ha hah

Breitbart Gets Served With Shirley Sherrod Lawsuit At CPAC

Look what’s buried at the bottom of the New York Times CPAC straw-poll story:

Andrew Breitbart, the owner of several conservative Web sites, was served at the conference on Saturday with a lawsuit filed by Shirley Sherrod, the former Agriculture Department employee who lost her job last year over a video that Mr. Brietbart posted at his site biggovernment.com.

The video was selectively edited so that it appeared Ms. Sherrod was confessing she had discriminated against a farmer because he was white. In the suit, which was filed in Washington on Friday, Ms. Sherrod says the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work.

Mr. Breitbart said in a statement that he “categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech.”

Seems like this was kind of a big deal back when the White House made a show of firing Shirley Sherrod because Breitbart pieced together a fraudulent web video. [NYT via Wonkette commenter Greypanter]

Sponsored Video
Related

About the author

A writer and editor of this website from 2006 to early 2012, Ken Layne is occassionally seen on Twitter and writes small books and is already haunting you from beyond (your) grave.

View all articles by Ken Layne

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

90 comments

    1. Sophist [APPLESAUCE]

      Well, he did run to the rock, but the rock cried out "I can't hide you."

      I can't say I blame it.

  1. KenLayIsAlive

    “categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech.”

    Then he stuffed Reilly into his saddle bag and rode away on the highest horse ever seen.

    What a revolting man-turd.

      1. imissopus

        Well, he's either dumber than a bag of salted rat dicks, or he does know but this is part of his shtick. He gets to bluster and grandstand and tell his idiot followers that this is part of a leftist plot to shut him up for telling the truth, and so on and so forth.

        I'd be interested to know what jurisdiction she actually filed the lawsuit in. I assume California, where Big Government is based. I don't know what our libel laws are like. If he settles ahead of time or loses in front of a jury, he'll claim it's because he could never get a fair trial with a jury pool rife with Hollywood liberals. Oooo, I hope I've got jury duty that week.

        1. HistoriCat

          I'm betting on option number two – he can't be as dumb as he acts. He's a big frat-boy bully who has the "who me?" act down pat. Worthless slime.

        2. WriteyWriterton

          Won't matter too much what State she files in (though it might matter for jury selection): because he's "media," NY Times v. Sullivan and its progeny control.

          The case will be about, first, whether she's a public figure. Then, depending on whether she is or isn't found to be a public figure, his conduct gets judged by the ordinary tort standard for defamation (if she isn't a public figure) or the higher standard applicable to public figures (actual malice, which mean reckless or knowing disregard of the truth).

          I think she wins either as a public figure or a non-public target, because his conduct, if not knowing, was certainly reckless, because it seems he did no source-checking – a standard journalistic defamation-proofing practice. Then again, he's an incompetent and dishonest pig, so he wouldn't know anything about responsible journalistic practices.

    1. Boojum_Reborn

      This is a good case. Selective and deliberately misleading editing is the quintessence of reckless disregard for the truth under New York Times v. Sullivan. Go Shirley! I hope you have a good lawyer.

      1. JustPixelz

        Reckless disregard for the truth? Sounds like fun — Breitbart is a fat sack of lies. Oops, that's true. Howzabout: Breitbart hates Obama more than he loves America. Oops, also true. Got it: Breitbart is not evil. Huh … not as much fun as I'd hoped.

  2. Not_So_Much

    Nothing worse than being served while sporting an out-of-control neck beard and a Gryffindor tie while drunkenly groping young Harry. Other questions will undoubtedly arise.

      1. HistoriCat

        I don't always fuck over government employees but when I do, I prefer black women.

        or

        I don't always dry hump young writers but when I do, I prefer men.

  3. Callyson

    Well, that's what the NYT said happened. The Breitbart video, on the other hand, clearly shows that Sherrod and a few Black Panthers who acommpanied her all brandished a weapon, but they were bravely disarmed by Andy himself.
    Then Andy found the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and had Osama bin Laden killed. Also.

