says, “It’s always about the money,” you don’t have to have a whole lot of money to find yourself on the wrong side of their have/have-not equation? Are we supposed to take comfort in having our affairs managed by bureaucrats who see the country as a Manichean divide beset by institutionalized racism?

She is not working out of choice, she can not be allowed parley her laziness into a claim of damage and get free money.

Bingo! Your POV comes into focus. Sherrod is just another "negro" looking for a handout.

No, it goes to the argument that the fault for what ever economic harm she suffered came from her employer, not from the video. She may well win the claim that she was defamed, but I dont see how she wins any damages.

She turned it down but that was on her. She claims that she can't find work but given that we know that she turned down a very good job offer that claim is not credible. She is not working out of choice, she can not be allowed parley her laziness into a claim of damage and get free money.

She wins damages for the reason most people win damages in defamation suits. Her reputation was damaged.

When did she claim she couldn't find work? Now you are just making up things hawk.

The White House later apologized to Sherrod for the handling of the incident, and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asked her to return to the USDA. (Sherrod declined the offer.)


On Monday, the former USDA employee said she was "still reeling" from the incident and said it had prevented her from finding further work.


"I'm not employed and no one's offered me a job anywhere, so I don't know where to look at this point,'' she told the Associated Press in an interview. "I'm just trying to survive.''

If an employer fired you for raping young girls and then offered to hire you back when they found out it wasn't true would you go back to that employer as if nothing had happened? I bet you would, wouldn't you hawkeye. But then of course no one expects you to act in a reasonable fashion

Her reputation was damaged the next day, it was not a week after.

She can claim that what was done to her was wrong, she can not however show damages.

She is claiming that she is emotionally damaged, but given her behaviour and words I think any just court would conclude that she has been playing with fire and is thus not entitled to blame the defendant for her distress. She is a belligerent race baiter herself.

By Greg Bolt
The Register-Guard
Appeared in print: Friday, Feb. 4, 2011, page B1



Shirley Sherrod, who was at the center of a national controversy last year when a conservative blogger accused her of racism, will talk about the episode and her experience with racism at a speaking event tonight in Eugene.

Sherrod was working for the U.S. Agriculture De­partment last July when she gave a speech to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People describing her experiences helping poor farmers in the South. The conservative blogger used an excerpt from the speech that made it appear as if Sherrod had discriminated against a white farmer, igniting a fast-moving, media-fueled controversy that ended up forcing her to resign.

Her comments drew criticism from the Secretary of Agriculture and from President Obama before it was learned that they were taken out of context. Sherrod had been describing how she came to understand that poverty crossed racial lines.

Despite public apologies and a phone call from Obama, Sherrod declined to return to her job and has been on a tour speaking about racism and how it can be overcome.
Sherrod’s Eugene appearance is sponsored by the local chapter of Blacks in Government, a group established about four years ago by former Eugene city manager Angel Jones. Linda Hamilton, who arranged Sherrod’s appearance, said the event is a way to mark Black History Month as well as provide a starting point for people in Eugene to remember their own history.

“What’s unique about Eugene is that Eugene has a lot of black history that nobody talks about,” Hamilton said.

The history of African-Americans in Eugene has included episodes of discrimination, segregation and exclusion. But Hamilton, who grew up in Louisiana and came to Oregon as a youth, said it’s also important to recognize the progress that’s been made.

“We don’t want that history to repeat itself, but we don’t want to forget it, either,” she said. “We still have a little way to go, but we need to acknowledge what has been accomplished since then.”



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHIRLEY SHERROD

What: Civil rights activist Shirley Sherrod will give a talk in Eugene

When/where: Tonight, Hilton Eugene ballroom; social hour at 5:30 p.m., dinner at 7 p.m.

Cost: $75; call 541-852-5020; some tickets may be available at the door

It sounds to me like the lady is working.....

You can argue that it was repaired but it doesn't mean there was no initial act

Quote:

You can argue that it was repaired but it doesn't mean there was no initial act

I am not arguing that the initial act has been repaired, I am arguing that the initial act was a benefit, thus no harm can be claimed.

You couldn't prove Parados' point more if you tried.

Quote:

You couldn't prove Parados' point more if you tried.

and to think you are the same person who claims to be always reasonable and rational.....

according to you almost all of the talking heads on cable as well as many politicians would have very negative reputations and earning potential, because some people think very lowly of them.

The truth is that pissing off the other side, having the other side think that you are scum, is proof that you are doing something right in modern America.

I dont like that,

but dont whine to me that you cant work because conservatives dont like you and talk badly about you.

You are reaching trying to defend someone who does not deserve your defense. Do yourself a favor and let this one go.....

This would only be the case if my opinion of them were negatively impact by a false and deceptively edited video of their statements that someone had made and intentionally disseminated with the intention of slandering their reputation