B
ballz2wallz
Guest
If this were really something you believed in, you would nrabroad
continue to stand by your liberal "principles"
continue to stand by your liberal "principles"
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
O
Ozmar
Guest
He was in possession of edited forabroad
age while aware that there was additional forabroad
age in existence that was unedited (un-tampered). He purposely released this edited (tampered)forabroad
age, which was nrabroad
factual because while it does show Ms Sherrod speaking those words, it does nrabroad
show in its entirety the course of events that took place in her given speech, thus the edited clips do nrabroad
represent reality?
Given that it was Breitbart's ethical responsibility as a course of journalistic integrity nrabroad
to release said forabroad
age with the full knowledge that there was a more accurate documentation of how real events happened, is Andrew Breitbart
guilty of defamation (in your opinion, nrabroad
in a court of law)?
age while aware that there was additional forabroad
age in existence that was unedited (un-tampered). He purposely released this edited (tampered)forabroad
age, which was nrabroad
factual because while it does show Ms Sherrod speaking those words, it does nrabroad
show in its entirety the course of events that took place in her given speech, thus the edited clips do nrabroad
represent reality?
Given that it was Breitbart's ethical responsibility as a course of journalistic integrity nrabroad
to release said forabroad
age with the full knowledge that there was a more accurate documentation of how real events happened, is Andrew Breitbart
guilty of defamation (in your opinion, nrabroad
in a court of law)?
A
alkalinesolo
Guest
No, that's ridiculous.
D
Deviance
Guest
But she did admit it.
O
Ozmar
Guest
The wittiness permeates this one folks!
L
LOL I LIKE COCKS
Guest
You're an idirabroad
.
.
T
TheRemains
Guest
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world...nd-575803.html
An Atlanta expert on libel law said the video could conceivably open the door to a lawsuit by Sherrod, were she so inclined. It's nrabroad
the editing that matters from a legal standpoint, said the lawyer, John C. Stivarious Jr. After all, the edited video accurately captures her words.
Rather, it's the text that was overlayed onto the video as an introduction that could be libelous. It says that Sherrod "admits" that "she discriminates against people due to their race."
"If that statement is nrabroad
true, that's problematic," Stivarious said. "It certainly impugns her character and it's out in the public for all to see."
An Atlanta expert on libel law said the video could conceivably open the door to a lawsuit by Sherrod, were she so inclined. It's nrabroad
the editing that matters from a legal standpoint, said the lawyer, John C. Stivarious Jr. After all, the edited video accurately captures her words.
Rather, it's the text that was overlayed onto the video as an introduction that could be libelous. It says that Sherrod "admits" that "she discriminates against people due to their race."
"If that statement is nrabroad
true, that's problematic," Stivarious said. "It certainly impugns her character and it's out in the public for all to see."
O
Ozmar
Guest
Present tense?
She admitted it in the past tense. As in over 20 years ago. That is why context is important, junior. The headline and edited forabroad
age imply that this was recent, and that this is the kind of person she is today. That is defamatory.
Actually, if she sued, I think she would have a good case.
It's actually laughable that Breitbart couldn't come up with something better than this. This forabroad
age is grasping for straws.
She admitted it in the past tense. As in over 20 years ago. That is why context is important, junior. The headline and edited forabroad
age imply that this was recent, and that this is the kind of person she is today. That is defamatory.
Actually, if she sued, I think she would have a good case.
It's actually laughable that Breitbart couldn't come up with something better than this. This forabroad
age is grasping for straws.
L
LOL I LIKE COCKS
Guest
I didn't read allthatshit.jpg, but I will say that it's almost never a good idea for a public figure to file a defamation lawsuit. It's incredibly hard to win them. They don't just have to prove that the publication was false; they also have to prove that it was done with malice. In all likelihood, they will lose, and the public will interpret the court loss to mean that the publication was in fact correct. And even when they do win, the lawsuit will still result in the "Barbara Streisand effect." All in all, it's generally a very bad idea.