Andrew Breitbart, the owner of several conservative Web sites, was served at the conference on Saturday with a lawsuit filed by Shirley Sherrod, the former Agriculture Department employee who lost her job last year over a video that Mr. Brietbart posted at his site biggovernment.com.
The video was selectively edited so that it appeared Ms. Sherrod was confessing she had discriminated against a farmer because he was white. In the suit, which was filed in Washington on Friday, Ms. Sherrod says the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work.
Mr. Breitbart said in a statement that he “categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech.”
For those who may not be completely aware of the particulars of this despicable act by Breitbart, his cohorts, and Fox News, let Rachel Maddow bring you up to speed.
Andrew Breitbart is particularly disgusting piece of human excrement and I hope that Sherrod sues him into abject poverty.
And just in case you are not as incensed over this pathetic little prick as I am let me just show you a cartoon that he featured on his website just yesterday.
Update: Here is Sherrod's entire libel complaint.
Chill his right-wing wallet is more like it!
ReplyDeleteGo, Shirley, Go. This man must be taught a lesson. He is obviously amoral.
ReplyDeleteI hope he goes to prison.
ReplyDeleteThis has to do w/blatant altering and nothing to do w/freedom of speech as far as I'm concerned. He lied - ruined her life considerably and deserves to be in jail along w/some of those liars at FOX.
ReplyDeletei wrote the other day how racism is the core that holds the right wing together.
ReplyDeletei hope people really understand that and understand the importance of seeing truth so to use it when responding to these vile people.
Freedom of speech is not protected when there is a clear intent to harm through distortion of the truth. Did Brietbart intend harm? Yes. Did he maliciously and knowingly distort the truth? Yes. That my friends constitutes libel. Shirley Sherod has him by his teeny, shrivelled up testicles.
ReplyDeleteWhat a puke...he showed nothing in the way of shame when he got caught redhanded in this event (nor did anyone at Fox mention how they felt bad over running the "story" as if the world was ending, every five minutes).
ReplyDeleteToo bad she didn't include Fox as a defendant. It was like one idiot calling out "FIRE!" in a crowded building, (when there was obviously no fire) and the Fox crew quickly running through the crowd, repeating it.
Breitbart said in a statement that he “categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech.”
ReplyDeleteAnd Ms. Sherrod said in a statement that she "categorically rejects Breitbart's transparent effort to illegally ruin her reputation and cause her harm, and is exercising her constitutional right to sue the bastard."
OMG.
ReplyDeleteThat cartoon leaves me speechless. How can this man ce anything but a fringe figure?
I hope she nails him to the prison wall. There he'll enjoy his just rewards for underhandedly screwing with an innocent persons life.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was pretty classy to bust and embarrass him in his hood in front of his peers.
ReplyDeleteGood call.
Maybe they'll start to think before doing this crap.
Gosh, this cartoon isn't even funny. The humor would have to be based on something real, like if Michelle were fat maybe it would be funny, but she isn't.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't now the difference between free speech and libel laws.
Mr. Breitbart said in a statement that he “categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech.”
ReplyDeleteThat's rich. Isn't this exactly what Breitbart did to Sherrod?
Breibart apparently has free speech confused with slander and libel.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the courts will set him straight.
I just hope this doesn't go to the supremes. I can see the fascist five siding with the neo-cons on this one (too.)
I am glad she decided to sue him, I just hope she has a very good and very aggressive law firm because Breitbart has his publications and Fox to attack her and them.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be surprised to see a gag order on him if he starts using his paper, again, to spread slander about the parties in the case. Or to taint a jury pool.
Since the defendant gets to choose whether to be tried before a jury it will be interesting to see if Breitbart wants a jury and if he wants his trial broadcast.
I am guessing in the long run an out of court settlement for an undisclosed amount and both parties agreeing to not discuss the case publicly.
Which would mean Breitbart could not use his media to blast any settlement or blast Ms Sherrod or her lawyers after the trial is over.
On the other hand I think, Breitbart not withstanding a memoir by Ms. Sherrod and the work she has done and the people she has helped would be a very interesting read.
Ratfish 4:59
ReplyDeleteWhat you said in the second paragraph with garnish.
Breitbart "categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech."
ReplyDeleteNice try, except that defamation is not protected speech. From what i heard at the time, the question will be whether she can prove damages, since she got another job shortly thereafter. I think she can, due to the damage to her reputation. I really hope she doesn't settle, either. I'd love to see him in the hotseat.
He can escape the country on the dildoboat.
ReplyDeleteYes, Breitbart is a particularly frightening specimen from the rightwing. He is downright scary looking and acting; as a woman, I would not want to be alone in a room with him. Of course, I wouldn't want to be in a room alone with his little sidekick James O'Keefe, either. Another libeler (ACORN), who of course, had very scary plans for that female CNN reporter.
ReplyDeleteThese are criminals, basically. But they messed with the wrong woman. Shirley Sherrod don't play!
Breitbart is really stoopid. Folks, we really have to do some work in our respective communities. That goes for Anchorage, Alaska too. How on earth, did we get Sullivan for mayor? Because too many progressives ran, and split the vote. Think smarter Democrats!! We see what happens to mayors, they think they can be governors, and presidents.
ReplyDeleteGryphen,
ReplyDeleteI just noticed you had an add for Rand Paul's anti-union efforts on your website. I guess your desire to get advertising revenue trumps your principles. Or do you agree with Tea Partiers like Rand Paul and welcome them on your website?
There's a good post over at
ReplyDelete"Hypocrites and Heffalump Traps". I imagine it'll make it to a larger audience soon.
I don't recall any nasty cartoons calling Laura Bush names.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, First Ladies have been beyond reproach until Hillary- and now.
These Republicans just can't hide their hatred for powerful women, can they?
Let's see, Palin BLASTED Time for misrepresenting her...wonder if she's going to apologize to President Obama and correct her statement on her Twitter to her gazillions of followers? Nor likely, but here she is, misquoting, accusing and getting it all wrong, as usual:
ReplyDelete"I can't begin to imagine what a nightmare it would be should Mrs. Palin ever, ever get into a position of having to make decisions for the country. She can't even fact-check what she tweets because she is so damn eager to blast President Obama."
http://threebrain.blogspot.com/2011/02/one-more-reason-as-if-we-needed-another.html
Sarah Palin Gets Facts Wrong in Budget Critique
ReplyDeleteSarah Palin has turned to Facebook and Twitter to criticize President Obama's 2012 budget proposal. Here's what she wrote on Twitter: "Here's how minuscule the White House's $775 million a year cuts are: less than 1/10 of 1% of this year's budget deficit."
And on Facebook: "If you want to know how minuscule their proposed $775 million-a-year budget 'cuts' really are, please look at this chart. The proposed cuts are so insignificant - less than 1/10 of 1% of this year's $1.65 trillion budget deficit - that they are essentially invisible on the pie chart. That speaks volumes about today's budget."
Palin links in both places to a chart posted on The Blaze, Glenn Beck's website, five days ago - before the budget proposal came out. It uses an op-ed by White House Budget Director Jacob Lew to suggest that Mr. Obama was proposing to cut $775 million from the budget, and goes on to mock that amount as insignificant.
The problem? Lew wrote in his op-ed that he was only discussing "a small fraction of the scores of cuts" in the budget proposal, not the total proposed cuts, as a Democratic official pointed out.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20031894-503544.html
The far-right can deny their racism inclinations 'til they're blue in the face .... it won't change what everyone else sees and hears to be otherwise. They are only fooling themselves.
