I do too, because I have long felt that the standards enunciated in New York Times v. Sullivan were ridiculously unfair to public figures that are libeled.
She might. She certainly wasn’t any kind of famous national name, but she was a public official who oversaw a significant amount of aid around the state.
It’s the Surpeme Court case that established the standards a public figure has to meet in order to prove libel. The court ruled that a statement about a public figure could not be considered libel unless the publisher of the statement either knew it was false, or that the statement was published it reckless disregard of its truth or falseness. It’s a much higher standard than the one non-public figures have to meet. I think they only need to show that the statement was false and that it damaged their reputation.
Seriously, this thread is just dumbfounding. This is exactly the strategy of the Right… float out a lie, let those inclined to believe it do so, regardless of fact. Let it go down the memory hole then bring it up again years later, with a significant percentage of the population cottoning on to it.
We’ll see Shirley Sherrod brought up as evidence of more ‘racism from the left’ in 2012.
Yeah…Yeah…Yeah…Poor Sherrod! Twit got the job because she was black and has made a good living at our expense…, probably even discriminating against whites when she wanted to.
Perhaps the man did NOT kill her father. Perhaps her father “Needed Killing”.
Perhaps the “killing” did not even happen and she did not know who her father was…(which is usually the case).
Just because she did not discriminate against the farmer in question (we have only her word for it),doesn’t mean she hasn’t done so to others.
stupid liberals…Everyone who does not tote their communist , bleeding heart, party line is a “NAZI”…or…their favorite…“raaaaaaacists” YOu have farted alright…I see the results of it on this thread. I guess as long as racism is aimed at the whtie majority…it;s alright with commielibs. The TRUE RACISTS!