Andrew Breitbart posted a video segment which shows racist remarks being made by a USDA official and applauded by NAACP members. (M. Simon's earlier post has the embed and a discussion.) When Glenn Reynolds linked the video, he also linked a post by The Anchoress who said she wanted to see the entire video. And in a later post, she explains that the video in its entirety actually tends to exonerate the woman who made the racist remarks, as she changed her mind.

That does not mean that the woman in question (Shirley Sherrod) didn't make the earlier racist remarks or that they weren't applauded; only that it was unfair -- and opportunistic -- for the NAACP to collude with her firing over being a racist. If the NAACP had the entire video all along (it was their event, right?), surely they knew what the woman had said, so I find myself wondering whether the goal was to make it appear that the "Tea Baggers" and the much-demonized Andrew Breitbart set out to nail this woman and get her fired.

Obviously, to fire someone on the basis of a 2 minute segment excerpted from a 43 minute long speech -- without listening to the entire speech -- is manifestly unfair. But it is the Obama administration and the NAACP that ought to be ashamed of themselves here, not Breitbart, who never fired anyone. What is being missed here is the more important fact that the people were applauding the racist statements -- before she came to discuss her later change of heart. I think the applause is far more significant than her statements (which do constitute admissions of the sort of racism which the NAACP and nearly everyone would find intolerable if expressed by a white person). Whether they retracted their applause, I don't know. The more information that comes out, the better.

But as far as I'm concerned, unless it can be shown that the audience retracted their applause, Andrew Brietbart did highlight NAACP racism.

Remember, this organization accused the Tea Party movement of racism with no proof whatsoever.

Apparently, that does not matter to the liberal media windbags; in the San Francisco Chronicle, they are actually calling for Andrew Breitbart to be prosecuted:

Breitbart may also be guilty of Internet harassment. He certainly should be made a high-profile example to discourage others from these uses of the computer and The Internet to harass a person. Enough is enough.

Computer Crimes: The DOJ's Information.

If you believe you're the victim of a cybercrime, here's a link to another DOJ web page called "Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section, United States Department of Justice."

DO NOT RESIST using this resource.

So much for the First Amendment.

The people we entrust to give us the news and who have never hesitated to take things out of context, Dowdify quotes, doctor evidence, present fraudulent documents, are calling an undoctored video excerpt "computer harassment."

If that's the standard, how might the Chronicle would feel about the out-and-out video fakery by Think Progress? (See my post on the subject, and Bob Owens has more here, via Glenn Reynolds.)

Surely the S.F. Chronicle would want Think Progress to be "made a high-profile example to discourage others from these uses of the computer" and to stop "Internet harassment," right?

Riiiight.....

It is bad enough that there are always people lurking in the background who want to dismantle our freedoms, but for the MSM to start speaking that way ought to be unthinkable. They're supposed to be guardians of the First Amendment, and for them to urge that criminal charges be brought against citizen journalists is despicable.

Some things are worse than accusations and counter-accusations of racism.

MORE: It now appears that not only did the NAACP have the video all along, but their president was in the audience:

the audience apparently included Jealous himself, who later claimed to have been "snookered" by Breitbart. Sherrod acknowledges the presence of "the president" in the beginning of the speech. It seems that Jealous, in his haste to distance himself from a situation his organization created in the first place, either didn't recall the speech or didn't bother to check for himself whether the NAACP had the full speech in its archives. That pressure to act quickly wouldn't have existed, either, had the NAACP refrained from attacking the Tea Party's motivations rather than its arguments.

MORE: I also agree that "Context for we, but not for thee," seems to be the philosophy.

AND MORE: Accusing Andrew Breitbart of computer crime is small potatoes compared to what Frank J. is accusing him of -- RACE CARD THEFT!

Breitbart stole my race card!

That's mine! I drew it! Yes, I forgot to watermark it with the IMAO logo, but that's because I'm lazy. Plus, I usually figure the crappiness of my drawings is a natural defense against them being stolen. But not for a schemer like Breitbart (or should I say "Theifbart") who's always trying to bring down poor innocent liberals who just don't like honkeys or only want to help down and out pimps get houses. He doesn't care who he hurts or whose blog he steals art from.

Well, the liberals are always trying to bring him down, but they can't because they're stupid hippies. But now Theifbart has a real enemy. Remember that guy, Glenn Reynolds or something, who I exposed his habits of making smoothies by putting puppies in a blender? I'm going to bring Theifbart down just like that. Plus I'm going to sue for damages of stealing my art: $0.10 financial and $80,000,000 emotional.

(Via the Puppy Blender.)

MORE: On a more serious note, Dave Price has some great insights:

Contrary to lefty spin, this context adds little and excuses less; no one ever thought she just got up there to talk about how she doesn't like white people, so that this vignette about not helping a white farmer turns out to be part of an inspirational story of realizing class warfare is more important than racism (hooray!) isn't a big surprise. Sherrod admits to racial discrimination...

pardon me if I don't play useful idiot and place a kick me, again, I'm stupid sign on my back as I've seen too many of the usual hand wringers on the Right already do in this matter.

And Dan Riehl couldn't possibly be wringing his hands less!