Jonathan Turley: Can Sherrod Sue Over Edited NAACP Tape?

Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 10:48 am by GottaLaff
Google GmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInStumbleUponRedditFarkDiggTumblrBlogger PostDeliciousFriendFeedNewsVineGoogle BookmarksGoogle ReaderMultiplyPosterousEmailBookmark/FavoritesWordPressShare

A lot of people have asked me if there’s any legal recourse for Shirley Sherrod after Andrew Breitbart took it upon himself to post an edited video of Sherrod on his website… a video that made her out to be a racist.  Pot. Kettle…. Black.

Jonathan Turley gives us some answers:

…The most obvious claims 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.

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. [...]

Of course, if Sherrod were to sue, she would likely make it past initial motions to dismiss and could secure embarrassing discovery in the case, including possible internal emails and communications on the purpose of the editing and release of the video.

It would be worth it for the discovery alone, regardless if her case is winnable.

And it would be worth it if for no other reason than to shine more light on a lazy media and their appalling lack of attention to thorough investigation, facts, and reporting the whole story, not just the part that will make them a profit.

H/t: Gr8RDH

Google GmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInStumbleUponRedditFarkDiggTumblrBlogger PostDeliciousFriendFeedNewsVineGoogle BookmarksGoogle ReaderMultiplyPosterousEmailBookmark/FavoritesWordPressShare
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Photographs on The Political Carnival:
Please read our policy on images from non-TPC sources in the sidebar to your right.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

  • barkway

    Oh please I hope Shirley sues Breitbart. About time someone taught that lying, manipulative sack of ___ a lesson! And he dares to call himself a “journalist?”

  • PRIMALDATA

    It seems to me that all of fox is really trying to make us forget that they pushed this like it was the goose that laid the golden egg. I don't think there is any defense of this for the person who edited it because of how the story was framed. They said a USDA official used her power of office to discriminate against a white farmer. She wasn't an official at the time of the accident, since she ended up helping the farmer there was no discrimination hell by all accounts since she was part of an organization to help black farmers the fact that she even took that man to a white lawyer was going above and beyond.

    At the time of the story she wasn't a USDA official, you can't start something off as a lie and then try to use the well I didn't mean to mislead through editing. The entirety of the story was a lie, the fact that they are now trying to sit there and finger wag at people for rushing to judgment should be used against them. Because what is there charge now:People should not have rushed to judgment, what was the rush, to me that shows that the understand the consequences of their actions, it does not show remorse and it also shows that anybody who ran with that story without doing full do dilligence wronged Ms. Sherrod.

    If that ain a slam dunk I don't know what is. Hell you don't even have to waste time asking fox for tape, just ask for this evenings rachel maddow show, or shit ask for countdown from tonight. Rachel's shows the crime and the basic admission of guilt and bad behavior(even though they did not apologize). As for not so bright brietbart the O'keefe vid shows a pattern of smearing. I say sue them all, sue them and have injunctions placed against them from broadcasting anymore garbage until any and all information they withheld on these various stories as well as correspondence passed about them can be dug up.

  • kimbutgar

    Sue their asses Sherrod! I would contribute to your legal fees. Pox and Breitbart have to be stopped. They will continue doing this until someone stands up to them and says stop you are lying and I'm not going to take it anymore!

  • http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/ GottaLaff

    Follow the link to Turley's post. The crowd reaction is not unusual, so may not be an issue.

  • Clemclan3

    “show not just the racially loaded comments of a speaker but the reaction of the audience to that portion of the speach” which is just what Breitbart has been trying to push this AM.

  • http://twitter.com/Lotus_Man Lotus_Man

    “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.”

    That, it seems, is how Breitbart is spinning what he did now, pointing to a couple muffled claps in the background of the tape. Despite his protestations, that was clearly NOT his original intent. Breitbart is a sleazy and despicable person. He was caught out and is now trying to cover his ass to protect himself from the potential law suit and whatever shred of respectability he might still have.