Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Recall that a certain USDA employee (Sherrod) was summarily fired because of a video clip posted on a blog site (Breitbart). Now she's suing Breitbart...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... d8dd290197

Assuming the article presents the facts, here's a summary of events:

1. Breitbart posts a video clip of Sherrod on his website (hey, 1st Amendment)
2. USDA and the administration summarily fires Sherrod (over a blog posting and without doing any type of investigation)
3. Someone then decides to watch the entire video (after she was fired and criticized by left, right, and center)
4. Obama apologizes (most politicians practice smiling, I bet he practices apologizing)
5. USDA apologizes and offers to reinstate her but she refuses
6. Sherrod decides to sue Breitbart (1st Amendment again and before anyone criticizes what he did recall that obama, USDA, and a host on the left jumped the gun...all because of a BLOG posting and without bothering to do any type of investigation...pretty lame)
7. Sherrod states in the article that she's out of work and has not received a job offer from anyone including USDA (uh, didnt the head guy at USDA offer your job back but you refused)
8. Now poor Sherrod says she's out of work and doesn't know what she's going to do so she's going to sue

Nonsense at its best folks and all courtesy of the twits on the left...

IMHO this one goes right up there with the $10M awarded to the poor poor woman who spilled coffee on herself at the McD drive through...oh, almost forgot...the guy at the window neglected to tell her that the cup of hot coffee she just grabbed was hot...

The editing (the real issue of the allegation) could be construed as defamation of character; which did have a direct economic impact on her; she lost her job and suffered loss of reputation.

The fact her employer jumped the gun is notwithstanding; the "liberal media" (who you think would have swept this under the rug...oh wait, there is no such thing) blew it up so big and so fast they didn't really have a chance to pursue restraint.

I do hope her suit is successful; maybe it will deter crap like this in future. What he did was dishonest and underhanded.

Kreutz wrote:The editing (the real issue of the allegation) could be construed as defamation of character; which did have a direct economic impact on her; she lost her job and suffered loss of reputation.

The fact her employer jumped the gun is notwithstanding; the "liberal media" (who you think would have swept this under the rug...oh wait, there is no such thing) blew it up so big and so fast they didn't really have a chance to pursue restraint.

I do hope her suit is successful; maybe it will deter crap like this in future. What he did was dishonest and underhanded.

+1

This crap has to stop on both sides.

I remember seeing the full version video, not some edited version. The lady was guilty of being a human being, with what most people would consider normal feelings, that said, she was re-offered her position and really shouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. The Juan Williams firing would seem to have more of a legal leg to stand on than this, but I don't think he is sueing anybody.

My take is that this country loves a good story. Right or wrong, true or false if it looks like you could get a book signing deal, they'll tell it. As for the suit, I think she should have taken back her former position to keep from losing her "reputation". This seems a little bit underhanded, a suit after a job offer.
Maybe we'll see the other side of the race card now? I hope not. Enough is enough.

The way I see it, she was offered her job back and wouldn't take it. She thereby failed in her duty to mitigate her damages. If the editor did do hewr an injury, his liability for the loss of her job runs only from the time she got fired until the time she refused re-employment. After that, it's her own fault she's unemployed. At that point, she played the "victim" card. That's a bigger problem these days than the race card. Poor, pitiful me - I'm now entitled to a big free ride because I was done wrong. That didn't absolve her from the responsibility to support herself for the rest of her life.

Kreutz wrote:The editing (the real issue of the allegation) could be construed as defamation of character; which did have a direct economic impact on her; she lost her job and suffered loss of reputation.

The fact her employer jumped the gun is notwithstanding; the "liberal media" (who you think would have swept this under the rug...oh wait, there is no such thing) blew it up so big and so fast they didn't really have a chance to pursue restraint.

I do hope her suit is successful; maybe it will deter crap like this in future. What he did was dishonest and underhanded.