  4. ttommyunger

    Not one to make light of the misfortunes of others, however, in this case: BWAAAAAAHAHHHAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

      1. ttommyunger

        I wouldn't touch that jerk's prick with YOUR hands….Plus, I doubt there's enough of it to tie any kind of a knot.

          1. ttommyunger

            Googles, you say? I should google Breitbart's teeny tiny goober? Shit! It's probably smaller that Ted Nugent's! :)

          2. ttommyunger

            Always my pleasure. Feel free, (ttommyunger@mac.com) anytime, you are a worthy, and fun, sparring partner.

          3. ttommyunger

            I am laughing hysterically to cover the fact that I don't get it, but don't want you to think I am slow or dumb (which I am).

          4. user-of-owls

            After the back and forth over a misspelling by PL, he/she wrote "It is fun to spare with you a bit. :)"

            That's where the 'Spare-ing' crack came from. I'm such a spelling geek. Sorry for the confusion…again!

  5. FlipOffResearch

    I hope this heralds an era of legal parity for conservatives. That guy who guessed Palin's password gets a year, while Breitbart's chump colleague O'keefe got probation for trying to bug Sen. Landreu's phone.

    Not to mention all the war crimes the Bush administration committed. Not to mention because Obama's justice dept. never mentions them.

  6. metamarcisf

    Hey, I just posted a comment about Ann Coulter saying "more journalists should be jailed", and I received this warm response:

    "You're an active contributor over at Wonkette, where you wear your red negative points as a badge of courage.

    Wonkette routinely bans ANYONE and EVERYONE who does not kowtow to the liberal agenda. Yet, you are free to ply your filth here all you want.

    Conservative forums are far more accepting of diversity and dissent than liberal forums. "

    So, is this true. Does Wonkette "ban" people?

  7. Guppy06

    And the state has the right to enact libel laws. Ain't the constitution and its protection of states' rights grand?

    1. PublicLuxury

      The konstitwoshun dint say that peeple named Andrew can't say whatin they want. So the konstitwoshun aint got nothin' two dew wif this here thing.

    2. PresBeeblebrox

      That there libel is COMMON law, created by activist judges legislatin' from the bench and based on 300+ years of liberal, freedumb-hatin' Anglo-Murrikan legal precedent. Um, yay?

  8. PublicLuxury

    It is my sincere wish that Ms Sherrod and her lawyers shove a prize winning pumpkin up his ass so far he spits pumpkin seeds.

  9. el_donaldo

    "The transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech." Sheesh. Kinda like Giffords and Roll chilled Loughner's constitutionally protected right to fire a weapon by standing in the trajectory of the bullet, I suppose.

  10. cheaphits

    At least it will cost him a lot of $$$$ and piss him off. The courts are, unfortunately, always a crapshoot and the dice are usually loaded by shithooks like him.

  11. EatsBabyDingos

    The First Amendment protects citizens from govenrment censorship, Dimwad.

    So the Republicants can now shut up; Ms. Sherrod IS the government. It's much smaller than the 2.4 million servants we had last week, and isn't that all they care about.

    Let's hear it for the Caliphate of Shirley. May Dimwad live long in the ant pile.

    1. Negropolis

      I would never call Fuckbart a journalist…unless something like this pops up where it could cost him money/freedom, so yeah, he's a journalist for these purposes. lol

  12. robcypher

    Rumors are Mr. Breitbart is taking notes on everyone on this page who "disses" him. He claims to be a "walking hornet's nest that you don't want to mess with", and one "BMF" as well. I don't know about you guys, but I'm scared now. You can keep messing with him…but don't be surprised if your relatives receive a video in the mail of you picking your nose in church and wiping it off on the pew. Even the non-Christians too!

  13. PublicLuxury

    Lady Gaga arrives to the Grammys in an egg and Breitbart lays an egg. A coincidence? I think not.

    1. FlyOverGirl

      You know … I live by a couple of rules. 1.There are no coincidences. 2. Like attracts like. 3. You can't out crazy, crazy. Seems like a couple might apply here.

