Ousted Obama official to sue blogger
By Brian Kirwin | Thursday, July 29th, 2010 | PolicyI better watch out. Bloggers are lawsuit-bait for thin-skinned liberals who don’t like it when bloggers show videos of speeches.
Shirley Sherrod, whose videotaped comments about sending a white farmer to “one of them that his own kind would take care of him” since she “didn’t give him the full force of what I could do,” has decided to sue the blogger who played the video excerpt that led her to being fired and subsequently coddled.
At the National Association of Black Journalists convention in San Diego, Ms. Sherrod said she would “definitely” file a lawsuit. The type of suit is unclear.
“He had to know that he was targeting me,” she said in a speech at the convention.
Quite the speaking gig she’s got going on, eh?
Let’s see. If “targeting” a public figure by playing a clip of a speech is something to sue over, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and a host of other news networks and programs better open the checkbook.
Wonder what the statute of limitations are about media sources “targeting” public figures by playing a few sentences of a speech.
Dan Quayle can be the richest man in America. Someone tell Sarah Palin she can sue the media. Newt. Bush. WOW! This could be a lawyer’s field day. The Washington Post better watch out for George Allen’s attorney.
Hey, Sherrod. Here’s a hint. When you give a speech, especially a distinctly long and boring one to audiences as diverse and multi-cultural as the NAACP and the National Association of Black Journalists, some media will probably report parts of your speech without playing the entire insomnia-curing thing.
And let’s get another thing straight. If, a few years ago, a white Bush Administration official gave a speech to a Whites organization and talked about how he was supposed to help this black farmer, and he didn’t do everything he could’ve and just sent him to “one of his kind,” what do you think the Left would be saying?
And if he whined that he was taken out of context, would the Left suddenly say “OK, we understand. Everybody gets too worked up.”
And if that Bush Administration official decided to sue the blogger who reported what he said, the nutroots would explode.
So let’s cut the hypocrisy. Sherrod is becoming a huge embarrassment. Her 15 minutes are up.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
Comments
5 Responses to "Ousted Obama official to sue blogger"
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bearing Drift, Old Virginia. Old Virginia said: New Blog Post: Ousted Obama official to sue blogger http://bearingdrift.com/2010/07/29/ousted-obama-official-to-sue-blogger/ [...]
Sherrod is a racist clown.
I heard much of her severely edited speech. If a White man had made a similar speech, he would have been fired, and stayed fired, for what would have been labeled as, poor judgment.
We are being told to believe that although the speech was a long time ago, her admission of racist behavior was only to demonstrate that she had changed her ways.
However, given that she was fired based on a doctored version of the tape, and that the doctoring was done by “not so” Breitbart, then “not so” Breitbart is clearly liable for actually showing a black racist in action. That’s not going to be allowed by this administration.
Even if we take the racial element out of the equation, “not so” Breitbart (and others like him) deserve to be raked over the coals for selectively editing footage to smear political opponents. It is well past time for that crap to stop, or at least for those engaging in the misrepresentation of video and recorded media, to be severely punished.
In other parts of the world, people who publish false or misleading video or audio, get whacked. Here in America, we kill them using something akin to a rusty knife; the law suit.
I would award Sherrod the following: 1. Public apology from “not so” Breitbart. 2. Monetary award equal to one year’s wages for Sherrod. 3. Ban “not so” from using the web or digital devices for one year.
Scum such as “not so” Breitbart, do not deserve to breathe the same air as civilized people.
“We believe this infamous campaign of “change” from Chicago encouraged and created an army to steal caucus packets, falsify documents, change results, allow unregistered people to vote, scare and intimidate Hillary supporters, stalk them, threaten them, lock them out of their polling places, silence their voices and stop their right to vote, which is, of course, all documented in “We Will Not Be Silenced.”
Would you like to discuss this ???
http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm
Concerning the Sherrod fiasco.
Since the NAACP had the complete Sherrod tape, who in the NAACP gave the tape to Breitbart and why ?
“However, given that she was fired based on a doctored version of the tape”
Notice, by the way, that Breitbart alerts the viewer that “Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help.” It’s in the video and it is in the text of Breitbart’s original post on the topic. But the mainstream media selectively edits out this exonerating fact in virtually every story about Breitbart. So the subsequent charges against Breitbart by the mainstream media that his editing was misleading was itself misleading and wrong.
Why did the NAACP and White House ignore that part ??
Why did the White House fire Sherrod so quickly ?
Why did the NAACP and White House condemn Sherrod for being racist so fast ??
Why did the NAACP and White House blame fox news for misleading them when they acted BEFORE fox news reported any of this?
Yes there are lots of questions. And there are many more that I could ask. But most people can figure out what was really going on.
My opinion is that Sherrod’s speech might be described as laudable. In it she depicts a personal example of how she had to overcome her own racism and help out a poor white farmer in need.
I think this type of leadership is what our society needs. Breitbart’s selective editing of her speech so that it proves the opposite of what the the speaker attempted to convey is worthy of condemnation.
But a lawsuit? If I was on the jury I would rule in her favor but limit the damages awarded to a single dollar. Actually I think Ms Sherrod has probably benefited from all the publicity so why the need for damages? Ms Sherrod’s stock has actually gone up due to the notoriety.
I will praise Ms Sherrod for giving this speech in front of the NAACP and a primarily black audience where she communicated that racism is not just a one way street. She should be lauded for her courageous leadership.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.