That doesnt matter...what matters is everyone jumped the gun and she was fired without any investigation. Furthermore she was offered her job back and refused. Now she complains she has no job and doesnt know what to do...

We could debate all night whether or not it was defamation of character but the fact is this: it was a Blog post...anyone, anywhere can create a Blog and post pretty much whatever they want. Thats what Blogs are for. And, anyone (especially senior government officials) that believe outright stuff posted on a Blog is an idiot moron twit.

Breitbart will loose the court case for two reasons he's male and he's white. Case closed, he's guilty get the rope.

Jim

I was listening to the radio this evening and someone pointed out the fact that Mr Breitbart was not the individual who fired her. If anybody should have been sued it was her suervisor, her supervisor's supervisor and on up. It all goes back to her having been offered her position back and she chose not to accept it, what monetary loss did she suffer and did she have any responsibility for it.

If you haven't seen the movie Absence of Malice, let me recommend it...highly recommend it.

And malice will be a key in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

grumpyMSG wrote:I was listening to the radio this evening and someone pointed out the fact that Mr Breitbart was not the individual who fired her. If anybody should have been sued it was her suervisor, her supervisor's supervisor and on up. It all goes back to her having been offered her position back and she chose not to accept it, what monetary loss did she suffer and did she have any responsibility for it.

Yup. They all jumped the gun over a Blog post without bothering to do even the most basic investigation...

I would bet there is a little voice ( NAACP or other group(s) whispering SUE SUE SUE SUE them for this mistreatment even after you were offered an apology and your position back with full seniority because we need the publicity. More misdirected grandstanding for something that should have been settled as soon as the apology and job offer was made, If she refused them,, TS lady! now go away

Appointees serve at the pleasure/whim of the appointer. If this person was rank and file, I would call it a hostile work environment.

Kreutz wrote:The editing (the real issue of the allegation) could be construed as defamation of character; which did have a direct economic impact on her; she lost her job and suffered loss of reputation.

The fact her employer jumped the gun is notwithstanding; the "liberal media" (who you think would have swept this under the rug...oh wait, there is no such thing) blew it up so big and so fast they didn't really have a chance to pursue restraint.

I do hope her suit is successful; maybe it will deter crap like this in future. What he did was dishonest and underhanded.

+1. I hope she successfully sues Breitbart into beggary.

CowboyT wrote:I hope she successfully sues Breitbart into beggary.

It really could happen to anyone in the public eye, and she didn't deserve what she got.

Her case isn't that strong legally (the damages would be small) but I would like it to succeed just to make people like Breitbart (deceitful opportunists) realize there could be a financial consequence for manipulating information to harm individuals to advance a goal, there definitely was malice in his actions.

CowboyT wrote:

Kreutz wrote:The editing (the real issue of the allegation) could be construed as defamation of character; which did have a direct economic impact on her; she lost her job and suffered loss of reputation.

The fact her employer jumped the gun is notwithstanding; the "liberal media" (who you think would have swept this under the rug...oh wait, there is no such thing) blew it up so big and so fast they didn't really have a chance to pursue restraint.

I do hope her suit is successful; maybe it will deter crap like this in future. What he did was dishonest and underhanded.

+1. I hope she successfully sues Breitbart into beggary.

Breitbart did nothing but bait his hook and cast into a pond with lots of big hungry fish. They all took the bait and ran with it. The person culpable is her boss who fired her without looking deeper AND taking content posted on a Blog as gospel. Furthermore, Breitbart posted said content on a site that he fully owns and manages...not by any syndicated or otherwise news agency.

Shame on her boss and everyone that believed the Blog post and took immediate action without additional investigation. Pretty stupid on their part if you ask me.

I would be suing them if I were here...for defamation of character...

The 1st has limits just like the 2nd Amendment...my right to own firearms ends when I decide to use them to unjustly harm you. There are legal limitations on the first as well such as libel, defamation of character, slander, etc. The fact that Breitbart "owns" the blog is irrelevant; it was a public sphere.

