• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Poker Issue Separates Goldstein and Akin Gump | Main | NLJ's Marcia Coyle on the PBS NewsHour »

April 19, 2011



@ George L. Lyon, Jr. - It was Ms. Sherrod's words deliberately used out of context. For example, take your comment, "she is a racist" - Why did you call Ms. Sherrod a racist?! That's what you wrote! Resign!

Dagney Taggert

Eddie, you might learn something from Righteous Indignation. And again, truth is a defense.

Norbert Grover

Mr. Lyon and Armwood are both correct. Mr. Armwood's assertion that a distortion of ones words can constitute defamation. That being said, Breitbart is arguing that his edited video is a form of opinion. That being said, stating that your personal opinion, or subjective viewpoint is being stated has been used successfully as a defense against allegations of libel. This case is up for grabs and whoever has the best attorney will win.

John H. Armwood

George L. Lyon, Jr the edited video did not present what Ms, Sherrod said. It was purposely distorted with the specific intent of damaging Ms. Sherrod's reputation damaging her to the extent that people are less likely to associate or deal with her. She was fired from her job. This is an easy case of defamation. It does not take a bright person, who has bothered to look up the definition of definition to see that, unless they have a political agenda which includes racist attacks on good people.

George L. Lyon, Jr.

How can defamation be based on presenting a video clip of the alleged victims own words and commenting on them. Whether she is a racist based on what she said in that clip is a matter of opinion.


Forget Breitbart and forget his re-tread book “Righteous Indignation” (a dull, self-promotional book about alleged rebel Breitbart who worked for MSM-lapdog Washington Post). Don’t waste your hard-earned money, instead read a BANNED book like “America Deceived II” by a real rebel and the “World’s Most Hated Author”, E.A. Blayre III.
Last link (before Google Books bans it also]:


Truth is a defense. Breitbart wins.


Breitbart's claim seems shaky. We all learned in first-year torts and con law that the First Amendment does not protect against defamation. This will be an interesting case to watch.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad