Andrew Breitbart Served With Lawsuit From Shirley Sherrod At CPAC Conference (racism, Obama)

[Feel The Love]

Andrew Breitbart, the owner of several conservative Web sites, was served at the conference on Saturday with a lawsuit filed by Shirley Sherrod, the former Agriculture Department employee who lost her job last year over a video that Mr. Brietbart posted at his site biggovernment.com. The video was selectively edited so that it appeared Ms. Sherrod was confessing she had discriminated against a farmer because he was white. In the suit, which was filed in Washington on Friday, Ms. Sherrod says the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work.

</br></br> Andrew Breitbart Served With Lawsuit From Shirley Sherrod At CPAC Conference | Crooks and Liars

[Backspace]

Anyone who's seen the unedited video saw that she was still a racist POS who deserved exactly what she got. If she didn't want to deal with the consequences she shouldn't have been a racist bigot.

[Jill61]

"Mr. Breitbart said in a statement that he “categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech.” "

I'm so sick of these jerks who don't have the most basic comprehension of what "Free Speech" actually means.

I'll get straight to the point; "free speech" doesn't include libelous speech.

[lifelongMOgal]

No doubt. If the research behind the Pigford mess is accurate Ms. Sherrod could be looking at some very serious prison time for fraud.

I see that the OP picked up on the Soros talking points via Media Matters today.

[Jadex]

Is she suing the gov and Obama also?

[Backspace]

Originally Posted by Jill61

"Mr. Breitbart said in a statement that he “categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech.” "

I'm so sick of these jerks who don't have the most basic comprehension of what "Free Speech" actually means.

I'll get straight to the point; "free speech" doesn't include libelous speech.

How can you sue someone for libel if all they did was release a video of you speaking in your own words?

[Donna-501]

Originally Posted by Jill61

"Mr. Breitbart said in a statement that he “categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech.” "

I'm so sick of these jerks who don't have the most basic comprehension of what "Free Speech" actually means.

I'll get straight to the point; "free speech" doesn't include libelous speech.

[Jill61]

Originally Posted by Backspace

Anyone who's seen the unedited video saw that she was still a racist POS who deserved exactly what she got. If she didn't want to deal with the consequences she shouldn't have been a racist bigot.

And this is why she's suing. Breitbart's edited version poisoned the well, so to speak. She was guilty before the full story came out, so that when it did come out, it was viewed through an already guilty filter.

Any honest person who's seen the unedited video, saw that she was retelling a story from her past to make a point about how bad racism can be, and how it affected her, personally. How she REFLECTED on her behavior and CORRECTED IT, going back to help the farmer she'd initially not wanted to. Even the farmer himself credits her with helping him save his farm.

[lifelongMOgal]

» Pigford Investigation Resources - Big Government

[renault]

Does that mean Juan Williams can sue NPR? Oh goody!