Merged Andrew Breitbart has died

[Upchurch]

Then she would be wrong. Breitbart wasn't the one who fired her. Hell, he didn't even call for her firing, though even that would still be just speech.

That remains to be seen.

Although, I'm not sure what happens to the suit now that Brietbart is dead.

 

[A'isha]

Then she would be wrong. Breitbart wasn't the one who fired her. Hell, he didn't even call for her firing, though even that would still be just speech.

And when Breitbart's lawyers tried to argue that in their attempt to get Sherrod's defamation lawsuit dismissed, the courts disagreed. Twice.

You don't see the difference between speech and driving someone off a bridge so that they drown? Because I think it's kind of obvious.

You're right...Kennedy didn't intend to drive off a bridge and cause anyone's death by drowning. Breitbart, on the other hand, quite deliberately, intentionally, and maliciously set out to do what he did to Shirley Sherrod.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think less of your moral character after that statement.

My statement was a statement of fact. Why you invest statements of fact with moral weight is rather beyond me. Even defamation is still just speech, Ben.

Try to take off the political glasses for a second and look at what he really did.

What he really did was still just speech. That's a fact which you haven't even tried to contest. Your failure to even recognize that these are just facts demonstrates that it is you, not me, who cannot take off the political glasses.

If one of my friends on the Left had done anything like this, I would be vilifying them as loudly as I could.

I never said speech was above criticism. I never said one should never be vilified for speech. I never said speech couldn't be reprehensible. But none of that makes it not speech.

Pull your head out of your backside, Ben. Your brain seems to not be working in that position.

 

[RandFan]

Editing the Shirley Sherod video to exclude her confession that her thoughts and actions were wrong and her penance to save the farm was a cynical and malicious act.

I'm not sure how it could be any clearer. It was a dishonest act that hurt someone. What is there not to understand about that?

 

[iknownothing]

What exactly are "natural causes"? This just seems weird.

One had a aneurysm burst in her brain.

I'm speculating aneurysm, from the fact that he had a sudden collapse and also from my bias of having known several people with aneurysms (2 who have died).

You don't see the difference between speech and driving someone off a bridge so that they drown? Because I think it's kind of obvious.

Framing people, lying about them, and causing them loss of their career and reputation goes beyond mere "speech."

I'm sure that there were people in his life who loved him for his good qualities. He may have even thought he was doing good in the world, in an ends-justifying-the-means kind of way.

That's the most charitable thing I can say for him.

 

[daredelvis]

Perhaps the nice obese man should have listened to Michelle Obama.

Daredelvis

 

[Spindrift]

Wait... what?

You're actually, seriously suggesting that what happened to Shirley Sherrod is worse than what happened to Mary Jo Kopechne?

That's perhaps the stupidest thing you've ever said, Ben. I hope that it's the stupidest thing you ever will say, because I don't think I want to see you try to top this.

So as long as he didn't kill Shirley Sherrod, Breitbart gets a pass from you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart is dead at 43

Fox news has a glowing obit.

The Vancouver Sun is a tad more neutral on 'value' language.

Breitbart.com marches on with the last entry being about rising gas prices and the two earlier pieces on B's death looking like every other news entry.


And, I guess I should have looked in USA politics first before starting a thread in the social issues forum.

 

[Ziggurat]

And when Breitbart's lawyers tried to argue that in their attempt to get Sherrod's defamation lawsuit dismissed, the courts disagreed. Twice.

No, you're completely wrong on every point. They didn't argue that he didn't call for her firing. Why would they, when Sherrod didn't claim that he did? He argued for dismissal on grounds that I haven't even mentioned (so the court ruling has no bearing), and even if she wins (which she hasn't), libel and slander are still just speech.

 

[Neally]

I'm not sure how it could be any clearer. It was a dishonest act that hurt someone. What is there not to understand about that?

He didn't dishonestly edit the video of Sherrod. His mistake was publishing it before reviewing the full unedited version, and he admitted to that.

His great legacy is drawing attention to the fraudulent ACORN organization. Thankfully he accomplished that before his passing.

 

[NoahFence]

Of the dead, speak not ill. Even if the other guy doesn't deserve it.

They're dead. They don't care anymore.

 

[Ziggurat]

So as long as he didn't kill Shirley Sherrod, Breitbart gets a pass from you?

Did I say that?

No, I did not say that.

I said that there's a difference between speech and actions which kill somebody. Do you deny that there is a difference?

 

[daredelvis]

Framing people, lying about them, and causing them loss of their career and reputation goes beyond mere "speech."

That fact that others with complicit in Shirley Sherrod's firing, gives Breitbart a free pass on framing and lying about her according to Ziggurat.

Then she would be wrong. Breitbart wasn't the one who fired her. Hell, he didn't even call for her firing, though even that would still be just speech.

Daredelvis

 

[BazBear]

I can't revel in the misfortune and tragedy of others, even with those I may violently disagree.

I agree. In some ways I found him...entertaining? For lack of a better word I suppose.

 

[Ziggurat]

That fact that others with complicit in Shirley Sherrod's firing, gives Breitbart a free pass on framing and lying about her according to Ziggurat.

I did not say that either. Try again.

 

[A'isha]

He didn't dishonestly edit the video of Sherrod. His mistake was publishing it before reviewing the full unedited version, and he admitted to that.

Which, of course, didn't stop him from sticking to his false claims about her based on that dishonestly edited video even after she sued him.

 

[RandFan]

He didn't dishonestly edit the video of Sherrod. His mistake was publishing it before reviewing the full unedited version, and he admitted to that.

His great legacy is drawing attention to the fraudulent ACORN organization. Thankfully he accomplished that before his passing.

Fair enough thanks. That said, what he did was libelous and despicable.

Which, of course, didn't stop him from sticking to his false claims about her based on that dishonestly edited video even after she sued him.

In which case it's rather hard to defend the guy at all.

 

[Upchurch]

I said that there's a difference between speech and actions which kill somebody. Do you deny that there is a difference?

Any two or more items, locations, or events that are not, in fact, the same item, location, or event are, by definition, different. What you are doing is trying to draw relevance between the two, which amounts to a tu quoque.

Does what Kennedy did excuse what Breitbart did? No.
Is it right to treat Brietbart in death the way he treated others in death? No.
Is it poetic justice? ...maaaaybe.

 

[RandFan]

"Stop raping the people" --Andrew Bretbart. Could make a good epitaph.

 

[RandFan]

Any two or more items, locations, or events that are not, in fact, the same item, location, or event are, by definition, different. What you are doing is trying to draw relevance between the two, which amounts to a tu quoque.

Does what Kennedy did excuse what Breitbart did? No.
Is it right to treat Brietbart in death the way he treated others in death? No.
Is it poetic justice? ...maaaaybe.

Agreed. Well said.