ReplyDeleteIn Palin's eyes, the "Lamestream Media," jealous rivals and good old boy establishment are working tirelessly to undo her. It's a compelling narrative at a Tea Party rally, but it hasn't much helped her standing elsewhere. Public spats over the last presidential campaign and controversial endorsements of candidates like Christine O'Donnell in the 2010 midterms haven't endeared her to the Republican establishment. Many voters saw a deficit of seriousness in her early departure from Alaska's governorship and camping trips with Kate Gosselin aren't exactly the best medicine. A January poll found just 17% of independents nationwide have a favorable view of the former vice presidential candidate.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2048933_2048932_2048842,00.html
She's so obsessed with Obama she blasts out lies and misconceptions to the media before she checks anything and ends up with egg on her face and increasing her laughingstock stock.
ReplyDeletehttp://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2011/02/sarah-palin-the-truth-behind-the-white-house-budget-spin/
Hmm, an incredibly stupid, nonsensical cartoon designed to appeal to an incredibly stupid, nonsensical group of racists. Mission accomplished I suppose...
ReplyDeleteHe is like Limbaugh and Beck, chubby and pompous. We should call him Andrew Not-So-Brite-Bart
ReplyDelete5:53
ReplyDeleteWe all could be seeing different ads because they are not placed by Gryphen,they are "intelligent" in that they pop in there based on your normal search habits.So if you click on Rand Paul articles as a norm,you will get Rand Paul ads.This can backfire on those of us who click on links to stories that are informative about jerks like SP,RP,etc.
You owe Gryphen an apology.Complain to Google.
Breitbart is a hateful pig. I hope Shirley fries his ass.
ReplyDeleteCould Palin even begin to figure what 1/10 of 1% is of a certain amount? Bet she cannot even read a Budget. What a friggin disaster she is....and the United States of America media is giving her and daughter, Bristol, front page commentary. It's amazing. They are idiots! I'd love to get sister Sarah in a corner - with reporters and photographers and ask her some direct questions. No wonder she hides...I'm sure she knows that many of us would like to nail her ass.
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous at 5:53 (the one bent about the Rand Paul ads)...
ReplyDeleteTake a step back and breathe, for pete's sake.
You do yourself no favors by seeming so petty and quick to attack.
If Gryphen knows of the ads and "sold out" to let them run...sure, he should be accountable. However, what do you personally know about advertising, media buys, and the online equivalents?? Have you any familiarity with how they work? Most websites go through Google adworks (or maybe its adwords?), which signs them up for almost any advertiser that comes up as relevant. Thus, given how computerized search engines work - Rand Paul ads might come up on this 'political site,' because related words are found to be in the posts and comments...It is similar to the oil ads coming up on HuffPo.
Hopefully Gryphen will read this & be able to confirm. Maybe there are ways to request that certain ads be blocked or never come up based on this type of search. I dont know.
Regardless, the tone of your message does not represent you well.
>>I just noticed you had an add for Rand Paul's anti-union efforts on your website. I guess your desire to get advertising revenue trumps your principles. Or do you agree with Tea Partiers like Rand Paul and welcome them on your website?
ReplyDelete5:53 PM
Madam or Sir Anonymous 5:53 pm:
Just so you understand, Gryphen has no control of the ads that run on his site. It's a random thing that happens, if I understand it and believe me, it's come up a few times here before.
You will find that Gryphen is NOT one to compromise his principles without extremely good reason and advertising revenue would not be one of them. If you hang around this blog for awhile, you'll come to learn that. But by the tone in your comment, I suspect that you aren't a friend of the blog.
I am breathless after looking at that "comic" strip. Does anyone think this is funny? Really? Sad. Just sad.
ReplyDeleteGlad Shirley is going to smack this little prick down. No remorse for lying? What a good Christian. Ugh.
The right often falls short in their attempts at humor, but even an attempt at humor this is not. It's an attempt to dehumanize the subjects. Brietbart is a cocksucker.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the ad.. click on it.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't it cost money every times someone clicks on an ad link? IM may only get a faction of a penny.. and it may only cost the Ron/Rand Paul campaign?
