Is Quoting Someone Out Of Context Defamation?
from the in-the-9th-circuit... dept
Earlier this year, there was certainly plenty of discussion in the political news business of the Shirley Sherrod incident, where Andrew Breitbart posted a video of Sherrod speaking, which implied she had made certain decisions on the basis of skin color. However, after Sherrod was fired from her job at the USDA, it quickly came out that the video clips of Sherrod speaking were taken totally out of context, and the message of the speech was completely the opposite of what had been implied. This quickly resulted in a scramble as pretty much every publication in the world covering the story wrote articles questioning whether or not she had a legitimate case of libel.Of course, as with any highly politically charged legal discussion, it often appeared that those picking a side over whether or not she had a case might have been somewhat influenced by their political views on the matter. However, much of the discussion focused on what Breitbart said separately in relation to the video, rather than the video itself. Still, a recent case may bring the video back into discussion.
Michael Scott points us to the news of a recent ruling against newscaster John Stossel for allegedly posting video that was apparently taken out of context, and while a lower court protected him via California's anti-SLAPP law, an appeals court has ruled that the defamation case can move forward over the video. It doesn't mean that the defamation claim will necessarily stand, but the video edit and context apparently is seen as grounds for a potential defamation claim:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: andrew breitbart, defamation, editing, john stossel, shirley sherrod, video
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whenever someone's statements are being given, it should be THE WHOLE STATEMENT IN QUESTION!
For goodness sakes, you can make someone look like they support rapists by taking their comments out of context, when if you had the ENTIRE statement, you would see that they were saying that we have extended the definition of 'rapist' out too far in their opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quoting out of context isn't illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if this is the case
Those websites are a perfect example of quote-mining and distorting the words of others to make a point that is the exact opposite of what the original person actually said.
As happy as I would be to see those sites go, I fear for the potential harm to free speech.
What about unintentional quote mining? What if I innocently repeat an out-of-context quote?
What if I deconstruct an argument and they think I was quote mining?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defamation
Of course it is not.
And if you quote me saying otherwise, I'll sue!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defamation
>Of course it is not.
>And if you quote me saying otherwise, I'll sue!
To more properly quote Karl on what he should have meant-
Of course it is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Defamation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Defamation
Your Lack Of HTML Skills armor is nothing against my +8 Vorpal Sword of Law!
...Okay, even I'm ashamed that I wrote that last sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
I see this as being a BOON with the news organizations and making things a lot more fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defamation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Defamation
It's interesting how this may be a valid concern and yet it is ok to quote her entire speech in text.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the point of the video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the point of the video
If Breitbart can be sued for defamation, then he should also be able to sue the news stations that took his message and intent out of context as well. He never meant to attack or defame Sherrod, but to show the crowd's reaction. So his message has been taken out of context just as Sherrod's quotes were taken out of context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By strange coincidence, Breitbart and Stossel both neo-cons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Faux news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's called at-will employment
At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargain (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine:
“ any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[1] ”
Several exceptions to the doctrine exist, especially if unlawful discrimination is involved regarding the termination of an employee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@3 HUH?
george bush and his numpty colin powel also were famous for taking words out of context...if this be true perhaps i should sue them from canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you kidding?
"Though cameras never lie, the edits often do..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another SLAPP Lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If not, then no
It seems clear to me that people editing things to say something wrong AND with the intent of making the person look bad....is and should be clearly illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's about more than the tape
A tape may be utterly true but the actions of publishing may be libelous when the written description of the tape is libelous.
So in addition to the tape, Breitbart may have engaged in libel in two other ways:
1) the words he used to describe the tape;
2) the words others used to describe the tape, that he, as an editor and publisher, was responsible for publishing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Polititians would have to be exempt...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]