Fictional Missiles in Cyberspace
2010-08-02 - by
I expect Andrew Breitbart was telling the unvarnished truth when he told CNN he did not mean to smear Shirley Sherrod on his blog – that he meant to blast the NAACP because it had blasted the Tea Party and Mrs. Sherrod’s wounding was the political equivalent of what’s euphemistically called ‘collateral damage’ over in Afghanistan.
But now Mr. Breitbart’s got a bigger problem. Mrs. Sherrod has hired a lawyer and in all likelihood Mr. Breitbart’s about to learn about a legal oddity first hand.
When it comes to ‘free speech’ he – and every other American – has the right to call a politician just about anything he wants and not get sued – even lying is perfectly legal. But it doesn’t work that way with a ‘civilian’ like Mrs. Sherrod. If Mr. Breitbart calls Mrs. Sherrod a racist he had better be able to prove it.
The fine old democratic theory at work here is peculiar.
If an American can get hauled into court in the midst of a political campaign and a Judge (say one appointed by President Obama) gets to decide whether he smeared Obama it creates a real problems – like giving Obama judges the power to dictate what Tea Partiers like Mr. Breitbart can say about Obama. So we don’t let judges do that. Which means if Mr. Breitbart calls Obama a racist Obama’s recourse is to get a megaphone and holler back – which Obama’s at least as good at as Mr. Breitbart.
On the other hand Mrs. Sherrod didn’t appoint any judges, hasn’t been elected to anything, doesn’t have political allies who appoint judges and giving her the right to sue Mr. Breitbart’s chops off isn’t likely to give any judge the right to muzzle folks attacking politicians.
It’s kind of a strange law but in a way it makes a kind of common sense – though that might be hard for Mr. Breitbart to fathom right now.
Fictional Missiles in Cyberspace
2010-08-02/
I expect Andrew Breitbart was telling the unvarnished truth when he told CNN he did not mean to smear Shirley Sherrod on his blog – that he meant to blast the NAACP because it had blasted the Tea Party and Mrs. Sherrod’s wounding was the political equivalent of what’s euphemistically called ‘collateral damage’ over in Afghanistan.
But now Mr. Breitbart’s got a bigger problem. Mrs. Sherrod has hired a lawyer and in all likelihood Mr. Breitbart’s about to learn about a legal oddity first hand.
When it comes to ‘free speech’ he – and every other American – has the right to call a politician just about anything he wants and not get sued – even lying is perfectly legal. But it doesn’t work that way with a ‘civilian’ like Mrs. Sherrod. If Mr. Breitbart calls Mrs. Sherrod a racist he had better be able to prove it.
The fine old democratic theory at work here is peculiar.
If an American can get hauled into court in the midst of a political campaign and a Judge (say one appointed by President Obama) gets to decide whether he smeared Obama it creates a real problems – like giving Obama judges the power to dictate what Tea Partiers like Mr. Breitbart can say about Obama. So we don’t let judges do that. Which means if Mr. Breitbart calls Obama a racist Obama’s recourse is to get a megaphone and holler back – which Obama’s at least as good at as Mr. Breitbart.
On the other hand Mrs. Sherrod didn’t appoint any judges, hasn’t been elected to anything, doesn’t have political allies who appoint judges and giving her the right to sue Mr. Breitbart’s chops off isn’t likely to give any judge the right to muzzle folks attacking politicians.
It’s kind of a strange law but in a way it makes a kind of common sense – though that might be hard for Mr. Breitbart to fathom right now.