If The Whole World Knows A False Statement Was Made About You... Why Still Sue For Defamation?
from the give-it-up dept
Last year, we had a brief discussion about whether or not Andrew Breitbart's actions toward Shirley Sherrod represented defamation. If you (lucky you!) missed this story last year, it involved Breitbert publishing a video of Sherrod giving a talk. The clip was taken totally out of context, and thus suggested Sherrod favored people based on race, when the point of the speech was actually exactly the opposite. However, very quickly after the video came out (and Sherrod was forced out of her government job), all of this came out. If anything, the backlash got a lot more attention than the original story did. It hurt Andrew Breitbart's credibility, and turned Sherrod (who was offered her job back) into a huge public platform to discuss a variety of issues.In other words, the marketplace of ideas actually worked without involving the courts. Those who did wrong were punished, and those who were wronged were rewarded.
But... sometimes the legal system is just too tempting, and many months later, Sherrod has followed through on earlier threats and sued Breitbart for defamation. The lawsuit is a longshot, to say the least. Breitbart has a bunch of pretty strong defenses and it will be a surprise if he doesn't prevail. That's not to support what he did, which was pretty questionable, but to show that you don't always have to go legal. In discussing the case, Paul Levy points out that the lack of any real damages is an issue:
What Breitbart did was outrageous, and actionable. But what happened after his broadcast is in many ways testimony to the power of the marketplace of ideas to vindicate the truth far better than any lawsuit can do. Sherrod was completely vindicated in the public's eyes, she was offered her job back or even a promotion. So I wonder whether she has awardable damages, and even more I question the judgment involved in filing the lawsuit.We live in a litigious society, no doubt. But it's a bit disturbing how often people feel the need to file a lawsuit "because they can," without looking at the larger scenario and understanding whether or not it makes sense. Frankly, filing this lawsuit may do a lot more damage to her reputation than anything Breitbart did. She came out of that situation with a much stronger reputation. The same probably won't be said of the lawsuit.
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, shirley sherrod
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So Sherrod should just roll over and take it?
Breitbart didn't attack Sherrod to be mean. He attacked her because his JOB is to attack liberals, especially minorities. The defamation was calculated and meant to injure the entire African American community. Sherrod was just the vehicle for a much greater slander.
The major media was very slow to pick up on this libel, and they failed utterly to look beyond this one case. For the most part they did not walk this back to the ACORN tapes, which were every bit as fraudulent as the Sherrod video. And now Lila Rose, James O'Keefe's ACORN partner, is falsely accusing Planned Parenthood of breaking the law with more edited tapes.
It's vitally important that someone with legal standing take these serial slanderers to court. Please search for Breitbart at Media Matters to learn more about his anti-liberal, anti-minorities jihad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Sherrod should just roll over and take it?
Um. Did I say that? No. I said that the marketplace of ideas clearly hit back at Breitbart over this.
Andrew Breitbart has been serially defaming Sherrod ever since the initial flap. He's now focused on the Pigford settlement. Please read Media Matters for America, which has done yeoman's work in chronicling all of Breitbart's attacks on Sherrod.
But here's the thing: he has no credibility on this any more, and it's difficult to take him seriously.
Breitbart didn't attack Sherrod to be mean. He attacked her because his JOB is to attack liberals, especially minorities. The defamation was calculated and meant to injure the entire African American community. Sherrod was just the vehicle for a much greater slander.
And it backfired big time.
That's the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So Sherrod should just roll over and take it?
If he comes out with a big todo about the Pigford stuff, especially is it has video of someone seemingly acting badly, it will be all over the TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So Sherrod should just roll over and take it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So Sherrod should just roll over and take it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So Sherrod should just roll over and take it?
Over half of self-identified Republicans are birthers, according to some recent polling. You might dismiss them, but, as they say, they are legion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Sherrod should just roll over and take it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So Sherrod should just roll over and take it?
Well informed people didn't take Hitler seriously either. And before you invoke Godwin's Law, remember that Godwin created it because liberals were scoring too many points by comparing Bush-Cheney policies to the 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism. They flunked that test, so they agreed on a rule to never talk about fascism again.
Theirs is a closed universe, and you can't dismiss their lies so lightly because they don't acknowledge your arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this statement qualify as ending the conversation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously the example is contrived, but just because Sherrod was vindicated in the end doesn't mean that a) she didn't suffer for the duration and b) a legal wrong wasn't committed. I don't know the particulars of defamation law, so I can't comment on the legitimacy of the claim, but supposing it is I have no problem with her doing this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
B) She accomplished everything she would have with a lawsuit without one.
C) There was no physical injury.
D) The other party probably will take years to have his reputation back, if you think she suffered you know nothing on how society deals with liars that harm others in public.
A more accurate analogy would be that you lost your leg for negligence on somebody else and that person lost his job, credibility and people all around you gave you money and a means to keep living, why sue after that?
Because people are emotional and want to inflict as much harm to the other party as they possibly can, that is the scary part of human nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: breitbart vs sherrod
presumably, he knew his video didn't portray the substance of the whole monologue, or he wouldn't have felt the need to leave out the real story. sue the hell out of the unrepentant (in fact boastful of their skill) liars, they don't know moral shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While her name may have been cleared, Breitbart got off with a, "shame on you and don't do it again." For somebody in his position, that is pretty meaningless, and he gets off scot-free. The lawsuit, right or wrong, adds incentive for him to be more careful about making the same errors in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...the "justice" system...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And she's doing so with a very high powered lawyer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I get that, and it makes sense to an extent. Mike isn't trying to say that she shouldn't use the legal system, just because he doesn't want her to. I believe he's simply asking the question, is it really necessary to kill someone (sue them in court) just to set the punishment in stone? That black eye isn't going away for at least as long as the lawsuit outcome would be remembered anyway. The guy already lost all of his credibility, so why does she need to use taxpayer money in court to essentially establish what the "court of the common man" or in the terms used, the marketplace of ideas, has already established??
Personally, I can't pick a side on this issue... I do think that some annoyances need to be dealt with in the fullest extent possible, but I also believe that any court case that isn't really necessary is a huge waste of valuable resources and I frown upon them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In a direct sense, as I said In my other comment, there is a signaling function at work. If you have to view it through metaphor, think of it as publicly punching back at a bully - if you win, or at least not lose too badly, you've damaged the bully's social capital as a bully.
But I suspect there is personal animus here, too. I'd be pissed, if I were her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Litigious Society
A wise man once asked, "IS there none of you wise enough to settle such things without going to a Judge?, it is to your shame that you take matters before a court, that can easily be settled amongst yourselves" (paraphrase)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Litigious Society
Since, in most cases of dispute, the parties are affronted and unwilling to resolve their conflict with unimpassioned debate and fall to the latter end of the scale, society has determined that it is in the best interest to keep the peace to have the conflict moderated and determined by an experienced disinterested third-party and end it there with the force of law.
Now say with two parties, A and B where d= diplomatic and u=undiplomatic, it charts as such:
A | B
-----
d | d = probably no need for arbitrator
d | u = potential for vigilantism, need for arbitration
u | d = potential for vigilantism, need for arbitration
u | u = Hatfield vs. McCoys, need for arbitration
as you can see it takes two to tango and that is the more rare form, just because of human nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously, the fact that he made a blatantly false statement HASN'T hurt him. And as long as his reputation is still in tact, and people continue to see him as a hero, essentially escaping without consequences, it will just be an invitation to do the same thing again to someone else.
I can't agree with you here, Mike. Costing him time and money fighting this lawsuit will make him think long and hard about doing the same thing again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But you have to consider the kind of people who consider him a hero.
Having said that, I can't really blame her for filing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She was personally injured...
It doesn't really matter that "society" "fixed" the problem. Breitbart arguably defamed Sherrod, which caused her some injury. HE owes her now. The fact that he was "punished" in the public eye does not compensate Sherrod. The fact that her employer offered her her job back is not the same as being compensated by the one done her wrong.
Besides, it's not clear that "everyone" knows it was a false (or at least way misleading) claim about Sherrod. Sherrod was dragged into the public eye, labeled a racist, fired and publicly humiliated. I would expect that she also sues for IIED/NIED, since Breitbart's conduct was arguably outrageous and egregious. Anyway, I wouldn't doubt but that there are still plenty of people who consider Sherrod to be "that racist government woman who got fired when she was exposed."
Without going into whether or not I think Sherrod was actually wise to tell her story as she did - I hope she gets a nice, fat judgment out of Breitbart as a warning to all that Free Speech is not a license to twist the facts in the name of political zealousness.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Making him PAY will be a damn good deterrent. If he knows that such actions could cost him time and money to defend against lawsuits, he may be a lot less willingly to pull the same crap in the future. Because not even all the support of all the sheep in the world will keep him from losing his money defending himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So it cant be defamation? That might be the most thin useless rebuttal to an honest comment about the ongoing defamation, and how it meets all the characteristics of.
Luckily the "Masnick thinks the defamer is a joke" precedent has not been established as a reason for dismissal.
"And it backfired big time"
No, its ongoing, and thats the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seen it before
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all about the soundbite and the catchy quote, doesn't matter what context it comes from, that sound bite can ruin a career.
If someone prints or quotes one small part from something you say, I am not sure that can be considered defamation. Can it? The person did make the statement, used out of context of course, but is that against the rules?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all political
Breitbart might not be perfect, but at least he got this story out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's all political
Sherrod doesn't need to sue, she has to sue and she has to do so as publicly as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sherrod Is Taking the Correct Action
The lawsuit isn't to determine whether or not the action of defamation was committed; it's to determine damages that Sherrod may have suffered through a voluntary action performed by Breitbart.
Our society may be overly litigious, however, at least we have ways and methods of seeking recourse, relief, and repayment of losses.
I'm a huge fan of Breitbart's, but the truth is that had he not edited and posted that video (all conscious actions), then Sherrod would not have lost her job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defamation Lawsuits establish "fact"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]