[Tublecane]

It may not have been perfectly fair, but from what I understand all Breitbart did was show what she actually said, albeit in a truncated manner. He didn’t use editing to misrepresent her so much as give the wrong impression by taking one part of her speech out of context.

You can’t sue someone for being misleading, intentionally or not. Especially if Breitbart linked to the full video, as I assume he did. If that sort of thing is forbidden, say goodbye to that thing they call “journalism.” Even if you think Breitbart’s a clown, in this instance what he did was not fundamentally different than what the New York Times et. al. has done thousands of times.

[saltus]

If she shows that Breitbart made her a subject of public ridicule—when before she was an unknown—she will win easily.

Cutting/editing a tape to be misleading/misrepresenting/untruthful is grounds for defamation. Any conservative would agree.

Breitbeardy is merely a scandal monger.

[boatbums]

If I remember the whole purpose of that video, it was in response to the NAACP’s assertion about the Tea Party being racists. He showed the video not primarily to shoot Sherrod down, but to show what kind of speakers the NAACP used at their events - and it WAS at an NAACP event where she was speaker. Breitbart also pointed out the laughter and cheers from the attendees in response to her statements about discriminating against a white farmer. They showed yet again how the NAACP, who cries racist every time they get a smidgen of a chance were racists themselves.

We may see Ms. Sherrod being hushed over this as they realize the context surrounding the video and the blatant hypocrisy of the NAACP being demonstrated over and over again. Perhaps she is secretly shaking THEM down and not Breitbart.