John Stuart Mill once said that even glaring error should be allowed to be spoken, not criminalized that is, because truth can come with collision from error. This doesn't mean we want to encourage such error, but it's likely to come all the same. And, like in the Shirley Sherrod case, we better try to learn something from it. Including all the stuff that it brings to light.
Lots of stuff, it seems. The perils of being weak-kneed and knee-jerk in particular, especially when people with stated desires to destroy the left [as a clip on Jon Stewart showed], even if it requires fraudulently edited video to do it. Fool me once .... Did not we learn from the ACORN debacle, shown to be filled with crap as well?
But, the strength and insight of the woman herself was inspiring, especially those who learn about her life story. In a different context, Sherrod (and the white farmers who spoke out for her -- farmers who some might at first glance stereotypically say look like those likely to be racists) sounds like someone President Obama would provide as a symbol.
The story also brought to light a little known federal lawsuit:
Five months after President Obama announced a $1.25 billion settlement for black farmers who faced overt discrimination by the USDA in the eighties and nineties -- and several days after the Sherrod case brought the issue up again -- Congress again refused to authorize the money.
A "settlement" underlines that the courts aren't the only place we go to obtain justice. It also shows that even after discrimination is found, it takes the other branches to deal with the situation, which has not been fully accomplished -- this thing has been going on since the 1990s -- here.
Those who have read/listened to more than a couple minutes of her speech also learned a bit about the history of racism on the ground. Again, Sherrod knows something about that given her father (a black farmer) was killed by a white person when she was a girl, the grand jury refused to indict. It helped her decide to stay and work for justice; it is in that context that she then noted that eventually she learned it is about helping poor people of all races. It is something like if someone was raped, pledges to work for the rights of women, but finds out some college frat boy had his rights violated by the policies of the college and -- though she isn't really interested at first -- helps him.
Sherrod also spoke about the history of law enforcement in the state, including two racists sheriffs, one the subject of a major civil rights case back in the 1940s.* We too often forget that such perversion of the role of the government was not that long ago, putting aside that it still occurs in certain contexts to this day. This led to some discussion of lynching, including historical attempts (in part blocked by filibustering) to address it on the federal level. As the links suggest, this led to some attempts to call her a "liar" or the like for her use of the term "lynch," but also that (as with her treatment as a whole) even some natural critics (including people at American Spectator) think the people went too far here.
Does that mean the likes of Andrew Breitbart will be shown as persona non grata by them? It is a long process -- doesn't take too many dissenters, as shown by Republicans for Obama in '08, for some progress to be made. Anyways, hopefully some lessons will be learned here.
---
* The SC was closely divided in part because the use of federal civil rights laws were still fairly novel; the opinion started:
This case involves a shocking and revolting episode in law enforcement. Petitioner Screws was sheriff of Baker County, Georgia. He enlisted the assistance of petitioner Jones, a policeman, and petitioner Kelley, a special deputy, in arresting Robert Hall, a citizen of the United States and of Georgia. The arrest was made late at night at Hall's home on a warrant charging Hall with theft of a tire. Hall, a young negro about thirty years of age, was handcuffed and taken by car to the court house. As Hall alighted from the car at the court house square, the three petitioners began beating him with their fists and with a solid-bar blackjack about eight inches long and weighing two pounds. They claimed Hall had reached for a gun and had used insulting language as he alighted from the [325 U.S. 91, 93] car. But after Hall, still handcuffed, had been knocked to the ground they continued to beat him from fifteen to thirty minutes until he was unconscious. Hall was then dragged feet first through the court house yard into the jail and thrown upon the floor dying. An ambulance was called and Hall was removed to a hospital where he died within the hour and without regaining consciousness. There was evidence that Screws held a grudge against Hall and had threatened to 'get' him.