But it all adds up, right?
I think the cartoon is funny...in that only people who think you can lower taxes to decrease the deficit would also think it rational to criticize a First Lady well known for the two kicking guns she has for arms as a chubby, chronic overeater of junk food. Even in their humor, they distort beyond rationality.
ReplyDeleteJust read the Daily Beast article about how much Bristol makes.
ReplyDeleteShe gets a whole bunch of extra cash from Candies Foundation for making her speeches in addition to the contracted fees from the event.
Like mother, like daughter - Those pesky hidden fees
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-13/bristol-palin-earnings-estimate-from-her-book-to-dancing-with-the-stars/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsC3
This is more damning to the Obama administration than on FOX. I want leaders with a little character in their blood. Letting FOX play them like this makes the White House look weak. I expect more from my leaders. I expect this sort of thing from FOX. The White House should too.
ReplyDeleteRick
Absolutely FASCINATING article that screams Sarah Palin! Well worth the read. Here's just a taste:
ReplyDelete...There is a creature that exists in human form that has become distinctly different than those of us who do struggle against selfishness. In a very deliberate and conscious way these people have made a decision to not fight against their selfish impulses. They have embraced them. They have found ways to completely justify them. They are quite proud of their freedom to do anything they want to anyone they want. They may be quietly smug about it or openly boastful; nevertheless, they're proud of their ability to get their way.
They see themselves as set apart from mere humanity. They distance themselves from the human race by setting themselves apart from and above them. They do this by word and by action. They even usurp the very throne of God Himself as they position themselves as god over all they survey. They reserve to themselves the right to define reality to all in their domain. All this results in the train of woe that follows from the human embodiment of evil.
http://narcissists-suck.blogspot.com/2009/03/malignant-narcissism-brief-overview.html
Andrew Breitbart has about as much class as a sticky condom dispenser in a truck stop bathroom. He is a loathsome odious turd whose sole value to humanity is as compost.
ReplyDeleteI find it more than just a little amusing that Not-So-Bright-Bart feels that this cartoon is humorous. First of all, Michele Obama is stunningly beautiful and amazingly fit. By contrast, Breitbart is a flaccid tub of goo.
As to the lawsuit, Breitbart is in the deep shit now. He has as much admitted that he was in the wrong by releasing an edited version of the Sherrod video:
“Q: Do you agree that the edited video took things out of context?
A: Well, yes. But I put up what I had. It granted a great portion of her redemptive tale, but not all of it. If I could do it all over again, I should have waited for the full video to get to me.”
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/07/3 0/breitbart-i-d-like-to-speak-with-sherrod-in-private.html?from=rss
Note that Breitbart admits his error and concedes that Sherrod's "redemptive tale" has merit, he just quibbles as to the extent of each. Guaranteed that these remarks will revisit Andy in the course of this lawsuit.
His attitude reminds me of a Winston Churchill joke:
“Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill. .. Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course...
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”
So it goes with Breitbart. We know WHAT he is, now we are merely haggling about to what degree.
Hey Anonymous 5:53 pm! (re: ads)
ReplyDeleteThat was a snide, snippy, bitchy, nasty insinuation you just laid on Gryphen and it was totally uncalled for.
Instead of fessing up to your profound ignorance as to how advertising works online, you project a smarmy image of Gryphen.
Go away troll! Crawl back under that rock and join the other creepy, slimy creatures you are so comfortable with there. We won't miss ya!
Gryphen, you have libeled and defamed the good name of human excrement by comparing it to Andrew Breitbart. Feces, even human feces, at least has some usefulness, Breitbart, not so much.
ReplyDeleteAs to anyone who would raise any First Amendment concerns over Breitbart's hatchet job on Shirley Sherrod, the First Amendment only protects us from government censorship, beyond that there are NO Constitutional protections of free speech. None. We imagine that we have this grand right to say anything we want on any subject, but that notion is simply not contained in the First Amendment.
