Skip to main content

View Diary: Andrew Breitbart strikes again (32 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Very good questions, Craziel (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane, Murphoney, JVolvo

    My non-lawyerly understanding is that Breitbart is accused of a civil tort for which he can't go to jail. He can only suffer financial penalties.

    But what he is doing appears to be well-funded and organized. It is also apparently an attempt to silence people through intimidation, including a government official (Shirley Sherrod). That could be construed as terrorism under our poorly written statutes.

    The conspiracy statutes are also scarily vague. The threats of violence that are part of every right-wing website: are they a bug or a feature? If-- and this is what I believe after having watched this for many years-- the threats of violence are a calculated part of the intimidation, then the activity might be covered by conspiracy statutes.

    Realistically, if Ancel files a lawsuit, she could request that he be enjoined from publishing anything further. While the courts are hesitant to engage in prior restraint (that was  a big victory for civil liberties in the Pentagon Papers case), a judge might grant it.

    And that, I think, is the equitable solution, the just solution. Let Sherrod and Ancel present their cases to the court and, until those are resolved, let Andrew Breitbart be silent. To let him continue to (IMO) libel people is to make a mockery of the law.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site