  14. PublicLuxury

    Breitbart is upset because he's not used to urbans crossing the line. Urbans are supposed to take and say, "Thank You for telling lies and being manipulative." Urbans need to remember their place.

    1. NorthStarSpanx

      And Dr. Tiller's surviving family sue Bill O'Reilly.

      Oh forget it, this is where Tort Reform would finally kick in, to protect willfully dangerous tards like Palin, O'Keefe and Breitbart.

  15. Gay Mexican Intern

    Please tell me there is video. C'mon, CPAC is crawling with people with cell phones. This has to show up on YouTube.

    All the best to Ms. Sherrod in getting what she deserves.

  16. LionelHutzEsq

    So, selectively editing videos to destroy people and advocacy groups is not a chilling effect on free speech, but suing someone for libel is. Interesting way to look at it.

    1. glamourdammerung

      I think the "argument" is more along the lines of it is alright for Breitbart to do whatever he wishes, and wrong for anyone to try to make him accept the ramifications of his behavior. After all, that is the same one his follower(s) that trolled here tries to use on a regular basis.

  17. user-of-owls

    The next papers he gets served will be for infringing on trademarked editing techniques brought by the estate of Ed Wood.

    Alas, Ed couldn't copyright his dressing habits or that would be grounds for another suit.

    1. ShaveTheWhales

      nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney

      I confess to not knowing how to interpret you. If you were to make a Venn diagram of the political/social beliefs of the five people you cite in your handle/profile, you might find a few intersections of three or four folks, but the vast majority of intersections would be between only two.

      To take a trivial example, you must realize that Ralph Nader and Ron Paul have utterly opposite views as to the proper role of government in the regulation of ordinary life. If you expect to have a coherent view of the proper role of government, you have to pick one or the other (or neither). What you cannot do is pick both.

      As near as I can tell, the only thing that the five folks you reference have in common is that they are political outsiders. Sadly, you can be an outsider for any number of reasons, none of which have any common interest with any other outsider.

      You comment here fairly often (probably more than I, although that's not a very high bar). Why? What is your actual political posture (missionary or doggie)?

      Ah, fuck it.

  18. weejee

    Bet it wuz Liz Glover who served him. From the Riley photogs last Friday she clearly had him bedazzled. Liz have you added process server to your long resume?

    1. horsedreamer_1

      This has me imagining a Pineapple Express sequel with Liz in the Rogen part & Riley in the Franco part. &, oddly, Ed Begley, Jr., is also there. (Riley's dad?)

  19. prommie

    No way that motherfucker has libel insurance, no insurance company would take him on, libel is his stock in trade. Defending this is gonna cost fuckface a shitload of money, more than his couple of websites can spare, and you can't win lawsuits by going into federal court and glowering intimidatingly at the judge.

    I'd say he's fucked, but actually, you know what will happen, the Hitler Youth randian followers will all start donating, they do love being victims, after all, it nothing makes a conservative an even greater hero to the brownshirts than persecution.

  20. mrblifil

    Hah, there is no bigger unperson in our country than an African-American woman past 50 who has worked a government job helping the poor. I expect the judge to order her to compensate Breitbart's legal fees after he gets to squat over her head and take a dump in her mouth, while the jury watches movies of Martin Lawrence in drag.

  21. DustinDeWynde

    This is rich.

    One the high points of my life recently was to have Breitbart *personally* insult me on the Twitters after I came to Sam Seder's defense.

    The reason why I'm well received here but have so many -Neg Points is because I went and mixed it up on Angry Andy's BigGov site and they set on me like a pack of rabid jackals. So there's no love lost there.

    Even better was an old GF who spotted the exchange between that thing and I who wrote:

    "A celebrity deathmatch between Breitbart & you?
    Christ."

    All that was great, but this is the awesomenessness on top of awesome.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go and laugh so hard about this that I'll wet my pants.

    1. Gay Mexican Intern

      "One the high points of my life recently was to have Breitbart *personally* insult me on the Twitters after I came to Sam Seder's defense."

      I'm sorry.

Comments are closed.