As the Sherrod video in question was of a speech given BEFORE she worked at the USDA, thus BEFORE she was a governmental employee, Breitbart can claim no First Amendment protection. So, Andy CAN be held responsible for his actions and he has NO "get out of jail free card" to play.
Breitbart is pretty much fucked.
To Jadez @4:45 pm
ReplyDelete"i wrote the other day how racism is the core that holds the right wing together.
i hope people really understand that and understand the importance of seeing truth so to use it when responding to these vile people".
Totally agree with you. No matter how they deny it, racism is the glue that holds the right wing together.
Sharon1943
I'm of the opinion that Breitbart may be writing some of Palin's FB rants and/or at least "advising" her. Before her infamous "blood libel" video, Breitbart had tweeted for at least a day or so using the term "blood libel". Now maybe Sarah just picked it up from him or from the endless RWNJ that retweeted him but IMO, some of her psycho ranting mirrors Andrew Breitbart. Just speculation on my part.
ReplyDeleteI hope Shirley Sherrod wins.
Sharon1943
"We all could be seeing different ads because they are not placed by Gryphen,they are "intelligent" in that they pop in there based on your normal search habits.So if you click on Rand Paul articles as a norm,you will get Rand Paul ads"
ReplyDeleteThis is complete BS!
Gryphen is taking money from people who willingly take money from people such as Rand Paul. It's that simple. I find that unethical. What part of that don't you understand? Gryphen has the choice to continue with these ads or not. He has chosen to keep getting paid no matter what the ad is for.
And before you go labeling me a 'bot' keep in mind that I'm a staunch opponent of Sarah partly because I'm a strong unionist. Seeing and ad for Rand Paul's union busting initiatives really gets to me. I'm sorry if I'm so offended by people like Ron Paul and the people who allow him to advertise on their site.
"Go away troll! Crawl back under that rock and join the other creepy, slimy creatures you are so comfortable with there."
ReplyDeleteName calling. That's deep.
Maybe you should read the following article and see why I can't stand Rand Paul:
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/sarah-palin-endorses/
I've seen many other liberal leaning websites that do NOT have ads for leading tea party members. Why is this the only one I've seen that advertises for Sarah Palin endorsed candidates?
What a disgusting man.
ReplyDeleteCould you imagine the horror and outcry from those same people if there were a cartoon about bush, drunk with a bottle on the floor?
What is wrong with these people?
They act like bullies, like teenage girls, they are nasty, vindictive and yet they like to say they are christians and doing God's work.
Why on earth would anyone is this country even consider taking on the job of FLOTUS?
ReplyDeleteSorry Anon @10:07
ReplyDeleteI doubt Gryphen would be wanting adds for office furniture, shoes, and gardening tools on this site. These are the adds that pop up for me when I visit, and I have yet to see anything for Rand Paul. I am thinking that you are wrong about how the advertising works here. What ever I had been searching for on my computer, comes up here and hundreds of other sites I visit as advertisement pop ups. The exact item I was looking for shows up in little pics all over the margins. I don't think Gryphen follows me around all day, must be some other mysterious powerful person.......
Check out the “Black Online News Network” (BONN) www.thebonngroup.com . BONN is the largest network of online news portals to date targeted to African Americans. Its current digital network consists of 100 unique and interconnected web sites covering a wide range of today’s hottest topics on the radars of African Americans worldwide.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of speech does not include lying without fear of recrimination.
ReplyDeleteJust as freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.
It is shocking how badly the Palins and Bachmanns and Breitbarts, et. al. misunderstand the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.
@ all the people screeching at the person who made a comment about the paul ad...CHILL. The first comment that reasonably explained the ad process to the poster was enough; you don't all have to race to gang up on the poster in your passionate defense of Gryphen. He can capably explain things himself if you haven't noticed.
ReplyDelete@ Gasman...and not only did Breitbart admit he "probably" should have put the full tape up, and refer to what he did have as "redemptive," keep in mind that he still LABELED and DISTRIBUTED it as "proof of the NAACP's racism."
She's got a good case right there. Combine that with his history of doctoring and distributing other videos, and well...he better have a checkbook handy.
I'm glad someone is fighting Breitbart; just sad that it has to be a sole woman instead of our powerful President and Democratic legislators, who I would have hoped would be fighting harder against this libelous cretin. His immoral contribution to the smearing of ACORN took down a very effective vote registration organization for Democrats, and the damn fools actually voted to defund them based on rightwing smear videos.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, this is one of the things that has made me really uneasy about Obama...how he never spoke up for ACORN and then how he let Vilsack fire Shirley Sherrod. Twice he let Breitbart bring down good people.
Flame away, but we need better fighters than this in the battle to keep our country safe from the righwing monsters.
Breitbart Humiliates Himself With Childish Taunts of Michelle Obama
ReplyDeleteScruffy man-child and full-video impaired Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government picked up Rush Limbaugh’s attack against Michelle Obama “Michelle My Butt” with a cartoon suggesting Michelle was an over-eater indulging in lard. Oh, well, the lard joke was later replaced with “bacon” so that makes it all OK.
This is what it looks like when children who weren’t raised well take to the internets to play journalists. You end up with grotesque attempts at “humor” playing to the most ugly, most regressive and least-evolved forms of life. In other words, Breitbart’s audience loved it.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/andrew-breitbart-michelle-obama
About that cartoon. I remember when I was little, I thought all grown-ups were good and perfect. If you had told me, as a small child, that adults would create and cackle over such an ugly cartoon, I wouldn't have believed you.
ReplyDeleteAs for Rush's juvenile nickname of our beautiful and toned First Lady...amazing that it never occurs to his fans to notice the lunacy of an often obese man calling a physically fit woman "Michelle My Butt." These people are flatout fucking crazy.
Further, Rush Limbaugh and Andrew Breitbart are exactly the kind of trash that back in the 1800s probably heckled black people in public, knowing they could get away it. It must kill them that a beautiful black family resides in the White House, the vile cretins. If they only knew how repulsive they appear to decent people.
Breitbart is a loser. He's the underachieving son of a rich Brentwood family, he's never succeeded at anything until he managed to tap into a vein of ugliness and hatred. I'm sure his karma will chart quite a course for his life.
ReplyDeleteGo Shirley Go!
ReplyDeletehttp://sarahpalinhasaserpentsheart.blogspot.com/
I hope Ms. Sherrod takes this fool to the cleaners. Maybe then, he'll realize that freedom of speech should also be accompanied by responsibility for the words from his pie hole. He, Limbaugh, and others of their ilk are petty, immature, emotionally arrested, and intellectually challenged. I'm just glad the Obamas have the class and maturity that are so lacking in these RWN's, which enables them to keep from stooping to the level of these idiots.
ReplyDeleteLawrence O'Donnell just did a riveting segment about that cartoon. He begged the wife and mother of the cartoonist to do an intervention. He said such work is evidence of a disturbed mind and is a cry for help. I hope this segment makes the rounds on YouTube, it is amazing commentary on the fevered mind of the rightwinger, highly personalized in his appeal begging family members to intervene!
ReplyDeleteAll talk of decency & such is just a ploy to progesive's better nature as the modern GOP depend on opponents taking the high road because THEY HAVE NO FOOLISH INTENTIONS OF EVER DOING SO, NOR ARE THEY TROUBLED BY MORALS OR HUMAN DECENCY.
ReplyDeleteHUMAN GARBAGE Like Truth Bender Brightbart will completly destroy our once proud (liberal) media & democracy unless the other 97% of Americans stand up & tell all them to go to hell.