Ousted USDA Employee Sherrod Plans to Sue Blogger

[thundley4]

Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted an edited video of her making racially tinged remarks last week.

The edited video posted by Andrew Breitbart led Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to ask Sherrod to resign, a decision he reconsidered after seeing the entire video of her March speech to a local NAACP group. In the full speech, Sherrod spoke of racial reconciliation and lessons she learned after initially hesitating to help a white farmer save his home.

She said she doesn't want an apology from Breitbart for posting the video that took her comments out of context, but told a crowd at the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention that she would "definitely sue."

Vilsack and President Barack Obama later called Sherrod to apologize for her hasty ouster. Vilsack has offered her a new job at the department, which she is still considering.

"I have many, many questions before I can make a decision," Sherrod told the group. "I don't know what will happen from this day forward in terms of whether I'll be back in the department or what I'll do."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=11279038

I think she would have a case for wrongful termination against the DOA and Vilsack, against Breitbart, I'm not so sure.  The owner of the video may have a copyright infringement suit against Breitbart, though.

[Eupher]

This is no surprise. You could see this coming from last week.

Sherrod LOVES lawsuits. She and her husband were involved in a class action suit that netted her "organization" some  $18 million from the USDA coffers. She and her husband netted $300K between them for "pain and suffering".

She's just another wench with her hand out, expecting something for nothing.   

[DefiantSix]

Good luck wit' 'dat, you racist bitch. 

[Chris_]

Sherrod LOVES lawsuits. She and her husband were involved in a class action suit that netted her "organization" some  $18 million from the USDA coffers. She and her husband netted $300K between them for "pain and suffering".

You would think that would represent a conflict of interest... why would the Obama administration appoint her to a position in an organization she had successfully sued for millions of dollars?

Shirley Sherrod’s USDA Appointment a Condition of her Organization’s Settlement?

[DefiantSix]

You would think that would represent a conflict of interest... why would the Obama administration appoint her to a position in an organization she had successfully sued for millions of dollars?

Shirley Sherrod’s USDA Appointment a Condition of her Organization’s Settlement?

Cloward and Piven recognize no such conflict of interest.

[cavegal]

Not surprising to me.

[DumbAss Tanker]

It's either just hype to keep the cameras on her, or she's ate up with a combination of hubris and stupid.  No merit to it under conventional First Amendment law.

[DefiantSix]

It's either just hype to keep the cameras on her, or she's ate up with a combination of hubris and stupid.  No merit to it under conventional First Amendment law.

I'll take "Ate up with Hubris and Stupid" for $1000, Alex.

[Chris_]

From Ed Morrissey @ HotAir.com:

Sue Breitbart for what, though? Defamation? Sherrod is a public official, which makes that kind of lawsuit darned near impossible. Breitbart used the clip to criticize the NAACP, not Sherrod directly, although she certainly came into the line of fire. People are allowed to criticize public officials in harsh and even unfair terms, especially when they make public remarks.

A court is not likely to look favorably on this for another reason — Sherrod’s public statements about Breitbart. She accused him of being pro-slavery, which is a ridiculous and demagogic attack. Even if a court somehow found that Breitbart acted with malice specifically towards Sherrod to a level that overcomes the right to criticize public officials and that he lied about Sherrod specifically in doing so, under those same terms Breitbart would have a countercase against Sherrod. Otherwise, Breitbart has become enough of a public figure that Sherrod’s statements about him would probably not be actionable, either.

This lawsuit will make a big splash and keep the story alive for a while, but its value is strictly limited to PR. I somehow doubt that the Obama administration will see that as beneficial to its own objectives, either, as they seem as anxious to bury the story as anyone involved.

[debk]

"I have many, many questions before I can make a decision," Sherrod told the group. "I don't know what will happen from this day forward in terms of whether I'll be back in the department or what I'll do."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=11279038

Hmmm....maybe she's hoping for a great big settlement out of Breitbart so that she doesn't have to ever work again....

 

[Eupher]

Hmmm....maybe she's hoping for a great big settlement out of Breitbart so that she doesn't have to ever work again....

 

A settlement to be sure. She's enough of a narcissist to not give a shit WHERE the money comes from, as long as it crosses her greasy palms.

[thundley4]

A settlement to be sure. She's enough of a narcissist to not give a shit WHERE the money comes from, as long as it crosses her greasy palms.

Like I said upthread, I think she has a case against the government for wrongful termination. That would be backed up by the fact that government have apologized and offered her other employment.  It was the NAACP's and the government actions which painted her as being racist.  (other than her own comments that is)

[Mike220]

Well this should be fun.

Let me make sure I got my popcorn.

 

[formerlurker]

Fitzmas season again already? 

[formerlurker]

For those in the cheap seats.   Breitbart did not doctor the tape.   Breitbart showed a clip of an actual event.   Brietbart did absolutely nothing wrong.   

Breitbart gave her 15 minutes, and like the good leftist she is, she thinks she deserves an hour. 

Breitbart's site is going to hit the Drudge level with hits now.   It's all good.

[Eupher]

Like I said upthread, I think she has a case against the government for wrongful termination. That would be backed up by the fact that government have apologized and offered her other employment.  It was the NAACP's and the government actions which painted her as being racist.  (other than her own comments that is)

A case? Maybe, but I have my doubts it's viable. I'm speculating some here, but why not?

She was offered a job back, most likely at the same salary, same type position, same seniority. In other words, the gubmint acknowledged what they thought to be a mistake and attempted to rectify it within a day or two after she resigned.

She claimed 3 or 4 days after the incident that she still hadn't seen the job offer in writing, but that one had been verbally extended. I can't believe that a written offer hasn't been extended by now.

In other words, it was an administrative error that was quickly remedied.

It's hard for me to imagine that a judge (no way would this go to a jury) would entertain Sherrod the Shitstain any further. Throw the damned case out and have her pay court costs.

[bogie]

She's not going to be able to sue the government (again).
 
She's not able to go after the BIG money (Fox), because they didn't do squat until after she was fired, and then they mostly broadcasted a message in her favor.
 
So she's going after Breitbart.
 
Oh, and now she's -definitely- a public figure, and hence is now open to all the slings and arrows of conjecture.
 
In my opinion, and I got an A in my Media Law class back in college, her case is VERY hard to prove.
 
1) The chain of custody of that clip is going to emerge - What happened with that video between the meeting it was shot at, who shot it, who edited it, and when it hit Breitbart's inbox? HOW did it get there?
 
2) A key factor any any libel or slander suit is the presence of malice. Did Breitbart take something, and set out to smear her? They'll need to figure out #1 above... Can she prove that Breitbart edited it? I doubt it. And that would HAVE to be there for malice to stick.
 
What I'm wondering is if someone put together this thing as a campaign to be launched on purpose. Scary, huh? Edit up the tape, and email it from a throwaway... Then sit back, and watch the New Black Panthers get knocked off the scene. Any lawsuit is just peripheral fallout.

[formerlurker]

The only thing Breitbart did deals with journalistic integrity -- he should have demanded the full tape before throwing it up on his site.   

Not actionable however.

[zeitgeist]

Fitzmas season again already? 

And expect the suit in 48 business hours?  I am sure Truthpout is all over this like a cheap Asian suit.

[Eupher]

The only thing Breitbart did deals with journalistic integrity -- he should have demanded the full tape before throwing it up on his site.   

Not actionable however.

I'm familiar with Breitbart only superficially, as I find him to be, well, extreme.

Does he tout himself as a journalist? Or a pundit? Blogger? Or Reactionary? Honest question here.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I'm familiar with Breitbart only superficially, as I find him to be, well, extreme.

Does he tout himself as a journalist? Or a pundit? Blogger? Or Reactionary? Honest question here.

It's all 'Press' for Constitutional law purposes.  The First Amendment was written in the context of 'Free Press' including every wacko who could get a guy with a printing press to put out fifty copies of a broadside or handbill, not for mega-corporate 'Legitimate' press organizations with a politically-correct agenda like the NYT.