>> I bet Andrew is laughing so hard!
Maybe.
It’ll be a nuisance to defend against the frivolous lawsuit.
She’ll get free minority lawyers to carry her water, but Andrew will have to pay for his defense.
My guess is, it’ll be thrown out fairly early because:
1) He did not edit the video, he excerpted it.
2) His stated purpose was never to frame HER as a racist, but rather to frame the entire NAACP as racist, and therefore hypocrites.
3) The portion he excerpted accomplished exactly that. It showed NAACP members LAUGING and CHEERING when she spoke about screwing Whitey.
Each of them will obtain free press for their cause. Hard to say which one will benefit the most from it. But I bet not a nickel in damages changes hands — either in court, or out of court.
This is where I disagree with you. Shirley's image will be damaged by the press because the facts about her lawsuit against USDA will come out in a big way. [Settlement 13 million in taxpayer money for her group, plus another 300K to Shirley and her husband for their alleged suffering]. She will look less like a victim and more like a shakedown artist.
I didnt see the video on Andrew’s site. Did he specifically state that that was his reasoning for the excerpt? To prove NAACP as hypocrits?
Even if not, I don’t see how its against the law to show an excerpt of any video. Doesnt it happen everyday? It is up the viewers of those videos to do their homework, and not be lazy, and discover what’s in the entire video before reacting—or over-react.