Clearly Breitbart edited the tape, but every news story anywhere is edited. In general, most news is more like propaganda in that we only get the parts that the "reporters" want us to know about. E.g. the brutal rape and beating of that CBS reporter. They sat on it for days (so as not to contradict Obama's official storyline that these are peaceful "democratic" protesters) and when it finally was reported they left out critical details such as the crowd chanting "Jew, Jew, Jew" while committing this awful act. When the details finally come out the "media" decides to attack those who reported it and make up excuses for her Muslim attackers. Breitbart wanted to stir the pot, but CBS wanted to mislead a whole nation into supporting a riot which is looking ever more likely to turn out like Iran.

When ever they media reports on guns we find it comical because they either are completely lacking in research and understanding or they are lying through their teeth because the truth doesn't fit their agenda. You really think that stops when they report on other things?

News reporting is dead.

What he said.

Also, do you libs and others who are defending this ho realize this person just 3 days prior to being hired at the USDA received a "settlement" totaling $13,000,000 relating to this Pigford USDA negro "farming" scam? She can suck it and die.

Look it up. "Biggest scam against federal taxpayers in the history of the US." - John Stringfellow, farm loan supervisor

This negro race pimp says he doesn't care if those claiming discrimination were really farmers since "if you are african-American, you deserve $50,000 because your roots are in farming, and your folk have already been cheated." Claimants are "collecting what their grandparents didn't have the opportunity to." (reparations) - Gary Grant president of Black Farmers & Agric. Assoc.

Just wait until the cases hit for hispanic farmers and women farmers. They are working their way through the courts.

Quoted liberally from National Review 2/21/2011 article

gunderwood wrote:The 1st has limits just like the 2nd Amendment...my right to own firearms ends when I decide to use them to unjustly harm you. There are legal limitations on the first as well such as libel, defamation of character, slander, etc. The fact that Breitbart "owns" the blog is irrelevant; it was a public sphere.

Clearly Breitbart edited the tape, but every news story anywhere is edited. In general, most news is more like propaganda in that we only get the parts that the "reporters" want us to know about. E.g. the brutal rape and beating of that CBS reporter. They sat on it for days (so as not to contradict Obama's official storyline that these are peaceful "democratic" protesters) and when it finally was reported they left out critical details such as the crowd chanting "Jew, Jew, Jew" while committing this awful act. When the details finally come out the "media" decides to attack those who reported it and make up excuses for her Muslim attackers. Breitbart wanted to stir the pot, but CBS wanted to mislead a whole nation into supporting a riot which is looking ever more likely to turn out like Iran.

When ever they media reports on guns we find it comical because they either are completely lacking in research and understanding or they are lying through their teeth because the truth doesn't fit their agenda. You really think that stops when they report on other things?

News reporting is dead.

The basic point is that a Blog IS NOT NEWS and most of them are NOT FACTUAL...merely someones ramblings and musings much like many of our posts here. No comparison can be made between a real news site and a Blog post. None whatsoever. One is supposed to be the news and the other someones ramblings...

I am not saying what Breitbart did was right or wrong. And what he did isnt germane to my ramblings here...its what the administration did...

The point I'm trying to make is that the administration took harsh action over a Blog (read - non-authoritative by default) post. That should be making heads roll...not what he posted.

If the administration will shoot from the hip over something like this who or what is next...

Tweaker wrote:

Also, do you libs and others who are defending this ho realize this person just 3 days prior to being hired at the USDA received a "settlement" totaling $13,000,000 relating to this Pigford USDA negro "farming" scam? She can suck it and die.

Just more of the permanetly offended using the rule book that only applies to them,that we as a society have sadly allowed to happen. Every time one so much as looks like they're going to bitch Politicians and Glee clubs like NAACP wet their pants in their haste to further push this BS down our throats.I wonder just how far some of this would go if the White House and Attorney Generals offices were held by responsible people instead of the so called adults that are there now?