Merged Andrew Breitbart has died

Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, they're not "just speech" that his political opponents don't like (which is the part of your argument that I'm addressing, not the "calling for her firing" part). They're actionable offenses, meaning that Breitbart would be (depending on the outcome of the suit) responsible both legally and monetarily for his role in what happened to Shirley Sherrod.

In fact, these types of lawsuits are precisely because people like Breitbart try to avoid the responsibility for the deliberate and intentional harm caused by their statements by hiding behind the "hey, it's just words, don't we have free speech in this country?" defense.
 
I won't believe Breitbart is dead until I see his death certificate. And I mean the original, not a copy.
 
Capture-12.jpg
 
Ziggurat said:
Everything bad that they accuse him of comes from his politics. Everything he's done wrong has been only speech that they don't like. Speech is not immune from criticism, but it's still just speech, there isn't anything else that he's done.
Click to expand...

ANTPogo said:
I'm sure Shirley Sherrod would disagree.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Right here you dismiss his involvement in Shirley Sherrod's firing. As if him not calling for her firing is material to his manipulated video and subsequent lies about Shirley Sherrod.

daredelvis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
I did not say that either. Try again.
Click to expand...
By your metric, most dishonest, illegal, and damaging actions could be dismissed as "just speech". Speech has consequences, and one of them is being called out as a slimebag while the body is still warm. Shirley Sherrod was a victim of Breitbart's dishonest speech, speech from which he gained financially. It was more than "just politics" to her.

Daredelvis
 
ANTPogo said:
No, they're not "just speech" that his political opponents don't like (which is the part of your argument that I'm addressing, not the "calling for her firing" part). They're actionable offenses, meaning that Breitbart would be (depending on the outcome of the suit) responsible both legally and monetarily for his role in what happened to Shirley Sherrod.

In fact, these types of lawsuits are precisely because people like Breitbart try to avoid the responsibility for the deliberate and intentional harm caused by their statements by hiding behind the "hey, it's just words, don't we have free speech in this country?" defense.
Click to expand...
When 60 Minutes aired the Bush memos hoax I was angry. Dan Rather's excuse that he wasn't the one who produced the story was pathetic. I called for his firing. I wonder how many people coming to Breitbart's defense over this affair came to Rather's defense?
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

...................
 
Ziggurat said:
But what about Breitbart himself? Has he acted similarly? If his critics were honest, they would have to acknowledge that no, he hasn't. Everything bad that they accuse him of comes from his politics. Everything he's done wrong has been only speech that they don't like. Speech is not immune from criticism, but it's still just speech, there isn't anything else that he's done.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Respectfully. But adamantly.

My distaste for the deceased stems not from his politics. My distaste stems from the fact that he was an unintelligent person, a real loudmouthed dumb-ass who did not want to learn. His notion of "argument" was name-calling on par with what you'd expect from a third-grader. Regardless of political stripe, these are offensive qualities for any human being to display, and yet they are what he used to seek publicity.

Folks who gave him a soap-box, especially Bill Maher, enabled this foolish windbag and helped lower the level of public discourse.
 
Meh, I feel bad for his family but I don't really care about him.

As far as natural causes, one of my best friends died of a heart attack at 37. He was a Saints fan & I was calling him to congratulate him on their winning the Super Bowl & his wife answered his cell & told me he'd died about 5 min before I called.

No known health problems but he was a few weeks away from his annual check up. Scared the crap out of all of us.
 
Ziggurat said:
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?
Click to expand...

There's a difference between a banana and Sherman tank too. So what?

Just because what Breitbart did to Sherrod didn't result in her death doesn't mean it wasn't despicable. And what Kennedy did or did not do is irrelevant.
 
Brainster said:
I see that some of the liberals here are handling this crassly. No surprise.
Click to expand...
I think he's earned every bit of venom he's getting. It's up to each of us to figure out how we respond. I made my comment but hold know judgement over those who react differently.
 
Brown said:
I disagree. Respectfully. But adamantly.

My distaste for the deceased stems not from his politics. My distaste stems from the fact that he was an unintelligent person, a real loudmouthed dumb-ass who did not want to learn. His notion of "argument" was name-calling on par with what you'd expect from a third-grader. Regardless of political stripe, these are offensive qualities for any human being to display, and yet they are what he used to seek publicity.

Folks who gave him a soap-box, especially Bill Maher, enabled this foolish windbag and helped lower the level of public discourse.
Click to expand...

Bill Maher is a comedian. He needs foolish windbags on his show to earn a living, and to permit him to give Obama's campaign a million bucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom