Aww. The Breitbart Kids are Fighting

This could make a good segment on wingnut on wingnut crime. Right wing loon Dana Loesch — truly one of the most vile voices on the right, rivaling Ann Coulter — is suing Breitbart.com, demanding that she be released from her contract and given $75,000 for not publishing her stuff and not allowing her to publish it elsewhere either.

Conservative talk radio host and commentator Dana Loesch sued the owner of the conservative website Breitbart.com Friday, claiming that although her relationship with the news and opinion aggregating website had gone “tragically awry,” Breibart.cοm LLC refused to let her work for the company or anyone else, forcing her into “indentured servitude in limbo.”

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court here, seeks at least $75,000 in damages, as well as a judge’s declaration that her contract had expired.

The suit says that difficulties managing the Breitbart “media ‘empire’” or ideological conflicts or both had spiked the working relationship, creating a “increasingly hostile” work environment. When Loesch tried to terminate her work agreement in September, Breitbart refused and extended the agreement by a year, the suit says.

Yummy. Pass the popcorn.

12 comments on this post.
  1. jose:

    It’s frightening an employee can’t walk away from a company if she doesn’t want to work for them. Loesch, unlikely ally for labor rights!

  2. Patrick:

    Ed,

    Just a little inside baseball on this one.

    I have been hearing from friends of mine that know the score; that unlike Andrew Breitbart, who was a most kind and generous man — the new owner of Breitbart LLC is a total a-hole and a half.

    Dana is not the only one who has bailed on this guy. There’s been a few. Dana is just the highest profile writer and one who has filed a lawsuit.

    It is sad that the empire of Andrew fell into the hands of this guy. He’s a seriously prick, from what I am told.

    Just letting you know.

    -Pat

  3. Drew:

    This seems like pretty straight forward contract law here.

    If they’ve got an exclusivity contract then she can’t publish anywhere else but they must continue to pay her.

    If they refuse to pay her then she would be entitled to damages in the amount of the remainder of her contract with them.

    If they are unhappy with the quality of her work they can fire her for cause.

    If she signed a contract that she would be paid on a per article basis with an exclusivity clause where she can’t shop the article around if they turn it down then she’s an idiot.

  4. Rip Steakface:

    This is my inner tribalist speaking, but Andrew Breitbart was kind and generous? Something about that doesn’t sound correct. How can one be kind and generous yet fervently believe in fucking over the poor?

  5. WithinThisMind:

    Breitbart at least used a teaspoon of lube when doing so?

  6. John Hinkle:

    I don’t know Dana Loesch, but if characterized correctly as a rightwing loon, wouldn’t she be a mouth piece for tort reform? Or it would be at something she supports?
     

    According to her About page, she co-founded the St. Louis tea party movement.

     

    Okayyyyyy…

  7. John Hinkle:

    Correction: Or it would be at least something she supports?

  8. tbp1:

    @4: I had the same reaction, but it actually is possible for someone to be kind and generous on a personal level with the people around you, and be a total dick when it comes to social policy. William F. Buckley, Jr., was, as far as I can tell, charming to be around, witty and erudite, and also personally generous, but he espoused a truly poisonous philosophy. For me the former doesn’t really mitigate the latter, at least not by very much.

    I’ve known people like that, as well (although certainly no one as famous as Buckley or even Breitbart). In a way they’re more dangerous than the obviously vile people, like Robert Bork, as their personal charm and generosity can mask the dangers of their political and social views.

  9. Michael Heath:

    jose writes:

    It’s frightening an employee can’t walk away from a company if she doesn’t want to work for them.

    The dispute is regarding the parties’ respective rights in a contractual relationship; it is not a typical employer/employee dispute. If Ms. Loesch loses her suit that may serve as a case lesson in hiring sufficient talent to represent your interests in a contract negotiation. I presume the media companies securing these services attempt to impose boilerplate contract templates at people like Ms. Loesch, boilerplates which greatly favor the publication and not the talent unless the talent has qualified representation.

    As someone who serves as a fiduciary representing one party in a negotiation with another party, I’m repeatedly amazed how cavalier some people are regarding the importance of being sufficiently represented when the other party is well-represented. Some buyers of real estate would even prefer I work for them while serving as a sub-agent to the other party (sellers) rather than sign an agreement with me which has me representing their interests!

  10. d.c.wilson:

    Breitbart was so full of bile and hate that he raged himself into an early grave. I have never heard him described as “kind and generous” before. Granted, I never actually met him and my only exposure was listening to him scream in a parking lot, but I find it hard to reconcile that with words like “kind”.

    Breitbart was more than just an advocate for a poisonous ideology. He was a willfully dishonest smear merchant who ruined many people’s careers not at all what I would call “generous”.

  11. Nick Gotts (formerly KG):

    Andrew Breitbart, who was a most kind and generous man,/blockquote>

    Then he hid it remarkably well.

  12. hunter:

    Sounds to me like Breitbart.com is doing us all a favor.

Leave a comment

You must be