Does Shirley Sherrod Have a Defamation Claim?
Since the Shirley Sherrod story broke this week (she is the USDA official falsely accused by a right-wing blogger of racism), I’d been wondering if she had a viable defamation claim. As my AP style book notes, “defamation means injury to reputation,” and takes the form of libel or slander.
To prove that she was defamed by the distribution of the heavily edited video, Sherrod, as a public official (albeit not a widely known one up to now), would have to meet the highest standard of proof. She would have to prove that the video publication was made with “actual malice,” which the Supreme Court defined in 1964 as “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” (New York Times v. Sullivan). (Private individuals, my AP guide notes, have to prove a lesser standard of showing negligence to recover for libel by a news organization.)
This post, submitted by “almanac,” provides a good run-down of the legal standards involved and makes an argument that Sherrod has a decent case. It’s abundantly clear, at least at this early stage, that Sherrod is seriously considering bringing one.
For nerds like me, that would be an exciting, get-out-the-popcorn event. As a reporter, I normally come down on the side of more speech, but as a consumer of news, I find the dissemination of false information online toxic. But the arguments on both sides would no doubt be fascinating. We’ll see what happens!