The Sherrod / Breitbart Story The Media Will Ignore
[Posted by Lee Stranahan]
While some on the left are getting their panties in a twist over Dylan Ratigan not being mean enough to Andrew Breitbart on MSNBC yesterday, a huge chunk of narrative in the Andrew Breitbart saga dropped in the past couple of days and hardly anyone seems to have paid it any mind.
Let me get my disclaimer out of the way here – I’m friends with Andrew and him working with him on the Pigford documentary, but since Shirley Sherrod filed a lawsuit against him I’ve had no substantive discussions with him about the suit. Anything I’m writing here is my own opinion.
In this PDF posted by the Blog of LegalTimes, the attorneys for Andrew Breitbart and codefendant Larry O’Connor first make overwhelmingly convincing arguments for change of venue and then lay out a clear, compelling First Amendment case that Sherrod’s suit should be dismissed.
So far, Breitbart haters like Media Matters for America have been the ones who have controlled the written narrative by laying out a timeline that conveniently starts with the publication of the video and makes scant reference to the months long battle between the NAACP and the Tea Party. Dropping that context and making it appear as though Breitbart was going after Sherrod is one of the Big Lies that’s been perpetuated about the story and Breitbart’s legal team simply lays it to waste.
It was squarely in the context of this months-long and very loud public clash between Tea Party conservatives and the NAACP and its allies in Congress that Breitbart turned the rhetorical tables with his 1400-word, July 19, 2010 commentary (the “Blog Post”) that is the subject of Sherrod’s lawsuit. See Complaint, Ex. 1. In the first half of his commentary, Breitbart accuses the NAACP of demagoguery by demanding the repudiation of “racists” within the Tea Party. He argues that the claims of the Congressional Black Caucus about the March 2010 rally in Washington, DC were nothing but a “racial” smear as it took to the airwaves to accuse the Tea Party of “racism.” He blames the Democratic Party for using charges of “racism” against the Tea Party movement as an expedient political strategy. Id. And he derides the mainstream media for falsely labeling the Tea Party as “racist” as well. It has been, he says, a summer with “race and racism” taking “center stage” and the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus playing the “race card” as “their Stradivarius.” .
It is over 800 words into the Blog Post that Breitbart first introduces Sherrod and her March 27, 2010 public appearance as an NAACP award recipient and USDA official. When he finally reaches the subject of Sherrod’s speech, the figurative labels “racist” and “racism” were a well-used part of the rhetorical feud between the Tea Party and its opponents, as is evident not only from the context of the Blog Post but from the prior year of heated dialogue. Indeed, Breitbart begins his evaluation of Sherrod’s words by noting that “by bringing up race, and demanding a zero tolerance of racism, the left, and the NAACP in particular, has opened itself up for scrutiny.
This also makes clear the real danger of the Sherrod lawsuit to anyone engaged in political debate, on the left or the right. This is a First Amendment issue, pure and simple. Shallow people like to point out that the First Amendment doesn’t give you the right to lie or some such nonsense, which is a complete diversion from the issue. Stating one’s opinion about whether someone else’s words seem racist or not isn’t a lie, it’s an opinion. If that’s grounds for litigation, then Shirley Sherrod is in trouble, too. As a brief points out…
In the heat of the charge and counter-charge that defined this episode, Sherrod herself would tell a national network news audience that Breitbart was a “racist” and that “he would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he’d like to see all black people end up again.” During this interview, Sherrod also revealed her motivation in filing this lawsuit. She stated of Breitbart, “that’s one person I’d like to get back at,” and, when asked by the CNN anchor, “Would you like his site [BigGovernment.com] to be shut down?,” Sherrod responded unequivocally, “That would be a great thing. Because I do not see how that advances us in this country.”
Thankfully the founding fathers didn’t see how censorship would advance us in this country nor did the court two-hundred years later when they looked at New York Times v. Sullivan. Political rhetoric can get fiery and public officials like Sherrod don’t like their feet being held to the fire sometimes, too bad. That’s exactly what this case is about. It’s not liberal or conservative, black or white, rich or poor – it’s about allowing breathing room for political debate.
The problem is that the mainstream press will most likely just ignore the story told in this legal brief. Politico did a piece on it which focused on the idea that it’s somehow hypocritical of Breitbart’s attorneys to want a dismissal when Breitbart had already said he relished the idea of discovery. Nowhere did they mention the heart of the legal briefing or its arguments.
Realistically, very few people are going to read the entire legal brief. Here’s another link to the PDF just in case you’re game for it. (I did read the entire brief but I’m weird that way.) It would be nice however, if some of the people that do read the entire PDF would do blog posts about it and help lay out more of the story.
– Lee Stranahan
It’s a nuisance suit, like the one that Sidney Blumenthal used to investigate everyone of the right’s top figures
narciso (79ddc3) — 4/20/2011 @ 5:03 amI hope this lawsuit is thrown out.Can you imagine the outrage from the left? That in itself would be sweet and maybe, just maybe, they will learn a lesson that lying and changing the narrative will no longer work.
your mama (805957) — 4/20/2011 @ 6:15 amJihaad by litigation — libs are learning from the muslims.
Anonyma (e5eb3e) — 4/20/2011 @ 7:36 am“When he finally reaches the subject of Sherrod’s speech, the figurative labels “racist” and “racism” were a well-used part of the rhetorical feud between the Tea Party and its opponents, as is evident not only from the context of the Blog Post but from the prior year of heated dialogue.”
There’s a new slogan for BS like this: Not intended to be a factual statement.
jonlil (2afffb) — 4/20/2011 @ 7:48 amYou neglect to address that the tape was heavily edited – puts this “speech” of Breitbart’s squarely outside of Sullivan (which was an action for defamation) and into false light privacy.
Ken (e72b11) — 4/20/2011 @ 8:38 amBreitbart’s objective neither to defame Shirley Shirley Sherrod nor to get her fired.
His purpose was to show members of the NAACP, which had complained about (imagined) racism and demanded zero tolerance, gleefully approving of anti-white sentiments. That was depicted very much IN context.
The fact that Sherrod next said that she later rethought those views doesn’t change the NAACP audience’s cheering of the original comment.
NJ Mark (ebc589) — 4/20/2011 @ 8:42 amHeavily edited. Racist. White victimhood. Smears. Out of context. these leftists are so predictable.
JD (318f81) — 4/20/2011 @ 8:44 amTHe fact that clip had circulated on a US agriculture site, two weeks before Breitbart revealed it, gives away the game
narciso (79ddc3) — 4/20/2011 @ 8:45 amThe whole purpose of the Breitbart expose was to show NAACP members cheering as Shirley Sherrod told how she had discriminated against a white farmer, although they accused TEA Partiers, including those black TEA Partiers, of being a racist organization. The point being made was the hypocracy of the NAACP, not Sherrod’s obvious racism prior to her enlightenment.
But, and I may be wrong, Sherrod is in for a hard row to hoe if she thinks that her actions, during the time frame she discussed, will not be pulling into court under disclosure. Breitbart’s attorneys will be wise to also force her to reveal her part in Pigford, as well as her husband’s actions re: Pigford. And I don’t see how she suffered any harm due to Breitbart’s article, since he did not have the authority to fire her, and did not demand her dismissal.
Also, she was a public figure, and defamation will be hard to prove since she was not only offered her job back, but would have received all back pay. It is my understanding that in a defamation suit, you have to prove a financial loss. Think Valerie Plame. Her case was thrown out of court because she could not prove financial harm.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/20/2011 @ 9:49 amYep. And Breitbart hit that mark. I do wish he had waited for more video, but I guess he didn’t think that would be coming. But he certainly made his point.
I have no idea about this lawsuit, but Sherrod’s own words are what shamed her. Her own confession about her own behavior. If she was truly repenting for what she did, why is it wrong for people to associate her with her conduct?
Would you want someone like Sherrod working for you, in a position of any responsibility? I doubt Sherrod would, if a white racist, caught on tape discriminating, was in the Bush administration, even if he said he was sooooo sorry.
This lawsuit really does seem odd in a society where we are supposedly free to speak about eachother.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/20/2011 @ 9:57 amObama and the USDA acted stupidly.
Sherrod acted more stupidly by suing Breitbart.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/20/2011 @ 10:12 amSherrod is suing the wrong party. If anything, she should be suing the Department of Agriculture.
aunursa (a2a019) — 4/20/2011 @ 10:52 amSherrod’s lawsuit will fail because it claims she lost her lively hood, but neglects the minor fact that she was offered her job back and that she refused.
Where are they wanting to move the lawsuit to? I hope it’s California… I’d pay money to watch the anti-SLAAP suit…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 4/20/2011 @ 11:07 amAlso, I think Sherrod is a f**king moron, and that her only true regret is that she didn’t know at the time of the case she was dealing with – the one who’s recounting got her fired by her superiors without them giving her a chance to defend herself – how much protection she would have gotten for discriminating against a white man.
I mean, if she had known the position the Justice Department would end up holding, she probably wouldn’t have felt the need to swallow her pride and help him. She would have been free to be as racist as she wished…
Just my opinion.
Patrick is free to give both Sherrod and her lawyers my address should the group of f**kwits care to sue.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 4/20/2011 @ 11:12 am“Sherrod is in for a hard row to hoe…”
Considering that the NAACP protested a talking greeting card for mentioning “black holes” in an astronomical context, you may wish to rephrase this or face a protest yourself.
Pious Agnostic (6048a8) — 4/20/2011 @ 2:12 pmShouldn’t Sherrod sue Obama.
Oh she’d be accused of being a far-right sellout.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/20/2011 @ 4:29 pmand the KKK were not far-right they shared the same catholic hatred as the tax and spend lefty Robert Byrd.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/20/2011 @ 4:35 pmSeems Sherrod likes to sue. This bitch is a drain on society.
gus (36e9a7) — 4/20/2011 @ 5:12 pm