Your naivette is funny.

NO! It is not illegal to fire somebody for their first amendment "free speech".
I am truly sorry you do not realize that.

Any private knows that if he walks up to his captain and tells him what he thinks of him ("free speech") that the private is going to be opening himself up for a load of trouble that is NOT "free speech" protected.



Do you realize that "freedom of speech" IS NOT THE ONLY freedom granted in the first amendment?
You ever hear of FREEDOM OF RELIGION???

THAT is the important first amendment right that is covered.

I welcome you to show me any REAL "free speech" case whereby the employer was successfully prosecuted against (without employment contract).
If what you say is true, it shouldn't be that hard...

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

Yes, he said that from day one. I saw a clip of him on TV and he said he played only what was given to him, a partial tape, and he was trying to get the entire tape.

__________________
"Barack Obama Is A Radical, We Should Not Be Afraid To Say That". Andrew Breitbart

ROFLMAO!
Yeah. Breitbart's intent was NOT to smear Sherrod, but rather to show her in her best light...

Beyond the sarcasm, proving "intent" IS NOT REQUIRED in order to win a slander case.
One only needs prove that the slander occurred.
One does not have to prove that slander was intended.
Claiming stupidity over one's actions is not a defense.


Another poster has actually pointed out that "the response" was ALSO edited...


I've got some ocean-front property in Arizona I want to sell you.



McCain was talking out both sides his mouth on that statement. BADLY.
He starts talking about "Japan" and "Germany" and other NON-VOLATILE places where we have non-conflict bases.
Where our base establishment was essentially confirmed AFTER THE CONFLICT WAS OVER...

... and then if you watch the rest of the tape, he talks about how volatile the place truly is AS THE REASON WHY he wants to be there...
You want to talk about stupid?
Anybody who doesn't recognize the inherent dissonance at work there...


Man.
You just don't get it...

She IS NOT cutting any new or revolutionary ground here.
I realize you gotta point the finger at the Libs cause you can't defend your own Conservative boys and you don't want to admit that they did wrong...
... but if you conservatives HAD a case, you could have brought your cases already.

I have quoted the slander law, and beyond some conservatives obviously failing to comprehend what it says, it IS a clear cut case of slander.
If you want to go the "Breitbart is SOOOOO stupid that he just aired an edited tape he was sent and didn't have a clue", I guess you can do that.
But this IS a clear cut case of slander.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

That's a rather convoluted topic then.

The lawsuit is not about being fired - it's about the defamation of her character that occurred by the publication of the edited tapes.

Why would she sue her employer for that?

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

I'm trying to figure out where the Sec of Ag, NAACP or the Obama Admin have been excused. All I can see are rightwingers insisting he is being given a free pass here.

The only free pass I seem to see is for Not-so-Bright-Bart.

We seem to have a failure of communication.

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

Here's the part of my post that you left out:
There is NO legal basis for firing someone for expressing even the most offensive views in a venue where they are representing themselves as private citizens and not federal employees.

Next time show a little integrity...



The issue under discussion is firing someone for what they said, not how they worship.

This is pretty pathetic crap, f66 - you took my comment out of context and then tried to sidetrack the discussion because you know you're wrong. Man up and admit that you made a mistake - we all do it and those of us with integrity and maturity own up to our mistakes.

__________________
Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

Leftists and very small children don't seem to be able to understand that the Government isn't there to "fix" the economy, anymore than a tick is there to fix your dog.~Oftencold

Actually, I wonder if she might be. I too hope she wins. The internet/blogosphere has long been a wild west no-rules journalistic environment. The problem is - no rules, no ethics, no accountability for what is said and dissiminated.

People bitch about the MSM (and I include cable in that category becuase it IS now mainstream) - but there is accountability. Dan Rather DID lose his job over his failure to verify when he was overly eager to smear Bush. Folks seem to think that accountability only belongs to the "other side" of the aisle. Slander and libel (I use that loosely, not legally) are somehow justified if it supports their own prejudices or if it's seen as "retaliation" for some percieved "transgression".

I wonder if a lawsuit against Not-so-Bright-Bart, might open the door to serious questions. Reputations can be shredded in hours with carefully placed and passed on rumor-mongering, selective editing of material and down right lies. Is this a good thing?

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

You know who's going to have great grounds for lawsuits against the MSM if Sherrod wins, and establishes legal precedent on edited, or excerpted videos? Sarah Palin. If Shirley wins, Sarah can clean up. Forget Fox. She'll own NBC.

Who would she sue, and for what?

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

Exactly. She and her daughter both will make a killing.

__________________
"Barack Obama Is A Radical, We Should Not Be Afraid To Say That". Andrew Breitbart