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.

Filed Under: andrew breitbart, defamation, shirley sherrod

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: Of course, Breitbart claims he didn't edit the video in the Sherrod case, which then raises other legal questions about whether or not he's protected himself on the video part, and whether or not he can use journalist shield laws to protect the "source" who provided him the video. All in all, while I can understand the desire to push a libel case in such situations, I do wonder if it actually results in much good. At this point, it's difficult to find anyone who isn't familiar with the "full story" of what happened with the out-of-context video, so it's not about "correcting" false info that's out there. Still, this latest ruling is a reminder that if you happen to quote someone out of context, you may risk a defamation claim.

Filed Under: andrew breitbart, defamation, editing, john stossel, shirley sherrod, video

CNN Claims 'Something Must Be Done' About Anonymous Bloggers

from the yes,-but... dept

If you follow political news even slightly, by now, you've probably heard about the whole Shirley Sherrod incident, involving an edited video of a talk she gave, which took her quotes out of context and made it appear she was saying exactly the opposite of what she was actually saying. The original video appeared on Andrew Breitbart's website, so it seemed kind of odd in discussing this incident, that two CNN anchors spent the majority of a video segment attacking anonymity on the internet. The first two minutes just complain about the internet in general, aided by a typically cranky Andrew Keen, but after the Keen segment, Kyra Phillips and John Roberts focus on the fact that people won't put their name behind what they say online: Of course, anonymity had nothing to do with this incident at all. All of the players were known, so it seems odd to pick on anonymity. On top of that, both Phillips and Roberts seem woefully clueless on the subject of anonymity and liability. Roberts notes that Keen told him about companies that try to ruin other companies by posting false information online. What companies? He doesn't say. Where's the proof that this is happening? He doesn't say. Why the companies who have had falsehoods spread about them by other companies haven't sued for defamation? He doesn't say. In fact, Phillips falsely implies that there are no remedies for this, and suggests it's ridiculous that people have "freedom of defamation." She goes on to say that something needs to be done, and implies that the law needs to change, saying "something's going to have to be done legally," and that there needs to be "accountability." Um.... except defamation laws already allow people to sue over anonymous falsehoods. You would think that newscasters arguing over this point would know the basics like that.

But an even bigger point, as raised by Glenn Greenwald, is the fact that CNN relies on anonymous quotes all the time. It doesn't take long to find articles on CNN that quote anonymous officials. For them to rage against "cowards" who won't stand behind what they say, and then to regularly quote "anonymous" sources, seems pretty damn hypocritical. Phillips claims anonymity online is "very unfair." Phillips also attacks the media for "giving anonymous bloggers credit or credibility." But again, CNN quotes all kinds of anonymous sources all the time.

Later on, Roberts suggests anonymous blogging "has its place" and suggests that place is Iran and North Korea. But not the US. The authors of The Federalist Papers are rolling over in their graves.

Filed Under: andrew breitbart, anonymity, bloggers, free speech, john roberts, journalists, kyra phillips, reporting, shirley sherrod
Companies: cnn