Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: freespirited

On what grounds is she suing?
Defamation? They were her OWN words.

I bet Andrew is laughing so hard!


4 posted on 07/29/2010 9:01:11 AM PDT by netmilsmom (I am inyenzi on the Religion Forum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: netmilsmom

The original blog was not about her at all, it was about the reaction to that portion of her speech by the racist NAACP crowd.


7 posted on 07/29/2010 9:03:02 AM PDT by Ingtar (If he could have taxed it, Obama's hole would have been plugged by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: netmilsmom

It’s still going to cost him a bundle to defend himself. I wonder if he’ll set up a defense fund?


10 posted on 07/29/2010 9:04:11 AM PDT by MizSterious ("Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: netmilsmom

I imagine she wants to claim defamation. I’m not a lawyer but I say she has no case. First she has no damages, and second, she is a public figure, which makes is damn near impossible to claim libel.

Maybe she is suing for intentional infliction of emotional distress but I doubt she has a case for that either. I dont see it as Breitbart’s fault that people misinterpreted what he posted or failed to read his intro, which is part of the problem here.

Breitbart’s intent was to call attention to the audience’s stunning reaction when she indicated she did not give the white farmer all the help she could have. I dont see the intent on his part to hurt her.


15 posted on 07/29/2010 9:06:43 AM PDT by freespirited (There are a lot of bad Republicans but there are no good Democrats.--Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: netmilsmom

>> 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.


28 posted on 07/29/2010 9:11:02 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Eat more spinach! Make Green Jobs for America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: netmilsmom
Shirley-Shirley-Bo-Birley will use the HWB defense..."Humiliated While Black".

The Holder gang will make sure she wins, as they are still pissed about Breitbart outing ACORN on the child prostitution ring video.

RaceBaitWalk

30 posted on 07/29/2010 9:12:25 AM PDT by FrankR (It doesn't matter what they call us, only what we answer to....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: netmilsmom

I bet he won’t be laughing if Judge Susan Bolton was handling his case...or any other democrat judge. Even if the law is on your side, you can no longer assume victory.


43 posted on 07/29/2010 9:19:11 AM PDT by chris37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: netmilsmom

“I bet Andrew is laughing so hard!” Me, too. He’s getting tons and tons of publicity.

Legally I don’t think she has a leg to stand on. Imagine if all the networks and newspapers could be sued for selective editing!


86 posted on 07/29/2010 12:36:19 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson