Never Trust Andrew Breitbart

Post Reply New Topic

He accuses many times in the article of Sharrod as being racist and the NAACP applauding racist actions.

"Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement."


"We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions."


Which is actually in direct contrast to the point of her story had the story itself been taken in context that yes she was tempted but decided against it and did her best to help the farmer in the story. The farmer himself has also said that he didn't think he experienced any racism from Sharrod and received a good bit of help. The point of the story was to overcome your own personal biases from your past and to treat everyone equally. So given that is the true context of Sharrod's story and given that Brietbart has written an article claiming the exact opposite, I'd say that's a malicious act

So if I'm reading this correctly, your views are:

A) That libel is OK so long as the target doesn't find out (Shall I forward this thread to Breitbart.com to test this hypothesis?).

B) That having an agenda disqualifies someone from publicly expressing their opinion.

That sound about right?

It's libel if it's meant to be heard or seen by the public, or by certain individuals in order to give a damaging or misleading impression. I hardly would call our little forum of Aspies "public." And Breitbart wasn't just expressing an opinion; he was trying to cause damage to the NAACP, and whether he actually intended it or not, to Shirley Shirod. I am not trying to destroy Andrew Breitbart with my point of view, because my posts aren't going to get him fired, in trouble with the law, or harm his life in any way. The same can't be said about Breitbart's actions toward say ACORN.
And if you seriously want to forward my posts to that racist prick, go ahead. If he wants to take me to court, I suspect the judge would laugh him out of the courtroom.
Besides, don't conservatives pretend they believe in absolute freedom of speech?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I don' really know if that really makes a difference. She was an appointed public official and I assume was able to use public funds. I'm pretty sure legally she would be considered a public figure.

does anyone know, legally, at what level public employees start to become 'public figures'? Is it the aforementioned asphalt shoveler? Is it anyone with an income over, say, 50K/year? Anyone appointed to office? Anyone appointed to state-wide office? Anyone appointed to federal office? The web definitions say, 'politicans' are public figures; does someone who never ran for office count as a politician?